Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

I agree with the hon. Lady. This is a specialist area of valuation. When I was practising as a chartered surveyor, I quite often got called in because the client, the business owner, had gone down the line of paying money upfront to someone who had sent them a circular—they may have paid them £1,000 or £2,000—and that person had suddenly disappeared. I often got called in to try to sort out that type of situation.

At the current time, with the publication of the new rating list, thousands of businesses are being flooded by solicitations from charlatan rating advisers who are taking advantage of the confusion created by the complicated rating system. There is a significant risk that many businesses, particularly SMEs, will have neither the understanding nor the capacity to meet the duty to notify. They will increasingly fall prey to such bad advice, and this could have a devastating impact. The Government should therefore consider some sort of licensing to protect businesses from the scourge of cowboys looking to take advantage of the duty to notify.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I have now reached my conclusion. Taking into account that we have been awaiting legislation on the reform of business rates for the whole of the 13 years that I have been an MP, this legislation is indeed welcome. For too long we have been carrying out reviews and searching for holy grail solutions that involve the abolition of business rates, but my personal view is that those do not exist. As I have said, the Chancellor should be commended for the positive announcements he made in his autumn statement, some of which are included in this Bill. The Bill should be viewed as a step in the right direction. However, as currently drafted, it contains a number of false steps that are likely to have unintended consequences. It is also vital to recognise that this is not the end of the reform of business rates, but it is the end of the beginning. I am happy to support the Bill this afternoon, but it has defects that need to be addressed as it progresses through this and the other place, and I hope that the Government will take on board the concerns that I and my colleagues across the Chamber have highlighted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind Members that, in Committee, they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our name when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair,” “Chair,” “Madam Chairman” and “Mr Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 18

Lifetime allowance charge abolished

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 21, page 12, line 31, at beginning insert—

“(A1) This section applies to any person who it employed for an average of more than 15 hours per week by an NHS body.”

This amendment would limit the removal of the lifetime allowance charge to NHS staff.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 22, page 12, line 31, after “charge” insert

“for a person to whom this section applies”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21.

Amendment 23, page 12, line 36, at end insert—

“(3) The Treasury may by regulations specify a list of NHS bodies, or types of bodies, in respect of which this section applies.

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) may specify different bodies, or types of bodies, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and

(b) are subject to annulment by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21 and gives the Treasury the power to define “NHS body” for the purposes of that amendment.

Clauses 18 to 24 stand part.

Amendment 27, in clause 25, page 18, line 23, at end insert—

“(4A) The arrangements must include that the Commissioners are required to provide to an individual their calculation of the appropriate amount under subsection (3).”

This amendment would require HMRC to provide recipients of the relief with a calculation of the payment so that it can be checked.

Amendment 28, page 18, line 26, insert—

“(5A) The arrangements must include procedures for the purposes of allowing an individual to—

(a) challenge the amount the Commissioners have determined to be the appropriate amount under subsection (3), and

(b) make a claim requesting that the Commissioners calculate and pay an appropriate amount in accordance with subsection (3) where the Commissioners have failed to make such a payment.

(5B) The individual must give notice to the Commissioners of any such challenge or claim no later than four years from the end of the relevant tax year as defined in subsection (1)(b).”

This amendment would enable a recipient of the relief to challenge the amount determined by HMRC if they think it is incorrect, and would allow someone not identified as eligible for the relief by HMRC to initiate a claim for it.

Amendment 29, page 18, line 41, at end insert—

“(8A) The arrangements must include a procedure for the Commissioners to correct, in accordance with section 9ZB TMA 1970, an individual’s personal return for the relevant tax year to include the appropriate amount paid under this section.”

This amendment would enable HMRC to correct the tax return of a recipient of a payment under the new section 193A FA2004, to reflect that the receipt of the payment has increased the recipient’s income for the year.

Clause 25 stand part.

New clause 4—Review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make a statement to the House of Commons on the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act.

(2) The statement must provide the following information—

(a) the number of NHS doctors who will benefit from the policies referred to in subsection (1);

(b) the proportion of those benefiting from the policies referred to in subsection (1) who are NHS doctors;

(c) the number of people who are expected to—

(i) stay in work, and

(ii) return to work

as a result of the policies referred to in subsection (1);

(d) a breakdown of the figures in subsection (2)(c) by sector, including the number of people under subsection (2)(c)(i) and (ii) who are NHS doctors; and

(e) details of how a scheme that provided benefits equivalent to the policies referred to in subsection (1) only for NHS doctors could operate.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to make a statement setting out the impact of the tax-free pension allowance changes in relation to NHS doctors, and to set out details of how an alternative scheme targeted at NHS doctors could operate.

New clause 5—Review of alternatives to the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed—

(a) conduct a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act, and

(b) lay before the House of Commons a report setting out recommendations arising from the review.

(2) The review must make recommendations on how the policies referred to in subsection (1)(a) could be replaced with an alternative approach that provided equivalent benefits only for NHS doctors.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact of the tax-free pension allowance changes and to recommend an alternative approach targeted at NHS doctors.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is a delight to speak first in Committee of the whole House this afternoon. I had a few extra minutes to tweak my speech during the ten-minute rule Bill, as it is unusual for such a Bill to be opposed, and those extra few minutes will presumably have made my speech extra good. I am sure the whole Committee will listen very closely.

I rise to speak to amendment 21 in my name and in the name of my SNP and Plaid Cymru colleagues, but I will first talk about new clauses 4 and 5, which were tabled by the Opposition. The new clauses would require a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge, with new clause 4 focusing on NHS doctors and new clause 5 looking more widely.

A significant number of questions have been raised in the House about the lifetime allowance and the problems it has caused, particularly for NHS doctors. I do not think any Opposition Member would consider that the solution to this problem is to abolish the lifetime allowance charge completely, which seems totally out of proportion. We have been raising this very serious issue for a number of years, but I never considered arguing against this solution because it never crossed my mind that the Government would do something quite so drastic or extreme.

New clauses 4 and 5 both ask for reviews, statements and information. Particularly pertinent is information on the number of NHS doctors who will benefit from the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge, as is a report containing recommendations in the light of a review of the effect of abolishing the lifetime allowance charge. The least the Government can do, if they are to make such a massive change to the lifetime allowance or the pension tax system, is provide us with as much information as possible so that we can consider all the potential and actual implications. We would then have all the information at our fingertips. The Government are able to access HMRC data in a way that the rest of us cannot, so we need details on the actual impact of these changes.

On the specific issue of NHS doctors, Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation has said that 20% of those who benefit from the change to the lifetime allowance work in the finance industry. He said that

“nearly as many bankers as doctors”

will benefit from this change. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it “bizarre”, stating:

“if this is aimed at doctors then it really is a huge sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut.”

That accords with our understanding.

Again, we agree that this significant issue for doctors needs to be fixed, but the Government are going about it in totally the wrong way. During the covid pandemic, we clapped NHS staff from our doorsteps. We recognise how difficult NHS staff had it working on the frontline during the pandemic, and how difficult they continue to have it. When other people were furloughed, they were working hard, day in and day out, to keep as many of us alive and healthy as possible, yet the Government are giving exactly the same break to bankers as they are giving to those who worked day in, day out to keep us all safe. That does not make sense. If we want to support our NHS, to ensure that we have the best possible public services and to give the NHS our vote of confidence, our backing and our support, we should recognise that those working in the NHS provide a vital public service and therefore deserve different treatment from those who work in the finance industry, for example, and who do not provide that level of public service.

I thank the Clerk of Bills, who was helpful in drafting these amendments. I knew what I wanted to do, but I was not quite sure how to do it, so I very much appreciated that assistance.

Amendment 21 would mean that the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge applies only to those employed by an NHS body for more than 15 hours a week, on average.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair”, “Madam Chairman” and “Mr Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 5

Charge and main rate for financial year 2024

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 6 to 10 stand part.

Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 280, line 32, leave out

“a requirement relating to the making of the claim”

and insert

“the requirement to make a claim notification pursuant to either section 104AA, section 1045A or 1054A of CTA 2009 (as appropriate) or failed to provide the additional information as required by paragraph 83EA”.

This amendment would make clear that the power to remove a claim for R&D relief from a corporation tax return is only available to HMRC where a company has failed to make a claim notification (required pursuant to Part 1 of this Schedule) or to submit the additional information (required pursuant to paragraph 13 of this Schedule).

Government amendment 14.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 15 stand part.

Clauses 121 to 125 stand part.

That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 126 and 127 stand part.

That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 128 to 173 stand part.

Government amendment 12.

Clauses 174 to 222 stand part.

Government amendment 13.

Clauses 223 to 260 stand part.

Government amendments 15 to 20.

That schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 261 stand part.

That schedule 17 be the Seventeenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 262 to 275 stand part.

That schedule 18 be the Eighteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 276 and 277 stand part.

New clause 1—Statement on efforts to support implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on how actions taken by the UK Government since October 2021 in relation to the implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules relate to the provisions of Part 3 of this Act.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide updates to the statement at intervals after that statement has been made of—

(a) three months;

(b) six months; and

(c) nine months.

