Finance Bill [Lords] - New clause 25

Proposed a new clause to review the impact of changes made to coronavirus support payments on various economic indicators and regions within the UK.

Asked whether discussions have taken place with the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group regarding concerns about HMRC's claims process from individuals.

The opening clauses, 1 to 5, focus on income tax, with clause 5 freezing the personal allowance from 2022-23 through to 2025-26. That is no small change; the effect of the clause will be to make half of all people in the UK pay more tax from next year. A newly qualified nurse living with their partner and two children in rented accommodation will lose more than £1,100 a year. It is plain wrong to hit families across the country in that way, but that sense of injustice is made all the more acute by the fact that that increase of costs to families comes years before any rise in corporation tax.

Mr Jones supports the measures in the Bill regarding personal allowances, arguing that they are necessary to manage public finances as the economy recovers. He notes that while the economic impact of the pandemic has been uneven, some sectors have seen growth, and the recovery is expected by April next year. Mr Jones emphasises that changes should be made fairly without choking off the recovery and cites economists' predictions for a full restart of the economy. He also highlights the importance of personal allowances in making work pay and argues against the Labour amendment on this measure.

Mr Wilson questions whether freezing tax allowances at current levels is appropriate given the uncertainty around unemployment after the furlough scheme ends. He raises concerns that taking £10 billion from consumers could risk impacting the short-term recovery of the economy.

Ms. Thewliss criticised the Government for ending furlough and self-employment support schemes prematurely, arguing that these measures should be continued based on economic data rather than arbitrary dates. She highlighted concerns about new variants of the virus impacting business investment and employment and called for reports to assess the impact of continuing support until December 2021. Ms. Thewliss also proposed amendments to exempt antibody tests from income tax and urged the Government to provide financial assistance to those who have not received SEISS grants.

Supports the personal allowance freeze introduced by the government. She acknowledges that while it may erode some benefits, especially for low-income groups, she advocates directing economic recovery support towards them. She also highlights concerns over pension policy and its impact on public sector workers.

Opposes the decision to cut the £20 a week uplift in universal credit and working tax credit, highlighting severe impacts on poverty levels. He cites statistics indicating that this move will push hundreds of thousands more people into relative poverty, especially families with children, disabled individuals, and those from BAME backgrounds.

Supports the personal allowance freeze due to concerns about national debt levels and inflationary pressures. He argues that managing the economy well is crucial for public service expansion and economic stability.

Proposes amendments that would delay the rise in income tax thresholds until 2023-24. Argues against raising taxes on low-income earners who are already struggling due to pay freezes, higher council tax, and increased debt burdens.

Opposes the freezing of personal allowance and higher tax bands. Argues that this reduces discretionary spend for households, particularly affecting NHS workers facing a 1% pay increase while also bearing increased tax burdens compared to profitable corporations.

The speaker supports the amendment, highlighting the growth in food bank usage as a failure of the current budget. He emphasises the need for greater support for families under pressure and commends local efforts to assist those struggling.

[Inaudible]

The speaker urges the Government to show humility regarding economic forecasts and reconsider their tax measures. He emphasises the uncertainty of future economic conditions due to the pandemic and calls for a policy that supports job growth, higher incomes, and small businesses.

Proposed a new clause to require an assessment of tax revenues from introducing a 55% income tax rate on earnings over £200,000. Argued that low taxes for the wealthy have not boosted growth and instead deepened inequality. Cited research showing that reducing taxes on the rich leads to higher income inequality with insignificant effects on economic growth or unemployment.

Supported amendments 15, new clause 8, and other clauses proposed by Labour MPs. Emphasised the need for an equalities impact assessment of clause 31's provisions on tax credit recipients and highlighted that ending the £20 per week uplift will cause significant hardship for millions of families, increasing child poverty rates.

Supports new clause 23 for an equality impact assessment of family income measures. Cites job losses, rise in universal credit use, increase in food bank usage, financial vulnerability pre-covid, child poverty rising, council tax hikes and cuts to universal credit as reasons for the amendment. Highlights ethnic minorities being hardest hit.

Opposes clause 5 stand part due to its contradiction of Chancellor’s promise to support people through the pandemic. Cites inflationary pay increases leading to financial devastation for lowest earners, cuts to universal credit and council tax rises pressuring household budgets.

Welcomes clause 31 but raises concerns about potential fraud penalties and clarity for taxpayers. Calls for HMRC to set high standards for what constitutes fraud and for greater clarity in the Bill.

He raised concerns about the impact on taxpayers of measures addressing public finances.

She questioned why antibody tests were not included in the relief offered by the Bill, suggesting it was a matter for the Scottish Government to fund if they chose.

He described the tax measures as a stealth tax rise, arguing that there is an honest disagreement about fixing public finances at an appropriate time post-recovery.

