← Back to House of Commons Debates
Not specified in the provided text, but inferred to be a finance bill - Clause 2 stand part; Schedule 1; New clause 1 (Review of reliefs for research and development); New clause 3 (Assessment of impact of Act on business investment and economic growth)
10 January 2024
Lead MP
Eleanor Laing
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
EconomyTaxationScience & TechnologyBusiness & TradeStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 19
At a Glance
Eleanor Laing raised concerns about not specified in the provided text, but inferred to be a finance bill - clause 2 stand part; schedule 1; new clause 1 (review of reliefs for research and development); new clause 3 (assessment of impact of act on business investment and economic growth) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The new clauses proposed by Eleanor Laing aim to enhance transparency around the financial measures introduced in the bill. New clause 1 requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish a review detailing the implementation costs for businesses and HMRC related to recent changes to research and development reliefs. Additionally, new clause 3 mandates an assessment of how these measures will impact business investment and economic growth, necessitating a report laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months.
Proposes new clauses to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of research and development reliefs. Emphasises the importance of understanding the financial impacts on both businesses and HMRC.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Asked if the Opposition would maintain full expensing if they were in Government, emphasising the need for clarity from opposition parties on such economic measures.
Clarified that while the measure will bring forward £52 billion of investment, an additional £3 billion per year in new investments is expected according to the Green Book assessment from the autumn statement.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
Questioned the consistency and certainty provided by Government policy changes since 2019, suggesting that erratic policy adjustments complicate long-term business planning.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Mr. Richard Fuller interjected briefly to thank the shadow Minister for welcoming full expensing and asked him to clarify if Labour's manifesto will include a commitment to maintain this policy.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
Mr. Matt Rodda interjected to support his colleague, emphasising that the Government's inability to provide certainty is tragic given the potential of emerging industries in Britain.
Drew Hendry
Lab
Inverness N and Highland E
The UK Government is scrambling to fix an economic mess caused by Brexit. Clause 1, while welcomed initially, does little to address the damage inflicted on businesses due to Brexit. The Bill introduces more red tape rather than reducing it. Moreover, productivity and research and development are hindered by a skills shortage brought about by Brexit, particularly affecting Scotland's ability to innovate.
Nigel Mills
Con
Upminster
Mr. Mills supports permanent full expensing but questions its necessity and effectiveness. He argues that it is expensive, potentially costing £10.9 billion annually without clear evidence of additional investment beyond what would have occurred otherwise. He raises concerns about the long-term impact on business compliance and calls for a clearer assessment method to determine if the measure drives behavioural change.
Nigel Huddleston
Con
Droitwich and Evesham
Reiterated support for full expensing, highlighting that it would stimulate investment and provide detailed guidance on the types of assets eligible for expensing. He addressed concerns about timing, fraud prevention, and the impact on smaller businesses.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Asked for a regional report on the impact of tax reliefs on R&D levels, emphasising the need to understand how these measures affect different regions.
Gareth Davies
Con
Grantham and Bourne
Argues for strengthening enforcement against tax fraud and avoidance. Highlights the importance of protecting public services through effective legislation, including doubling sentences for serious offences, introducing new criminal penalties for promoting avoidance schemes, expediting disqualification of directors involved in such activities, and enhancing compliance measures within construction industry schemes.
James Murray
Lab Co-op
Ealing North
Supports clause 21 and schedule 12, which aim to ensure that large multinationals pay a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% in every country they operate. He questions the Government’s commitment to pillar 1 of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework and raises concerns about the effectiveness of current sentencing for tax fraud.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Expressed concerns about the shifting decision-making power from the British Government to an international organisation, raised doubts over China's and potentially the US's compliance with OECD regulations, questioned HMRC’s definition of tax avoidance and evasion, inquired about updates on the loan charge issue, commended the opposition for a reasonable point regarding stop notices.
Sarah Olney
Lib Dem
Richmond Park
Called for an assessment of HMRC’s impact and staffing adequacy, highlighted HMRC's understaffing issues due to redeployment during crises, questioned whether HMRC has sufficient staff to enforce new measures effectively, proposed a review on pillar 2 measures' effectiveness, expressed disappointment over the 15% global minimum corporation tax rate, urged liaison with theatre groups regarding potential damage to theatre tax relief.
Nigel Huddleston
Con
Droitwich and Evesham
Mr Huddleston supports clauses 25 and 27, which amend VAT and excise legislation. He explains that clause 27 ends the special status of EU law in UK VAT and excise law, ensuring legal certainty for businesses following changes from the Retained EU Law Act 2023. Clause 25 clarifies the use of rebated heavy oils for commercial heating purposes, aligning with government policy to protect household and business heating costs.
Penning expressed his disappointment that disabled individuals relying on audiobooks are not protected within the Bill's VAT interpretation. He called for a change to ensure that there is no VAT on audiobooks as there is none on books, advocating for an equal footing for those with visual impairments or dyslexia.
Drew Hendry
SNP
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Mr Drew Hendry argues that clauses 25 and 27 of the Finance Bill do not adequately address the energy pricing crisis for off-grid residents or provide sufficient VAT relief to support Scottish industries. He emphasises the need for independence, highlighting that Scotland's renewable energy production is six times more than its consumption yet pays higher fuel costs compared to London. Mr Hendry also raises concerns about disabled people facing debt and poverty due to lack of government support.
Patrick Grady
SNP
Glasgow North
[INTERVENTION] Patrick Grady emphasises the long-term cost implications of not investing in health and wellbeing, contrasting Westminster's approach with Scotland's preventive measures such as the baby box and child payment.
Nigel Huddleston
Con
Droitwich and Evesham
The MP supports the clauses, highlighting progress made in relation to leaving the European Union. He mentions improvements such as removing direct EU regulations on customs duty, introducing a UK tariff system, VAT relief for women’s period products and energy-saving materials. He also notes that tax policy is regularly reviewed but not addressed at the Dispatch Box during this debate.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.