(3) The statement, and the updates to it, must include—

(a) details of efforts by the UK Government to encourage more countries to implement the Pillar 2 rules; and

(b) details of any discussions the UK Government has had with other countries about making the rules more effective.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor to report every three months for a year on the UK Government’s progress in working with other countries to extend and strengthen the global minimum corporate tax framework for large multinationals.

New clause 3—Review of business taxes—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed—

(a) conduct a review of the business taxes, and

(b) lay before the House of Commons a report setting out recommendations arising from the review.

(2) The review must make recommendations on how to—

(a) use business taxes to encourage and increase the investment of profits and revenue;

(b) ensure businesses have more certainty about the taxes to which they are subject; and

(c) ensure that the system of capital allowances operates effectively to incentivise investment, including for small businesses.

(3) In this section, “the business taxes” includes any tax in respect of which this Act makes provision that is paid by a business, including in particular provisions made under sections 5 to 15 of this Act.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor to conduct a review of business taxes, and to make recommendations on how to increase certainty and investment, before the next Finance Bill is published.

New clause 6—Review of energy (oil and gas) profits levy allowances—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the passing of this Act—

(a) conduct a review of section 2(3) of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, as introduced by subsection 12(2) of this Act, and

(b) lay before the House of Commons a report arising from the review.

(2) The review must include consideration of the implications for the public finances of the provisions in section 2(3)—

(a) were all the provisions in section (2)(3) to apply, and

(b) were the provisions in section 2(3)(b) not to apply.’

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the investment allowances introduced as part of the energy profits levy, and to set out what would happen if the allowance for all expenditure, apart from that spent on de-carbonisation, were removed.

New clause 7—Review of effects of Act on SME R&D tax credit—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on the rate of inflation and on small businesses.

(2) The review must compare the regime for SME R&D tax credits and associated reliefs before and after 1 April 2023, with regard to the following—

(a) the viability and competitiveness of UK technology startup and scale-up businesses,

(b) the number of jobs created and lost in the UK technology sector, and

(c) long-term UK economic growth.

(3) In this section, “technology startup” means a business trading for no more than three years; with an average headcount of staff of less than 50 during that three-year period; and which spends at least 15% of its costs on research and development activities.

(4) In this section, “technology scale-up” means a business that has achieved growth of 20% or more in either employment or turnover year on year for at least two years and has a minimum employee count of 10 at the start of the observation period; and spends at least 15% of its costs on research and development activities.’

This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of changes to SME R&D tax credits in this act on tech start-ups and scale-ups.

New clause 8—Relief for R&D expenditure on data and cloud computing: assessment—

‘Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish an assessment of—

(a) the overall costs,

(b) the overall benefits, and

(c) the net cost or benefit

of extending relief of R&D expenditure to profit-making cloud computing services.’

New clause 10—Assessment of the impact of the de-carbonisation allowance—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of—

(a) the financial cost of the de-carbonisation allowance to the Treasury,

(b) the impact of the de-carbonisation allowance on overall investment in UK upstream petroleum production, and

(c) the revenue that the energy (oil and gas) profits levy would yield if neither the de-carbonisation allowance nor the investment allowance had effect in respect of investment expenditure.

(2) The assessment must cover the whole period that the allowance is in effect and also assess the revenue in each tax year.

(3) The assessment must include an evaluation of the impact of the de-carbonisation allowance and the investment allowance on the United Kingdom’s ability to meet its climate commitments, including—

(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,

(b) the duty under section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008 to ensure that the net UK carbon account for a budgetary period does not exceed the carbon budget, and

(c) the commitment given by the government of the United Kingdom in the Glasgow Climate Pact to pursue policies to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.’

This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the de-carbonisation and investment allowances under the Energy Profits Levy, including on tax revenues and the UK’s ability to meet its climate targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I hope I have understood my hon. Friend correctly. I am always loth to draw direct comparisons, particularly at the Dispatch Box, between the way in which the US conducts its tax affairs and the way we do so, as the systems are different. He has alighted upon the changes that the previous President made. The current President has also indicated that he wishes to make changes, albeit perhaps in a different direction. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate my being cautious before giving an answer. I do not know whether he is referring to the corporate alternative minimum tax and the global intangible low-taxed income provisions. If I may, I will write to him on this, because it is incredibly technical and I want to ensure that I answer him accurately.

Having taken that final intervention, I am very conscious that although this is a large piece of legislation, colleagues are rightly scrutinising it. I shall sit down now so that they have a chance to have their say on it. I ask that clauses 5 to 15, and 121 to 277, and schedules 14 to 18 stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I would like to speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).

When we debated this Bill’s Second Reading at end of last month, we made it clear that what we needed was a plan to get us out of what the previous Chancellor rightly called a “vicious cycle of stagnation”. We need a plan for growth—a plan to raise the living standards of everyone in every part of the country—but this Government have failed to offer us one. That much was clear from the data published alongside the Budget, which showed that ours is the only G7 economy forecast to shrink this year and that our long-term growth forecasts were downgraded in the Office for Budget Responsibility report.

Since we last debated this Bill, further data has been published confirming our fears. Earlier this month, a report from the International Monetary Fund put the UK’s growth prospects this year at the bottom of those of the G20 biggest economies—a group that includes sanctions-hit Russia. After 13 years of economic failure, people and businesses across the UK deserve so much better than that. They deserve a plan for the economy that offers more than managed decline. So today, we begin by looking at some of the measures the Government are seeking to introduce in this Bill and explaining why their approach is letting Britain down.

First, let me speak to clauses 5 to 15, which address the rate of corporation tax, capital allowances and other reliefs relating to businesses. On those, one thing prized above all else is the need for certainty and stability. Businesses across the country want stability, certainty and a long-term plan, yet under the Conservatives corporation tax has changed almost every year since 2010. Furthermore, as the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, the introduction of the latest temporary regime for corporation tax represents the fifth major change in just two years. It seems that the Conservatives are simply incapable of offering stability.

Let us start by looking at the main rate of corporation tax, which clause 5 sets at 25% for the financial year beginning in April 2024. The clause will mean that corporation tax will continue to be charged at the rate to which it rose at the start of this month. That rate, 25%, was first announced by the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, in his spring Budget 2021. One might think that sounds like a rare example of certainty, but, sadly, that is not the case. As we know, last September, the then Chancellor, the one who said our economy was trapped in a “vicious cycle of stagnation”, announced that the rise to 25% would be cancelled, leaving the rate at 19%. That was of course reversed just a month later, when the current Chancellor moved into No. 11, and confirmed that the rise to 25% was back on. So much for stability! But we are where we are, and if we are to assume that the current Chancellor’s plans will indeed go ahead—a bold assumption, I admit—the rise to 25% will now continue from April 2024.

With the rate of corporation tax being increased, it is particularly important to get capital allowances right. The Government should be focused on giving businesses certainty that will help them to plan and increase their investment in the UK economy. We need that certainty and greater investment—the UK currently has the lowest investment as a percentage of GDP in the G7—yet the approach in clause 7 is to introduce temporary full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery for three years only. By making that change temporary, it only brings forward investment, rather than increasing its level overall. The Government’s own policy paper on this measure, published on the day of the Budget, makes that clear. It says:

“This measure will incentivise businesses to bring forward investment to benefit from the tax relief.”

As the Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear, the Government’s approach will mean that business investment between 2022 and 2028 is essentially unchanged as a result of these measures. If anything, there is a very slight fall. Britain deserves better than this. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in response to this temporary tweak to the tax regime for businesses:

“There’s no stability, no certainty, and no sense of a wider plan.”

That is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require the Chancellor to follow Labour’s lead by developing a wider plan for business taxes, which we believe is needed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor has set out—

--- Later in debate ---

I have one plea for the Minister. She understands that this Finance Bill has such a significant section dedicated to international taxation—the OECD rate of taxation—so I urge her to reflect on the comments that I and many others have made, which very much come from industry. I and many colleagues wrote to the Chancellor before the Budget back in March with a range of concerns. We have not yet even had a response to that letter. I think it is important that we see proper, considered responses to all the concerns that we have raised—that is absolutely appropriate. Before jumping headlong into implementation without proper timescales, without thinking through the consequences of what the provisions mean and with other jurisdictions acting independently and changing their own legislative parameters, will the Minister come back to this House with significant answers to my questions?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in a Finance Bill Committee of the whole House. I will raise a number of points, particularly in relation to the new clauses and to what the Minister said about them.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) mentioned tax simplification. During later consideration of the Bill, we will raise questions about the removal of the Office for Tax Simplification, what has happened to the Government’s assessment of the benefit of that office, whether we will have an issue with removing that office, and whether there will be a cost to the public purse or to businesses as a result of.

We will support Opposition new clauses 1, 3 and 6. We would also support new clause 10 if it were pressed to a vote. I will talk a little about new clauses 6 and 10 on requests for transparency. It is incredibly important that we have transparency about how allowances, tax and everything else put in place by the Treasury—and, in fact, by every Government Department—work. The Red Book that is produced at Budget time gives us a genuine idea and expectation of how much any measure—be it an investment allowance, a new tax measure, or something else—is expected to generate, but the UK Government are not terribly good at putting in place post-implementation reviews of such tax measures.