She criticised the delay in raising corporate taxes and the measures regarding pension freezes, arguing that they affected ordinary people's financial savings.

He noted the uncertainty post-pandemic and supported the delay in raising corporate taxes to boost recovery as praised by the Resolution Foundation.

He spoke in favour of a 55% tax rate, but was noted to not be supported by his Front Bench. Mr. Norman reminded the House that HMRC found the 50% tax rate inefficient and raised less than expected.

She was concerned about the progressivity of measures but acknowledged that both the current UK tax system and proposed changes are highly progressive.

He raised concerns about fraud in schemes, specifically mentioning reclaiming overpaid sums in the self-employment income support scheme.

The amendments aim to reduce tax incentives for companies not adhering to labour standards, pay fair wages, disclose climate-related risks, or comply with digital services taxes. She highlights the need for a report on the fiscal and economic effects of super-deductions and their alignment with efforts to mitigate climate change. McDonagh also proposes reviews to assess impacts on business investment, employment, productivity, GDP growth, poverty, and tax revenues.

The clauses aim to increase corporation tax rates while supporting businesses through a small profits rate for companies with less than £50,000 in profit. They also include a capital allowance super-deduction to encourage investment and stimulate economic recovery. The OBR forecasts this will raise over £45 billion in the next five years.

The super deduction, which is a £25 billion tax break targeted at big corporations, will not benefit small and medium-sized enterprises as they already have access to the annual investment allowance. The amendment would prevent tech giants like Amazon from accessing this tax break by preventing firms liable for digital services tax from doing so. It also requires other large businesses benefiting from this tax cut to pay their workers a living wage and respect basic rights.

Intervened briefly to argue that large businesses are important for the economy, productivity needs increasing in those businesses as well as small ones, and many large industries have been hit hard by the pandemic.

Asked to give way during James Murray's speech but did not make a statement in this extract.

Supports the provisions on corporate taxation and the super deduction in the Finance Bill. Argues that these measures strike a balance between immediate support for businesses and individuals while preparing for fiscal prudence in the medium term. Emphasises the need to incentivise business investment to boost productivity, growth, and innovation. Cites OBR forecasts predicting a 10% increase in business investment due to the super deduction and notes that only one out of ten businesses will be affected by the increased corporation tax rate.

Welcomes the planned increase in corporation tax rates but raises concerns about the super deduction and its impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. Proposes new clauses for reviewing the impact of the changes made by clauses 6 to 14 and requests a report on the impact of the super deduction on progress towards climate emissions targets. Argues that the lower small profits rate introduces unnecessary complexity and calls for transparency in costings.

Mr. Jones emphasises that increased investment through super deduction will drive economic growth, enhance productivity by enabling companies to invest in new machinery and technology, and support the levelling-up agenda across different regions of the UK.

Ms. Hodge raises concerns about the super deduction being both expensive and poorly targeted, with a potential cost of £25 billion over two years. She highlights the risk of tax avoidance and exploitation by companies like Amazon, which benefit disproportionately from such measures without contributing fairly to public funds.

Mr. McDonnell highlights concerns over tax reliefs failing their objectives and causing unintended consequences, citing examples like the entrepreneurs allowance, patent box, and tonnage tax. He proposes new clauses to tie super deductions to responsible employer practices such as paying the real living wage and recognising trade unions, arguing these measures are not burdensome but beneficial for companies.

Ms. Cates supports the Government's plans to increase corporation tax rates starting from April 2023, stating that it is fair and necessary, especially considering some businesses have thrived during the pandemic. She argues against proposed amendments which could allow large businesses to avoid higher taxes by restructuring.

Businesses that have profited from the pandemic should pay their share in restoring the public finances. The Government’s plan for a sharp rise in corporation tax in 2023 gives larger companies time to rearrange their affairs, potentially limiting revenue capture. I am interested in hearing how the Government will react to the Biden Administration's plans for a global floor for corporation tax rates. The super deduction available to businesses over the next two years is limited and does not provide long-term benefits. It would have been better if expenditure could include measures for net zero carbon emissions or training and development.

New clause 9 would require a meaningful equality impact assessment of capital allowance super deductions. The pandemic has illuminated far-reaching health and socioeconomic inequalities, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable individuals. Women, those on low incomes, and those from BAME backgrounds will benefit the least from the untargeted tax breaks for large companies through the super deduction. Incentives such as the super deduction are biggest for large firms and only 1% of firms will benefit this year. The provision is likely to have substantial deadweight costs, bringing forward investment rather than generating new investment.

Supports amendment 53, arguing that the super deduction will disproportionately benefit London and the south-east of England. He cites a study from the Centre for Progressive Policy stating that the tax break is worth £513 in London but only half as much in Wales, raising concerns about regional inequality.

Argues against amendment 53, suggesting that the super deduction is a necessary incentive for businesses to invest as they emerge from recession. He believes it is wrong to impose higher taxes on profitable businesses and supports measures like capital allowances to achieve net zero goals.