We do not have enough transparency on whether the tax measures put in place have actually achieved what the Government intended. In fact, I tabled a written question on this some time ago, and various Government Departments were unable to tell me even how many post-implementation reviews they had carried out and whether there were any that they had not carried out. It seems to me pretty fundamental that the Government should fulfil their role of calculating the cost or benefit and saying whether the projection has seemed accurate. It is all well and good for the Government to say, “This is going to raise £100 million,” but if they do not then assess whether it did, how can we be sure that a measure had the desired effect, particularly when it is something such as an investment allowance? We are not saying, “We don’t think there should be allowances”; we are saying, “We want the allowances that are put in place to actually work in the way that they are intended to work.” I have concerns about that.

New clauses 6 and 10 would require the UK Government and the Treasury to provide transparency on the allowances and their resulting outturn. It is particularly important to look at our climate change obligations. In fact, we have tabled an amendment specifically on looking at the entire Finance Bill through the lens of whether it will help us to meet our climate change and Paris agreement commitments. There is no point in this House agreeing to legislation that takes us further from the Government’s stated aims and legislative commitments on climate change. I am still of the opinion that the UK Government are fairly good at talking the talk on their climate change commitments but not at translating that into checking whether our climate change objectives will be hampered by the policies that are put in place.

During the Committee stage of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022, for example, I requested that the new organisation be set up on a net zero basis from the beginning. Given that we have net zero targets, I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for any new Government department to be set up on that basis and, at least, to not contribute in a negative way to our carbon outturns. As I said, we will support new clauses 6 and 10 if they are pushed to a vote.

New clause 8, which relates to clause 10, addresses the R&D spend on data and cloud computing. We have tabled a probing amendment on that, and although we do not intend to press it to a vote, I would appreciate it if the Minister were able—either today or at a future stage—to answer some questions. We have particular concerns about clause 10 as it relates to part 2 of schedule 1. The explanatory notes—a hefty document—state that:

“Expenditure on data licences and cloud computing services only qualifies for relief to the extent that the commercial use of that licence or service is restricted to the particular research and development activity to which the claim relates, and that the customer does not have a right to…ongoing use after the relevant research and development has ended.”

I appreciate the Government’s intention, but we have tabled new clause 8 because we are concerned that this will hamper anyone applying for the allowance in the first place, as they may want to continue to use that data licence and cloud computing after the research and development. Surely they are only doing the research and development because they think it will be profitable and positive for their company. I am concerned that they may choose not to make the investment or to apply for the allowance if they know that they will have to pay it back at a later stage if this does what the company surely wants to achieve, which is to make money.

This could have been done in a different way, by allowing companies the investment opportunity and the R&D allowance for the data licence and cloud computing, and then stopping the allowance at the point at which it begins to make money, rather than saying, “If this does begin to make money, you have to pay us back.” It would be great if the Minister could answer questions on that issue today, but if not, I am happy to receive information afterwards, so that we have clarity on the Government’s assessment of this.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you for the chance to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was quite taken by the Financial Secretary’s remarks setting out the three pillars of tax: making it fairer, making it simpler and encouraging growth. I want to focus on the failure of the Budget, and of this Bill, to address the flaws in the Government’s policy on levelling up that affect my constituency, because Easington has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of Government policy.

I am delighted that the Exchequer Secretary is on the Treasury Bench, because I want to touch on some barbed comments that he made to me and to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), in relation to allegations about wealth taxes, in a debate on the Budget. However, the main point that I am trying to make is about the failure of the levelling-up fund and of the Government to identify the resources needed to meet their primary objective of investing in and regenerating the poorest communities and most fragile economies in order to close the economic equality gap in the UK.

I also want to make a suggestion to Opposition Front Benchers: to develop a White Paper on investment and regeneration as part of our Budget strategy to be ready for the first days when we take office, as the Conservative party has been absolutely disastrous on supporting the poorest communities. In a previous speech, I highlighted some alternatives that the Government and my party might want to consider.

The Budget and the Finance Bill are all about political choices over tax. I am a great advocate, having looked into the matter in some detail, of a proportional property tax to replace council tax. It would be a tax cut for more than 75% of households—actually, in my constituency it would be for 100%—which would benefit from an average annual tax saving of £900. Regional economies would effectively receive a £6.5 billion economic stimulus annually, so that levelling up, rather than being a Government investment scheme, would be a feature of the tax system each and every year. It would streamline tax collection and make it more efficient, saving local authorities £400 million a year and meeting the Government’s stated aim of simplification.

In the little time I have, I want to mention the impact on Horden in my constituency. My constituents in the village of Horden were very much involved in the partnership developing the levelling-up bid. Horden is one of the poorest communities not just in east Durham or County Durham, but probably in the whole country. A great deal of time and effort went into developing the bid.

Many of the problems that Horden and my constituency face have been fashioned by Government policy. Does anyone remember the introduction of the bedroom tax? It had significant consequences for my community that we are still living through today. Accent Housing, a social landlord, cancelled a multimillion-pound decent home investment scheme in Horden, citing the collapse in demand caused by the introduction of the bedroom tax: many of its tenants were renting two-bedroom properties and were single people. The consequence was that Accent sold on the properties in a fire sale, so we have a plethora of private landlords.

Sometimes making the wrong policy decisions, particularly on tax, is worse than doing nothing. To my mind, and in the experience of many of us, the Government gimmick of making levelling up a funding competition wastes time, money and resources that could be better spent in the community. There is no way to calculate the cost and time that have been lost on consulting on and raising expectations for the failed bids, but I want to point out to the Exchequer Secretary that all five bids from County Durham were rejected. These are resources that we can ill afford to lose after 13 years of austerity, and cuts of more than a quarter of a billion pounds in Durham’s budget. My constituents are lobbying and protesting at County Hall—and, I should add, the council is now a Conservative-led coalition.

Things are very difficult, and my constituents, like me and like many other people across the country, have lost what little hope, faith and trust they may have had that a Conservative Government and Conservative policies could work in their interest, or indeed the national interest. As we have seen through their recent leaders, the Government are often more preoccupied with their own self-interest and short-term agendas. I am pleased to say that Labour is a Government in waiting, and only a general election away from restoring competent government.

I am seeking a commitment in relation to investment and regeneration. I do not want any gimmicks or games. Labour has set out our mission for government, which will guide policy and everything we do, and I therefore ask that we do not create games and competition on something as important as investment in our communities. Resources should be allocated to those in the greatest need, and I hope that the shadow Minister can confirm that instead of chaotic competition, Labour will produce a clear, targeted commitment with the purpose of closing the economic gaps and disparities and strengthening regional economies. I look forward to campaigning on such a manifesto.

Let me end by once again thanking my constituents from Hordern who are protesting and lobbying at County Hall and making their voices heard. I say to them that what this Government have done to our community is not fair or right, but together we will win, we will secure investment, and we will secure a Government who care and who represent the people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Non-domicile Tax Status

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. A fair number of colleagues want to contribute to this debate. It finishes at 7 o’clock and we will have winding-up speeches. I impose an immediate four-minute time limit for Back Benchers, but that may have to go down. I am sure the SNP spokesperson will bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I just want to remind hon. Members that the debate is about the release of papers and that criticism of the conduct of Members would need to be made on a substantive motion. I want colleagues to consider the spirit of the rules in their contributions, which I am sure they will do. They have done pretty well so far, but some have been slightly on the edge. Let us return to the motion itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

If you work here and you make your life here, you should pay your tax here. It is a simple proposition that I know people across the political divide in Wakefield agree with. We are in a cost of living crisis. I know how hard it is for people at the moment who are struggling to make ends meet. Mortgages are rising, rent and bills are going up, and the price of their weekly shop is higher than ever. Yet what angers me most is that a few at the top get away with not paying their fair share.

Our estimates show that there are more than 50,000 non-doms in just six London constituencies. There have been fewer than 100 in Wakefield, but the hard-working people in my constituency who play by the rules have had their taxes increased by this Conservative Government. Our council has been stripped of yet more funding, having seen £300 million cut since 2010. That is not fair. The continued failure to crack down on this loophole makes a complete mockery of this Government’s so-called commitment to levelling up.

I know what people’s real priorities are: an NHS that can see them on time, where they do not have to queue for hours in A&E or for months on waiting lists for treatment, and a modern childcare system that helps families struggling to get the provision for their children around the hours that they want to work. Labour would use those billions in lost tax revenue to invest in our NHS, training the next generation of doctors, nurses and midwives, and we would prioritise children over non-doms, with breakfast clubs for every primary school child in England.

Some Government Members have spoken in the past about how this could lead to some of the richest people taking their wealth out of the UK, but according to research from Warwick University and the LSE, when the non-dom regime has been reformed, it has only had a minimum impact. In 2017, reforms that restricted access to the non-dom regime for long stayers led to just 0.2% leaving the UK, and of those who had been in the UK for less than three years, only 2% left.

The current tax system is bad for business. It acts as a barrier to investing foreign income in the UK, meaning that we see neither the tax benefits nor the investment from this income. Over the past 13 years, we have been told time and again by the Conservatives that we are all in this together, but with a tax status that is unfair to ordinary taxpayers, keeps investment outside the UK and harms our economy, how can we be? For many like me, this is a simple case of fairness and of right and wrong. It is time for change, and I support the motion wholeheartedly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

As we have heard from Opposition Members today, this Conservative Government have repeatedly failed to deal with the non-dom tax loophole, and what is the result? It is higher taxes on working people; tax breaks for the super-rich, when we could be training new NHS workers and delivering breakfast clubs for primary-age children; and a Government mired in sleaze and scandal, with a former Conservative Chancellor who found adhering to the ministerial code just too taxing. Just this morning, the International Monetary Fund predicted that the UK will be the only major economy to see negative growth. The choice is clear: slow growth, stale ideas and sleaze with this Government or ambition, aspiration and a clear plan with Labour.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke passionately about how working people are picking up the tab for the Government’s failure to invest in her constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) got to the heart of this debate about the current system. This is about fairness—if people live here and work here, they should pay their taxes here. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who said that this loophole should not exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) asked a simple question, and I would be grateful if the Minister could answer it: how much tax has been lost by the loophole? Do the Government even know? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) talked about how abolishing the non-dom status could help the Government to prioritise support for young people.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) clearly laid out, this Conservative Government are out of ideas and missing in action. Food and fuel costs are soaring, while our economy is left completely exposed. I am sure the Minister will repeat that rising prices are not unique to Britain and many countries are experiencing inflationary pressures, but what is unique to Britain is that we are at the bottom of the pack. What is unique to Britain is that the Government refuse to take action. Through decisions such as the one they will take today when they vote on Labour’s motion, the Government are entrenching the pressures that the economy faces and pushing costs on to working people as their own Ministers seek to avoid them.

No one will be reassured by the Government’s arguments that all countries are experiencing soaring inflation. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the UK will grow the fastest of all G7 countries, but today’s IMF stats set the UK far behind its competitors. Contrary to the assurances of the Prime Minister and Chancellor, we are the only G7 country that is forecast not to see its economy grow. The Chancellor could not be bothered to come to the House to respond to those stats today, but it is good to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber.

The Conservatives have had 13 years in government, but they have failed. Throughout the chaos of the last year, with constantly changing Prime Ministers and Chancellors, the British public could be sure about only one thing—that their taxes would continue to rise while the pound in their pocket got weaker. While people’s pockets have been emptied, a few at the top are wriggling out of paying their fair share. The non-dom tax status allows the wealthy few to avoid following the normal rules and requirements met by people and businesses up and down this country who work hard and pay their taxes. Instead, those around the most powerful in Britain benefit from our country’s generosity while getting away with not contributing their fair share.

The non-dom tax status is an out-of-date, 200-year-old system that allows people to dodge millions in tax. The Government may pretend that the system is necessary to provide a trickle-down effect to the rest of the economy, but can they explain how countries with much more successful economies than ours manage without non-doms? Canada and Germany require their equivalent of non-doms to pay their taxes after just six months, and in America, they pay their tax from day one—day one! As a modern economy, Britain should operate with modern principles in line with other major economies such as France, Germany and Canada.

As we have heard, the non-dom tax loophole costs the economy £3.2 billion. With a modern taxation system, we could provide the much-needed investment that our public services are crying out for. A Labour Government would scrap the non-dom tax status and end tax breaks for private equity bosses and private schools. A Labour Government would crack down on hidden offshore trusts that allow people to avoid paying their taxes.

With the money that would raise, a Labour Government would fund the biggest recruitment drive in modern NHS history and provide breakfast clubs for all primary aged children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North laid out, Labour would train the next generation of doctors, nurses and midwives, so that the NHS can treat patients on time, as it did under the last Labour Government. Labour will support breakfast clubs for children across the country, because we all know that hungry children find it harder to learn.

A Labour Government would do all that by scrapping the non-dom tax status, as we called for ahead of the autumn statement. Although the Chancellor, or perhaps the Prime Minister, decided against it, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that he would look into it. Can the Minister tell us whether he has? The Government are yet to publish any analysis or provide an update on their considerations. Why are Ministers so quick to tax my constituents and so slow to act on non-doms?

That is why we are here today. We have heard about the difference that abolishing the non-dom status could make. Academics have estimated that the status costs the Government more than £3 billion, yet the Government refuse to move. Why? So far, they have refused to publish the analysis that would lay out exactly what trade-offs they are choosing to make. If the Government’s analysis shows that the non-dom status is an asset to our economy, why do they refuse to publish it? In his closing speech, will the Minister provide us with answers to some of the many questions raised today?

Labour’s proposal is not just about raising much-needed money; it is about fairness in the tax system, the same rules for all, and support for those who keep our economy growing. By voting against our motion today, the Government will make it clear exactly whose priorities they are here to serve, but Labour is clear that if people make their lives in Britain, they should pay their taxes here.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that, if they have contributed to the debate, it is very important to get back in good time for the wind-ups.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. My plan is this: because there is a lot of pressure on time, I intend to prioritise those hon. Members whose amendments have been selected. It is really important for everybody to stick to six minutes. I am sure that the Chair of the Treasury Committee will lead by example so that I do not have to impose a time limit.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to gabble.

I rise to speak to new clause 11, which stands in my name and in the name of many right hon. and hon. Members; I am pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) that the Opposition support it too. I should clarify that I am speaking in this debate as an individual Back Bencher, rather than as Chair of the Treasury Committee.

As the Economic Secretary has highlighted, one of the many benefits of being able to bring financial regulation back into the UK is that we can create rules that will help to unleash growth and investment here. My new clause highlights the opportunity that reviewing MiFID presents for us to look again at the boundary between regulated advice and guidance.

I am proposing personalised guidance on financial matters. As we all know, the implementation of the retail distribution review about a decade ago has meant that financial advice is now a very high-quality service that is very expensive. The vast majority of our constituents do not pay and are not willing to pay for it. Something like 8% of people—I confess that I am one of them—are lucky enough to afford a financial adviser, but 92% of our constituents do not have that luxury.

When I was Economic Secretary in 2015, I launched the financial advice market review, which came up with 28 recommendations to help our constituents. Many wise steps were taken at the time, including enabling people to use £500 from their pension savings to pay for financial advice when using their pension freedoms. Despite those measures, however, there is still an enormous gap for our constituents. For example, about 10 million people in this country are fortunate enough to have more than £10,000 in savings, but 58% of that money is just sitting there in cash, and we all know how inflation is eroding the value of those investments.

My new clause 11 approaches the problem from the other direction. I was pleased to hear the Economic Secretary commit at the Dispatch Box today to using the new flexibilities and seeing whether he can do something like a personalised guidance review with great urgency. That will help our constituents in the following generic examples.

A customer may be saving for a deposit for their first home, but doing so with a cash individual savings account. They could get a nudge from their financial institution to consider putting the money into a lifetime ISA so that they get the Government rebate.

A customer may be sitting on a large cash balance for many months, well above their normal three-month outgoings. They could get an alert to warn them about the detriment to the value of cash as a result of inflation and to narrow down some suggestions for getting a better deal for their cash. With many of our constituents, particularly our elderly constituents, there is a lot of inertia because they are not receiving very much on their deposits. This approach would give them a nudge that there are better rates out there that they could be receiving.

A customer might have invested in a fund on a platform many years ago and have done nothing with it since. If the fund is poorly performing, they could get a nudge with some personalised guidance. A customer who opened a junior ISA, which by definition would have a very long time horizon, might get a nudge that cash was not the ideal investment, and that in his or her circumstances an investment with a longer time horizon might provide better protection from inflation.

--- Later in debate ---

We also need to get the situation right with the post office. In the earlier statement, I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) highlight the fact that it is not working in the way that we would want and it is not an attractive prospect for many businesses. In my constituency, when a post office is cited as being close by, that often means a small van going to a community for two hours a week; it does not mean that there is a post office in that community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

If there are any other right hon. or hon. Members who cannot stay for the wind-ups, they should let me know. I was not aware that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) could not stay. It is important that people stay, so I would not necessarily have called him.

[Emma Hardy]

I rise to speak to new clauses 22, 23 and 29 and amendments 19, 21 and 22 in my name, which are all about financial inclusion. I thank Martin Coppack from Fair By Design, the Phoenix Group and Mastercard for meeting me earlier this week to talk about why they support financial inclusion.

When we think of financial inclusion, we tend to think of the consumer groups that support it, such as Citizens Advice, and it is not widely known that it is supported by FTSE 100 companies such as the Phoenix Group, Mastercard and Legal & General. When I asked why they support it, they said that since we left the EU, regulators are more powerful than ever before. Of course, I do not believe that the Government should have the call-in powers that were debated earlier. That huge transfer of powers to the regulator means that it becomes even more crucial for Parliament to set the correct objectives; we have to get the objectives right if we are to allow our regulators to function effectively in the post-Brexit world.