Agrees with the measures proposed by the Chancellor to introduce a super-deduction for corporation tax. Believes this will help small and medium-sized enterprises innovate and grow, as well as encourage investment in green technology. Emphasises that the UK needs to drive productivity and investment post-pandemic.

Critiques the super-deduction as one of the largest single-year tax giveaways, benefiting only a small percentage of large businesses. Questions whether these companies need such support and argues that without clear conditions or benefits to workers or society, it is wasteful.

Supports amendments opposing the super-deduction. Argues that it will exacerbate inequality and fails to address regional disparities, benefiting London disproportionately. Proposes stricter criteria for access to the scheme.

Moves an amendment requiring the Treasury to receive consent from devolved parliaments before introducing freeport tax site changes proposed by Clause 109.

Proposes new clauses to ensure that companies benefiting from freeport tax sites meet certain criteria related to employment and environmental credentials. She also suggests requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report on the economic impact before commencing sections 109-111.

Mr. Wilson raises concerns about potential challenges to establishing a freeport in Northern Ireland due to its continued adherence to EU single market rules, which could hinder the competitive advantage sought for Belfast over Dublin.

Mr. Jenkin expresses gratitude towards the Government for designating Freeport East, including Harwich in his constituency as a freeport site. He questions how tax concessions under the Bill relate to EU state aid rules applicable to Northern Ireland and asks about flexibility regarding businesses near designated sites that could benefit from inclusion.

Concerned about the lack of job creation benefits, potential displacement of jobs from neighbouring areas, and risks of tax avoidance and criminal activity within freeports. Suggested that the Government must commit to regular monitoring and transparency on the effectiveness of the policy.

Supported the Labour Party's amendments and proposed a 'greenports' adaptation model for Scotland, which aims to align economic benefits with fair work principles and environmental sustainability. Urged the UK Government to expedite agreement on greenport rules after Scottish elections.

Ms Edwards supports the creation of freeports in the east midlands, arguing that they will create green technology jobs and boost the local economy. She emphasises the extensive measures to prevent illicit activity within the freeports and disputes opposition claims about job displacement and ineffective policies from the past.

Mr McDonnell opposes new clauses 4 and 5, which aim to ensure fair wages, tackle climate change, and require evidence-based policy making. He argues that freeports are not an effective economic strategy and could exacerbate in-work poverty, low pay, and insecure work conditions.

Supports the Bill, emphasising the importance of freeports in promoting economic growth and social mobility. Argues that the East Midlands airport will become a site for innovation and business expansion, potentially creating 60,000 skilled jobs. Highlights the role of local educational institutions and infrastructure in supporting businesses. Emphasises that freeports were part of their manifesto and supports them as a means to boost regional economies.

Raises concerns about the economic impact of freeports, citing research indicating that they do little to boost exports and can create insecure work with reduced rights. Criticises the lack of a comprehensive plan for economic growth in areas without freeport designation. Expresses scepticism about the Government’s readiness to address the challenges posed by Brexit and the pandemic, suggesting that freeports fall short as a solution.

Mr. Jenkin supports the inclusion of freeports but criticises the current provisions in the Bill, noting that they do not encompass all proposed tax reliefs such as enhanced structures and buildings allowances or lower national insurance contributions. He emphasises the importance of customs facilitation and compliance with international standards to ensure successful operation of freeports.

Ms. Long-Bailey expresses concern over the lack of detailed Government assessments on the operation and impact of freeports, noting that existing businesses may relocate to them, potentially causing a geographic movement of jobs away from one area into another, resulting in lost revenue for local authorities. She also highlights concerns about job creation figures being unreliable and warns against erosion of workers' protections in these zones.

Supports the Government's freeport policy as a means to revitalise economically deprived areas like Thurrock. Emphasises that the Thames freeport, centred in Tilbury and Thurrock, will create significant employment opportunities and economic activity within weeks of designation.

Speaks in support of freeports, highlighting their potential to bring substantial investment and job creation to areas like East Midlands. Mentions a specific site near East Midlands airport which could attract up to 60,000 jobs over time.

Supports the Finance Bill and advocates for a freeport on Anglesey to address local, national, and global issues. Highlights economic displacement concerns, potential job creation, improved trade routes with Northern Ireland, sustainable energy investment, and establishing UK's place globally.

Supports economic regeneration but advises caution towards Somerset County Council, citing its incompetence and failure to deliver on infrastructure projects. Advocates for district councils to manage funds carefully.

Defends freeports against criticism, stating that businesses must abide by UK regulations. Encourages Scottish Government to engage with the idea of a freeport in Scotland.

Mr. Ben Lake proposed an amendment to address regional inequalities by potentially lifting the cap on freeports in Wales from one to at least two, suggesting this could better support economic development and co-ordination with devolved Governments.