There was a rumour that the Government were keen to push back on any additional objectives for the regulators. Apparently, they compared it with the national curriculum, where everybody wants to get their bit in, and perhaps in the same way, everybody wants their bit to be a new objective for the regulators. But even if that is the case—clearly, there is a demand for the regulators to have many new objectives and for objectives to be strengthened—that does not mean that we are incorrect, because financial inclusion is important. Ensuring that the FCA has regard to financial inclusion turns it from a nice to have to something that we must have. It would embed financial inclusion in the design of financial services and products forever.

When I met people from Mastercard and they were talking to me about future innovations in financial services, fintech and the way financial services are developing new products, they said that at the moment financial inclusion is seen as an add-on, in that they develop a product, and financial inclusion is fitted into it by asking, “Well, how can we make this financially inclusive?” Those from Mastercard told me that they want financial inclusion to be there from the beginning, so that when new products are designed and created, it is given primacy, and is there throughout the whole design.

Without financial inclusion, constituents will continue to face what is called the poverty premium. I have spoken before about the poverty premium, which is basically the additional cost of being poor, and it explains why it is so expensive to have such a low income. In Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, the poverty premium works out at £459 per household, which is nearly £6 million paid in extra costs by my constituents just because they happen to come from lower-income families. This is all calculated by Fair By Design.

For too long, the idea of financial inclusion has been a hot potato passed between the FCA, the Treasury and other regulators and Departments, with nobody prepared to take ultimate responsibility. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority started to carry out investigatory work on the poverty premium across essential services, but in the end determined it was too difficult, and it now signposts organisations to sector regulators such as the FCA. However, the sector regulators say that this is not their responsibility, as it involves elements of social policy and pricing of risk—and so we go on.

We are asking the FCA to collate the information needed to really look at and analyse the poverty premium. Of course, as we expected, the FCA says it does not want another objective. I think we probably understand why it does not want to be given any additional work to do, but it is our job as Parliament to set and establish the types of financial services we want, and to ask what our principles are as parliamentarians, what things we care about and what we want our future financial services to look like. Surely Members across the House would agree that having a financially inclusive sector or financially inclusive products that cater for people right across the population of the UK, not merely the most profitable ones, is a good thing.

When I was talking to people from Mastercard and Phoenix about this, they said that financial inclusion could open up new markets for them among those who would be interested in their products, if they were designed in an effective way. My new clauses and amendments ask the FCA to have regard to financial inclusion, and would place a duty on the FCA to report to Parliament annually on how well it is doing with financial inclusion and giving that information back to us. The proposals would end the current damaging situation by placing a clear remit on the regulator to ensure it routinely and properly explores financial inclusion issues across its work, allowing greater clarity on unintended consequences and the best interventions needed to ensure financial inclusion, as well as who is best placed to act.

The Government could save my constituents in Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle nearly £6 million, and it would not cost them a penny. Surely that, if nothing else, means that the Government should look more favourably at the amendments I have tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 291 and the Noes were 159, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022, the Ayes were 289 and the Noes were 12, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 289 and the Noes were 12, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and Welsh Forms (Amendment) Order 2022, the Ayes were 289 and the Noes were 13, so the Ayes have it.

Returning to the debate, if everybody speaks for five minutes instead of six minutes, it will give the Minister what I would consider to be a reasonable amount of time to respond.

[Bim Afolami]

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start, before getting into the meat of this, by paying tribute to a Labour councillor in Hitchin who recently and suddenly passed away in my constituency. Judi Billing had served as a district councillor since 1980 and was an excellent servant, and I wanted to make that point on the Floor of the House.

I rise in particular to support new clause 17. As we all know, this is really an enabling Bill and a lot of its meat will come in regulations that will be passed in the coming weeks and months. In the short time available to me, I think it is important to stand up for the regulators, because someone has to in this debate. I want to stand up for them not because I have agreed with every decision of the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Payment Systems Regulator or anyone else, but because a lot of the right criticisms that I and many other colleagues have had of the regulators arise more as a function of the system in which they operate than as a result of the decisions made by those individual regulators or institutions.

There is a key point about accountability, which many colleagues on both sides of the House have already raised: there needs to be strengthened accountability to this House. I have made the point many times before, but I urge those on the Treasury Bench, His Majesty’s Treasury and Parliament to look at this more deeply. Unless we can strengthen the accountability to this House and the other place of the regulators directly, we will continue to run up against criticisms that they are not taking colleagues’ considerations into account.

There is also a need for more effective accountability to the Government. What I mean by that is that the Government have clearly set out, in a series of actions, policy statements, speeches and strategies over the past few months, and in numerous reviews, what their intentions are. Those have been supported when it has come to votes on the Floor of this House, but sometimes there is a gap between the intention of the Government and what ends up coming through, even when regulations are passed to that end. It is important that the regulators and the Government work together to find a system whereby the Government can ensure that their strategic aims are being supported on an ongoing basis by the regulators. This is not just about saying what the policy is, passing regulations and allowing the regulators to get on with it. However well they try to do that, a lot will get missed, so we need to think about that.

We need to rethink the entirety of our regulatory structure, particularly as to how it governs financial services. We have very powerful regulators that have taken on a huge amount of power from the European Union, and they are doing their best. There are some overlaps between them and there are times when certain aims of one conflict with the aims of the other, even in relation to the competitiveness objective that has come up many times in the passage of this Bill. We end up with the situation where the regulators have to balance off competitiveness and other secondary objectives, and indeed the primary objectives. We have to work out how we are going to put together a framework that enables better accountability to this House, and better accountability to the political aims that have been passed by this House and to the aims of the Government, so that we get a regulatory system that drives a better, more competitive, safer financial services system.

To that end I have set up the Regulatory Reform Group, of which some Members of this House and others outside are a part. I intend to work with the Government on this issue, because unless we get it right, all the best intentions that all colleagues have in different areas will find it hard to be effected because of the structural difficulties that are inherent. So I would like to stick up for the regulators but say that they need to be able to operate in a more effective system.

NHS Workforce

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again we have had an Opposition day debate where the Government have refused to vote. We had an incredibly important motion in front of the House, on a matter of significant importance and interest to my constituents. In the first seven years I was in Parliament, we always had votes on Opposition days, and this is one of the ways that the Government are undermining the House of Commons and refusing to listen. The motion was passed by the House and contains a specific request, which the Government will go on and ignore, as they have done before. Has there been any discussion by Mr Speaker about reasserting the position of this House? It was never the case in the past that the Government ignored Opposition days; in fact, the Blair Government changed the policy on Gurkhas as a result of an Opposition day debate that they lost. Has there been any discussion about reasserting the voice of Parliament, so that when the House passes a motion, the Government listen to it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure he is well aware that a motion such as the one we have just passed would not be binding. As he says, it was the case that Governments might participate a little more in the votes than they have recently, and it was the case some time ago that the Government agreed to give a response to motions that have been passed. It is up to individual Members and the Government to decide whether they wish to participate in votes; it is not the job of the Speaker to compel them, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates as well. I am not aware of any current discussions with the current Leader of the House, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could raise this issue in business questions if he wished, and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comment.

Finance Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons reports setting out—

(a) an assessment of the revenue that is generated by the energy (oil and gas) profits levy in the period to which the report relates,

(b) an assessment of the revenue that would have been generated in the period to which the report relates if the investment allowance had not been in effect, and

(c) the names of companies that have made use of the investment allowance and the revenue that would have been generated by them during the period to which the report relates if the investment allowance had not been in effect.

(4) The first report under subsection (3) shall be laid as soon as practicable after the 1 January 2023, in respect of the period 26 May 2022 to 1 January 2023.

(5) Subsequent reports under this section shall be laid every three months thereafter, and in respect of the period since the last report.”

This amendment would require the Government to produce an assessment of how much revenue would be generated by the Energy Profits Levy if the relief for investment expenditure had not been in effect, and to produce a quarterly report assessing how much revenue has been forgone because of the investment expenditure relief.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this section coming into force, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the revenue that would have been generated if, in section 1 of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 (charge to tax), in subsection (3) (which sets out the accounting periods by reference to which the tax is charged), in paragraph (a), for ‘26 May 2022’, there had been substituted ‘6 October 2021’.”

This amendment would require the Government to produce an assessment of how much revenue would be generated by the Energy Profits Levy if it had been introduced on 6th October 2021.

Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

“(5) HMRC must contact every individual affected by the provisions of this section to inform them whether, as a result of the provisions of this section—

(a) they have become liable to pay the basic rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable);

(b) they have become liable to pay the higher rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable); and

(c) how much additional income tax they will pay as a result of the change.”

This amendment would require HMRC to contact every individual who become liable to pay standard tax or move from standard to higher rate, and how much additional tax they will have to pay as a result.

Clauses 5 to 9 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 10, page 7, line 23, at end insert—

“(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six month of this section coming into force, and quarterly thereafter, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of the changes in this section on—

(a) the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the duty set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,

(b) air pollution in the United Kingdom, and

(c) the provision of electric vehicle infrastructure and public transport in the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor to produce quarterly assessments of the impact of the removal of VED exemption for electrically propelled vehicles on the UK’s climate change duties, air pollution and EV infrastructure and public transport.

Clauses 10 to 12 stand part.

New clause 1—Assessment of the impact of the investment allowance—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of—

(a) the revenue that the energy (oil and gas) profits levy will yield,

(b) the revenue that the energy (oil and gas) profits levy would yield if the investment allowance did not have effect in respect of investment expenditure, and

(c) the revenue that the energy (oil and gas) profits levy would yield if the investment allowance did not have effect in respect of expenditure on decarbonisation by oil and gas companies.

(2) The assessment must cover the whole period that the levy is in effect and also assess the revenue in each tax year.

(3) The assessment must include an evaluation of the impact of the investment allowance on the United Kingdom’s ability to meet its climate commitments, including—

(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,

(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(c) the commitment given by the government of the United Kingdom in the Glasgow Climate Pact to pursue policies to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the investment allowance on revenue raised by the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy, including investment by oil and gas companies in UK oil and gas extraction and upstream decarbonisation. The assessment should also cover the impact of the investment allowance on the UK’s ability to meet its domestic and international climate targets.

New clause 2—Review of revenue from the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of the revenue estimated to be generated from the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profit Levy in each of the financial years 2021-22 to 2027-28.

(2) In addition to an evaluation of the revenue forecast to be raised by the Levy, the assessment must include an evaluation showing the estimated revenue that would have been raised if each of the following had been the case—

(a) the qualifying accounting period specified in section 1(3) of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 had begun on 3 January 2022,

(b) the rate of the levy had been increased to 38% under this Act, and

(c) the amount of additional investment expenditure had been reduced to 0% by this Act.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of estimated revenue from the energy (oil and gas) profit levy in financial years 2021-22 to 2027-28, and set out how these figures would be affected if levy were backdated to 3 January 2022, and if the rate of levy was increased to 38%, and the amount of additional investment expenditure reduced to 0%, by this Act.

New clause 3—Research and Development tax relief policy—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of research and development tax relief for small or medium-sized enterprises.

(2) The assessment must include the Chancellor’s assessment of the effectiveness of R&D tax reliefs and plans he has to further reform of R&D tax reliefs.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of their view on the effectiveness of R&D tax reliefs for small and medium-sized enterprises and their intentions for any further reform.

New clause 4—Research and Development tax relief fraud and waste—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of research and development tax relief for small or medium-sized enterprises.

(2) This assessment must include the following, in respect of each tax year since 2018–19—

(a) an evaluation of the amount of money that has been incorrectly deducted as a qualifying cost, or incorrectly paid as a tax credit, as a result of—

(i) fraud, and

(ii) error,

(b) set out, in relation to sums incorrectly deducted as a qualifying cost, or incorrectly paid as a tax credit—

(i) how many investigations have taken place,

(ii) how many prosecutions have been brought,

(iii) how many prosecutions have resulted in a conviction, and

(iv) how much money has been reclaimed.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a statement on error and fraud in the SME R&D tax reliefs, including details of what actions they have taken in response.

New clause 5—Assessment of the impact of changes to the basic rate limit and personal allowance for tax years 2026-27 and 2027-28—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the expected impact on an average earner of the provisions of section 5 (Basic rate limit and personal allowance for tax years 2026–27 and 2027–28).”

This new clause will require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact on average earners of the decision to freeze the basic rate limit and personal allowances for tax years 2026/27 and 2027/28.

New clause 6—Impact assessment of measures in the Act—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions of this Act.

(2) This assessment must consider the effects of the provisions of the Act on—

(a) different regions and nations of the United Kingdom,

(b) people with different protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and

(c) people with a range of different incomes.”

This new clause will require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of the measures in this Act on people in different parts of the United Kingdom, and on groups of people with different protected characteristics and incomes.

New clause 7—Assessment of the impact of measures in the Act on growth—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the impact of provisions of this Act on economic growth.

(2) This assessment must consider the forecast impact of measures in this Act on growth of—

(a) the UK economy as whole,

(b) the economy of different regions and nations on the UK, and

(c) average incomes in the UK.”

This new clause will require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of measures in this Act on growth in the UK economy, as well as its impact on growth in different regions and nations of the UK, and its impact on growth of average incomes.

New clause 9—Assessment of investment relief on compliance with the climate change target for 2050—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this section coming into force, and quarterly thereafter, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of the effect of the relief for investment expenditure provided in sections 1 and 2 of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 on—

(a) the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the duty set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(b) the additional quantity of carbon dioxide that will be generated in the United Kingdom.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to produce an assessment of the impact of the relief for investment expenditure in relation to the Energy Profits Levy on the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the target of ensuring that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline. And produce a report each quarter detailing how much additional CO2 has been produced because of the investment expenditure relief.

New clause 10—Review of effect on small businesses—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on small businesses.

(2) The review must consider in particular the impact of those measures on the ability of small businesses to—

(a) meet their energy bills,

(b) minimise their debt,

(c) pay their rent,

(d) remain solvent, and

(e) employ staff.

(3) The review must include an assessment of the number of small businesses which will become liable to register for VAT as a result of the measures contained in this Act.

(4) In this section, ‘small businesses’ means any business which has average headcount of staff of less than 50 in the tax year 2022-23.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the Act on small businesses.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

It is a pleasure to represent the Government in this important Committee. At the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the significant economic challenges that we face and our plan to ensure that we have economic stability, encourage growth and protect our public services. Securing fiscal sustainability in a responsible and balanced way inevitably requires some difficult decisions. We do not shy away from that, but we have sought to ensure that the heaviest burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders.

The Bill’s first three clauses relate to the energy profits levy. Clause 1 increases the rate of the levy and addresses consequential technical matters. It will ensure that oil and gas companies benefiting from extraordinary profits due to exceptionally high prices will continue to pay their fair share of tax. As hon. Members will know, the Government introduced the levy in May this year as a temporary surcharge on the extraordinary profits being made on the oil and gas sector, driven by global circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

We introduced the expensive car supplement some time ago, and a great many of the cars that the hon. Gentleman has described would fall into that category, particularly if they were bought new. Notwithstanding his assertion, there is no ideological reason for this. We are very conscious of the pressures on the majority of road users, and although, as the hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out, the use of SUVs has increased, that certainly does not mean that everyone who buys a third-hand or fourth-hand SUV is among the wealthiest in society. So we have tried to balance the rights and interests of those who are already paying car tax and also of those driving electric vehicles, who we think, after a certain period of time, should be contributing more towards the tax system than they do at the moment.

As I was saying, clause 11 deals with company car tax rates in order to provide businesses with the certainty they need to plan in relation to vehicle provision. Finally, clause 12 simply sets out the short title of the Bill in the usual manner for such legislation. I hope that hon. Members will not have anything to say about that, but I look forward to any comments on clause 12. I have stuck to the Bill itself because I want to listen to those hon. Members who have kindly put down amendments, which will be debated now. I will attempt to answer some of those challenges, questions and points as I wind up the Committee stage of the Bill in due course.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to consider the details of the Bill and speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).

As we have heard from the Minister, the first three clauses of the Bill relate to the energy, oil and gas profits levy—or, as everyone in the country apart from Conservative Ministers calls it, the windfall tax. It has been a painful journey to get this windfall tax on the statute book. As I set out on Second Reading, it took five months for the Government to finally support the principle of a windfall tax after my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) first called on them to introduce one in January this year.

The current Prime Minister, who was Chancellor at the time, was dragged kicking and screaming into introducing a windfall tax before the summer, but even then he decided to couple it with a massive tax break for oil and gas giants. We do not believe it is right to let that large untargeted and unnecessary tax break continue. It is a tax break that the current Prime Minister introduced and that has left some oil and gas giants paying no windfall tax at all this year. That is why we have been pressing the Conservatives to remove that loophole.

We have also pressed the Government to strengthen the windfall tax by raising its rate from 25% to 38%, a move that would align the overall rate with the taxation of oil and gas profits in Norway. We have also pressed them to extend its period of impact by backdating it to January 2022, the month when the shadow Chancellor first proposed it, and by extending it to 2027-28. We therefore welcome at least some strengthening of the windfall tax in clause 1, which increases its rate to 35%, and clause 3, which extends the period it affects to the end of 2027-28. These clauses do not go as far as we have proposed. They fall short of our plans to increase the rate of the windfall tax to 38% and to backdate it to January 2022, but they do confirm a frequent and recurring pattern when it comes to the windfall tax: Labour leads with the ideas while the Tories object, only ultimately to be dragged kicking and screaming into a U-turn.

Clause 2 highlights one respect in which the Government are still resisting following our lead. In that clause, they have made changes to the rate at which additional investment expenditure is calculated. As the explanatory notes make clear, this rate has been carefully set to

“maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure”.

Let us be clear what this means. The rate of the windfall tax might be going up, but the Government are making sure that the tax break for oil and gas giants is safe. As we see time and again, even when the Government are forced to legislate on a windfall tax, they cannot bring themselves to do it properly.

It is for this reason that we have tabled new clause 2, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the revenue that is estimated to be generated by the windfall tax and show how much more it would raise if it were backdated to January 2022, if it were increased to 38% and if the additional investment expenditure were reduced to zero—a move that would remove at least some of the oil and gas giants’ tax break. We urge hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the Committee to support this new clause and help us to push the Government for a stronger and more effective windfall tax that no longer includes such a huge giveaway to the oil and gas giants.

Clause 4 of the Bill concerns tax relief for expenditure on research and development. As we have heard from the Minister, the clause reduces the additional deduction for R&D costs incurred by small and medium-sized enterprises and reduces the rate at which qualifying losses can be surrendered by such companies. At the same time, it increases the rate of R&D expenditure credit, which is mainly claimed by large companies. On this side of the House, we recognise the need to support R&D as a crucial part of driving growth in our economy. It is critical for the Government to have in place a system of R&D tax relief that is effective, that provides as much certainty as possible for businesses to make the investments that our economy so badly needs, and that provides crucial support to key growth sectors in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms]

I am glad the hon. Lady is irritated by my comments, because I think I am right. We want a very successful oil and gas industry. My constituency is on top of the Wytch Farm oilfield, which has been going for 40 years. Most of my constituents do not know they are on top of an oilfield, so they keep writing to me about oil and gas. The reality is that we will need oil and gas over the next 30 or 40 years. Apart from power, many products derive from oil and gas.

Oil and gas is a very successful industry for the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady and I probably disagree on most things, but we need to ensure that we keep the industry growing, which will create lots of jobs. This very successful industry creates a lot of wealth, which does not undermine the fact that many oil companies are now investing heavily in renewables. The North sea investments of Shell and many other major companies are consistent with decarbonisation. What we can do in producing more North sea oil and gas and in decarbonising a lot of that production is very exciting.

That is my main concern for the Minister. This has been a difficult year for the Government, partly because of worldwide factors. I look around the world and see shipping costs falling and inflation starting to tail off. I hope there will be peace in Ukraine, and I hope the Ukrainians win, which may well improve the economic situation over the next two years. The Treasury needs to be flexible in how it looks at the situation. When I listen to Opposition Members, I feel they have a very inflexible view of the oil and gas industry that I think would do us great damage. I am glad the Government are in listening mode, and I hope they listen further to the comments of Back Benchers.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I should have reminded colleagues that when we are in Committee I am to be referred to as “Chair” or “Dame Rosie”.

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, for calling me at this point. We are discussing this Finance Bill still against a backdrop of problems with our energy security, the climate crisis and the cost of living crisis. Sadly, despite the rapid turnover in personnel in recent weeks and months at No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street, there are still no signs in this Bill that the Government have any inclination to go about getting to grips with those three crises and challenges of our age.

Finance Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected, and I will call James Murray to move the reasoned amendment when he speaks in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend is an absolute champion of small businesses and of businesses of all sizes in his constituency. We and our colleagues believe in free enterprise. We knew that the pandemic was an extraordinary situation in which, to keep businesses and free enterprise going, we had to step in an extraordinary way and be a force for maintaining aggregate demand and expenditure. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What did those businesses do by staying in business? They maintained employment in our communities and maintained the services that they provide. We should all be proud of the extraordinary effort that was made.

We have announced a reduction in the dividend allowance from £2,000 to £1,000 from April 2023 and to £500 from April 2024, as well as a reduction in the capital gains tax annual exempt amount from £12,300 to £6,000 from April 2023 and to £3,000 from April 2024. We have also announced that we are abolishing the annual uprating of the AEA with the consumer prices index and are fixing the CGT reporting proceeds limit at £50,000. The current high value of these allowances can mean that those with investment income and capital gains receive considerably more of their income tax-free than those with, for example, employment income only. Our approach makes the system fairer by bringing the treatment of investment income and capital gains closer in line with that of earned income, while still ensuring that individuals are not taxed on low levels of income or capital gains. Although the allowance will be reduced, individuals who receive a high proportion of their income via dividends will still benefit from lower rates of 8.75%, 33.75% and 39.35% for basic, higher and additional rate taxpayers respectively. These two measures will raise £1.2 billion a year from April 2025.

We are maintaining the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold at their current levels for longer than was previously planned. They will remain at £12,570 and £50,270 respectively for a further two years, until April 2028. This policy will have an impact on many of us, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), but no one’s current pay packet will reduce as a result. By April 2028, the personal allowance, at £12,570, will still be more than £2,000 higher than if we had uprated it by inflation every financial year since 2010-11.

I reiterate that these are not the kinds of decisions that any Government want to take, but they are decisions that a responsible Government facing these challenges must take. I remind the House that this Government raised the personal allowance by more than 40% in real terms since 2010, and that this year we implemented the largest ever increase to a personal tax starting threshold for national insurance contributions, meaning that they are some of the most generous personal tax allowances in the OECD. Changing the system to reduce the value of personal tax thresholds and allowances supports strong public finances. Even after these changes, as things stand, we will still have the most generous set of core tax-free personal allowances of any G7 country.

Let me now turn to the subject of inheritance tax. As we announced in the autumn statement, the thresholds will continue at current levels in 2026-27 and 2027-28, two more years than previously announced. As a result, the nil-rate band will continue at £325,000, the residence nil-rate band will continue at £175,000, and the residence nil-rate band taper will continue to start at £2 million. That means that qualifying estates will still be able to pass on up to £500,000 tax-free, and the estates of surviving spouses and civil partners will still be able to pass on up to £1 million tax-free because any unused nil-rate bands are transferable. Current forecasts indicate that only 6% of estates are expected to have a liability in 2022-23, and that is forecast to rise to only 6.6% in 2027-28. In making changes to personal tax thresholds and allowances, the Government recognise that we are asking everyone to contribute more towards sustainable public finances, but—importantly—we are doing this in a fair way.

I am almost there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will be assisted by an electric vehicle, because I am now moving on to that method of transport. Earlier this month I attended COP27, where I met international finance Ministry counterparts and reaffirmed the Treasury’s commitment to international action on net zero and climate-resilient development. The Government welcome the fact that the transition to electric vehicles continues apace, with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasting that half of all new vehicles will be electric by 2025. Therefore, to ensure that all motorists start to make a fairer tax contribution, we have decided that from April 2025, electric cars, vans and motorcycles will no longer be exempt from vehicle excise duty. The motoring tax system will continue to provide generous incentives to support electric vehicle uptake, so the Government will maintain favourable first-year VED rates for electric vehicles, and will legislate for generous company car tax rates for electric vehicles and low-emission vehicles until 2027-28.

These are difficult times, but that does not mean we will shy away from difficult decisions; it means we must confront them head-on. Today the Government are tacking forward specific tax measures in this Bill to help stabilise the public finances and provide certainty for markets. This is an important part of the Government’s broader commitments made in the autumn statement on fiscal sustainability, ensuring that we take a responsible approach to fiscal policy, tackling the scourge of inflation and working hand in hand with the independent Bank of England.

We will do this fairly; we will give a safety net to our most vulnerable, we will invest for future generations, and we will ensure that we grow the economy and improve the lives of people in every part of the United Kingdom. The measures in this autumn Finance Bill are a key part of those plans, and I therefore commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She is a great advocate for investment in skills training and making sure that young people have opportunities in the decade ahead, which they have been denied in the last decade under this Conservative Government. The points she makes fit well within a wider plan for growth, which is at the heart of what Labour Members are proposing and pushing the Government to adopt.

That plan is wide ranging. It covers business rates being replaced with a fairer system that makes sure that high street businesses no longer have one hand tied behind their back. It relies on us implementing a modern industrial strategy to support an active partnership of government working hand in hand with businesses to succeed. Labour’s start-up reforms will help to make Britain the best place to start and grow a new business. Small businesses will benefit from our action on late payments and we will give businesses the flexibility they need to upskill their workforce. As I mentioned, we will fix holes in the Brexit deal so our businesses can export more abroad. Crucially, our green prosperity plan will create jobs across the country, from the plumbers and builders needed to insulate homes, to engineers and operators for nuclear and wind. We will invest in the industries of the future and the skills people need to be part of them. That is what a plan for growth should look like. As John Allan, the chair of Tesco, said recently, when it comes to growth, Labour are the

“only…team on the field.”

The truth is that the need for an effective plan for growth has exposed the emptiness and exhaustion of the Conservative party. All we have to show from 12 years of Cameron, May and Johnson is chronic economic stagnation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to existing colleagues by name.

[James Murray]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. All we have to show from those three former Conservative Prime Ministers in the last 12 years is chronic economic stagnation. This autumn, the Conservatives tried desperately to make their economic strategy work, but their decisions crashed the economy, imposed a Tory mortgage premium, put pensions in peril and trashed our reputation around the world. Now they are trying again. We face tax hikes on working people, the biggest drop in living standards on record and growth still languishing at the bottom of the league. It seems that Conservative MPs are beginning to realise they have come to the end of the road and their time is up. In a timely echo of the popular TV show, hon. Members from Bishop Auckland to South West Devon are declaring: “I’m a Tory, get me out of here.” It seems the Conservative party is finally beginning to realise what the rest of us already know: the Tories are out of time and out of ideas, and Britain would be better off if they were out of office.

Our amendment makes it clear that, although Ministers have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into action on oil and gas giants’ windfall tax, this Finance Bill fundamentally fails the UK economy and comes from a Government holding the British people back. Be in no doubt: the mess we are in is the result of 12 years of Conservative economic failure. With this Bill, they are loading the cost of their failure on to working people. The Government still have no plan to grow the economy and to stop the fall in living standards that is filling people across the country with dread. We need a Government with a plan to get our economy out of this doom loop, to support businesses to grow and to raise living standards again. We simply cannot afford another decade of the Conservatives. Now is time for change, now is the time for them to get out of the way, now is the time to let Britain succeed.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak so early in the debate. It is also a great pleasure to have a Finance Bill that is so short. I must have spoken on a dozen of them in my time in Parliament and to have one that has only 12 clauses is some sort of miracle. During this week, we have probably about as much time as we normally have for one of several hundred pages, so we can really scrutinise the 11 substantive clauses. Perhaps that is progress, compared with what we normally expect.

I start by comparing this Finance Bill with ones we had at the start of the previous recession a decade and a half ago and ones we had at the start of previous measures to tackle a large budget deficit. If I recall rightly, the single biggest measure we had 14 years ago was a VAT reduction at the start of the recession, which cost something like £15 billion. I am not sure it had the effect we wanted. Interestingly, as we sadly slip into a recession, which we hope is shorter and shallower than that one, what we have not seen in this Finance Bill is any attempt to boost consumer confidence. We can argue that we tried that in September and it did not go so well, and probably the right thing here is to focus on how we reassure the markets that we can keep borrowing under control and therefore not risk a rise in interest rates.

However, if this recession looks like it might be any longer or deeper than the Government’s forecasts, I urge them to think carefully about how we get consumer confidence to turn around. I fear that what we will see in the new year is a big retrenchment in people’s personal spending. We will spend the money for Christmas because we have to, but people will then take a very cautious approach in the early part of next year, knowing that energy bills will go up in April and that tax changes are around the corner. We would not want them to go too far and retrench too fast. So I hope the Government will think about the role that tax can play in turning the economy around if we need that next year.

The other interesting comparison is with the approach George Osborne took in his Budgets in the first half of the last decade to introduce austerity to tackle the big public deficit we had. Let us look at what he prioritised. He had a VAT increase, which we are rightly not doing in this situation, but he increased the personal allowance and reduced corporation tax to try to put more money into people’s pockets from work and to encourage business investment in the UK. Interestingly, the Government are doing the complete opposite now. I am not sure whether we have worked out that that plan did not work, but there is evidence to suggest that the lower corporation tax rates we had for a decade did not achieve the additional investment that we wanted them to and we are probably better off sticking at about 25% than going lower.

I am slightly intrigued. The great claim we made was that we were taking people out of the scope of income tax. We are now at great risk of putting them all back into the scope of it again. I accept the Minister’s point that the personal allowance by the end of this five-year period will still be £2,000 higher than it would have been by inflation, but I think that is not enough of an increase. I hope that the Government regard these personal allowance freezes for another five years to be a kind of last resort and if we get any improvement in the economic outlook they can be reversed. Especially at the lower end of the level, keeping people out of tax, letting them keep more of the income and making sure that work pays are strong arguments. Frankly, I am not absolutely sure why we need to legislate for personal allowances in five years’ time. We will have another five Finance Bills before we get to those and we could have brought those into law at any point. I accept that we want to give the market a clear steer that we are serious about closing the budget deficit. If we need those measures, fine, they are probably less bad than a rate increase, but what is the point of legislating for them in this situation?

There is another contrast with what we have done on national insurance this year. We chose to—and I accepted the argument that we needed to—increase the headline rate of NI, but the compensation for that, when it became clear that that was a real problem at the start of the economic downturn, was to increase the personal allowance for NI—the starting point at which someone pays that tax. Yet now, rather than increasing the headline rate, we are effectively holding back the starting points of those taxes. So we have a tax on income and a tax on wages where we are taking one approach, and on the other tax we are doing something completely different.

As we go forward from what I accept are emergency measures that we need to use to fill a hole, the Government need to have a clear strategy for what our tax system should look like. They should consider the things we are trying to tax and the things we are trying to incentivise. They should try to give people some long-term stability so that they can plan and understand and we can get the behavioural changes and incentives that we want, rather than having a clear direction one way, and then doing a U-turn and wondering why people do not do the things that we would really like them to do. Now we are through the real firefighting, I hope the Government can produce a strategy and plan for where they think the tax system should go, so that people can understand it and respond accordingly. I think that that is what we had under the Gauke doctrine in 2010. We need to revisit that, now we seem to have changed our mind on so many of those things.

The bleakest bit of news in this Finance Bill was extending the windfall tax to 2028. I was hoping that the energy crisis might be over quite a bit before then and we would not need to have those measures in place. The fact we have done that suggests we are not expecting energy prices to come back down any time soon. Clearly, the windfall tax is the right thing to do. I have always taken the view that this is a level of profit that nobody could ever have thought they could get. These companies are earning it from extracting our natural resources; they are not their natural resources. We have given them permission to extract them, and they have rightly made some profit from doing so. However, we should limit that profit and accept that those are our resources and that we should take the right return from them, rather than the exploiter doing so, so I hugely welcome the introduction of the windfall tax.

I am quite intrigued by the research and development stuff. It is right, even at the most difficult time, to say that we want to make sure that we are incentivising R&D. That is a sensible, long-term measure that shows some long-term planning. I remember being at work as a young accountant when R&D tax credits were introduced—in 2000 for small companies and in 2002 for large companies. The journey they have been on, with rates going up and down and approaches changing—above the line, below the line, cash incentives and all those things—makes me wonder whether, 22 years on, we are really sure that R&D tax credits are delivering the outcome that we want. I suspect that the speeches in the Finance Bill debates in 2000 were that these measures would make us a science superpower in the next generation. I think that we are still giving those speeches, and we have not quite got the superpower bit. I wonder whether the Government should stop at some point and ask whether those are working. I know that there is an ongoing review on combining the reliefs, but are they triggering the right thing?

One piece of data that did worry me was that a disproportionate amount of those are claimed by companies in London and the south-east and they are not spread around the country in the way we would like. Is there a way we can use these tax measures to encourage that kind of investment and those kinds of skilled jobs in the regions of the UK, and not just focus them in the most prosperous parts?

I have expressed the view previously to many Treasury Ministers that, outside the EU, the one thing that we can do is take a regional approach to certain taxation to encourage activity in different parts of the country that we do not need to encourage in London and the south-east. I urge the Treasury to look seriously at whether we could take a regional approach to some taxes so that we can get those differentiating incentives to move wealth outside London and the south-east. That would fit entirely with our levelling-up agenda, but we have not chosen yet to be that creative with our tax system.

Given that we have plenty of time for detailed questions on clauses on Wednesday, I will just say that I accept the need for this Finance Bill. I will support all the measures in it and I will happily vote for it later. I will not be voting for the Opposition amendment, which I suspect will not come as a great shock. I think I support ending non-dom status, but we should have temporary residence relief. If somebody comes here on a secondment or for a short period, we should not try to force them to move all their tax affairs here. We should tax them on the income that they earn here. There would be a big disincentive and it would be out of step with other countries if we did not have a short period where somebody had that different situation to reflect the fact that they are not ordinarily resident here.

The fact is that a person’s non-dom status depends on where their father was born. In theory, they can become a non-dom even if they have lived here all their life and never been resident anywhere else in the world. That shows how ludicrous those rules are. I urge the Government to look at modernising all our residence tests, including that on non-dom status. They are all far too complicated. We could have a far more effective system that works better and would achieve the advantages of attracting investment here. There is a real problem with just scrapping non-dom status; it may drive some people we do want here to leave. On balance, a change is better and we should continue with the direction of travel that we had a decade ago of restricting the time period. I think that we could restrict it with a more modern relief that would achieve what we want without having the big downsides.

With that, I will happily support the Bill and oppose the amendment if there is a Division later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Energy (oil and gas) profits levy

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

(c) (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made for and in connection with extending the period for which the levy has effect until 31 March 2028.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The Question is the first Ways and Means motion on the Order Paper. At the conclusion of the debate, the Question on that first motion will be put to the House. I will then put forthwith the Questions on the remaining Ways and Means motions and the money resolution. I remind the House that the scope of the debate is the content of the autumn statement, as well as the motions on the Order Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I notify colleagues that I do not want to put a time limit on, but my guidance is that, if everybody speaks for eight minutes, we should be able to fit everybody in comfortably. That was the guidance yesterday, so it has been equal on both days. I call Tulip Siddiq.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

More!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Wendy Chamberlain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I have been here.

[Anna Firth]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I remind Opposition Members that this budget is bringing in the largest ever increase to the national living wage—as we have heard, £1,600 on average for millions and millions of workers. These are not people at the top of the tree.