Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 79, page 95, line 37, at end insert—
“(3B) Section (3A) does not apply to journeys by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas.”
This amendment would exempt journeys by taxi and private hire vehicle in rural areas from the provisions of subsection (3A) of section 79.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 14—Report on VAT for private hire and taxi vehicles—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 79 on—
(a) the taxi and private hire industry,
(b) driver earnings,
(c) vulnerable passengers,
(d) rural communities, and
(e) passenger fares.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 79 on the taxi and private hire industry, driver earnings, vulnerable passengers, rural communities and passenger fares.
James Wild
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair presiding over our proceedings this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I will speak to amendment 42, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, along with clause 79 and new clause 14.
Clause 79, which many are already calling the taxi tax —that is certainly what people in the industry are calling it—changes the way VAT is applied to taxi and private hire vehicle journeys. Currently, under the tour operators’ margin scheme, VAT is charged only on the operator’s margin—that is, the difference between what the operator charges the customer and what it pays the underlying provider. The clause will remove taxi and private hire vehicle transport from the scope of the tour operators’ margin scheme.
The clause is being brought forward following a defeat for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on precisely this point. The tribunal rejected HMRC’s claim that ride-hailing services do not qualify for TOMS, although I understand that there is still an appeal, which is due to be heard in March. Perhaps the Minister can explain how much money is being spent preparing for that, if this legislation is going to make the question moot.
In practical terms, the clause means that drivers and businesses now have to charge VAT at 20% on the fare paid by the customer—taking, for example, a £20 fare to £24. The measure took effect from 2 January this year. The Labour party promised in its manifesto not to increase VAT. It is true that it has not increased the rate, but it has certainly expanded the scope of its application through this measure. According to the Government’s own Budget policy costings document, the change will raise about £190 million in 2025-26, rising to some £675 million a year by 2031. That strikes me as a significant new burden—a significant new tax—on private hire and taxis, hence the “taxi tax” sobriquet. It is passengers who will ultimately end up paying the bill.
Industry bodies have warned that fares could increase by double-digit percentages in some areas. Every penny of extra VAT will be passed on to passengers who rely on these services because they have no viable public transport alternatives. That is particularly the case in rural areas and among disabled and elderly passengers, women wanting to get home safely at night and workers on early shifts. They are the people who will be affected by this taxi tax.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Like quite a few members of the Committee, I represent a rural constituency. We have a lot of villages that are not connected to our towns, and a lot of elderly people who need to get to appointments. There are also a lot of children with special education needs and disabilities who get to school via taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in fares, which will be passed on to our vulnerable constituents, is unacceptable, and that a charge will be passed on to local authorities, which is not fair to our local taxpayers?
James Wild
My hon. Friend, like me, has a very rural constituency that spends tens of millions of pounds on this. I think Norfolk spends around £30 million or £40 million a year on taxis to transport pupils with special education needs to school. That is a huge proportion of the money that is spent on special educational needs, and potentially adds to the burden and costs of councils who are struggling, particularly in rural areas. They have been—I will be polite—disadvantaged by the latest local government settlement and the way that the Government have skewed the formula against rural areas, having already removed the rural services grant, which we had come to rely on.
What is the Government’s estimate of the average fare increase for passengers as a result of this measure? How can the Treasury justify raising the transport costs at a time when families are already struggling and the Government claim that the cost of living is their priority?
The charge in this clause will not only hit passengers. Operators will face new administrative burdens as they try to account for VAT under far more complex rules. That creates uncertainty—this Committee has discussed the need for certainty on many occasions—and increases the costs for local businesses that operate on relatively small margins. As one operator of a private hire vehicle firm said, rather starkly,
“a 20% VAT hike would hit the elderly, disabled and rural passengers hardest. Businesses cannot plan, invest or grow while uncertainty remains.”
The places most exposed are those with limited public transport networks and a consequently high reliance on the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. That is why we have tabled amendment 42, which proposes to exempt rural communities. It is a simple and fair way to protect those most affected. It would amend clause 79 so that the charge does not apply to journey by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas.
If the Minister refuses that limited relief, will he at least commit to supporting new clause 14? It would require a proper impact assessment of the effect of the measure on the taxi and private hire industry, driver earnings, vulnerable passengers, rural communities and passenger fares.
There is a practical problem with clause 79, as with so many clauses that we have debated. Some major operators, including Uber, have reclassified themselves or are exploring ways to reclassify themselves as technology platforms rather than transport providers. That seems to be happening in cities outside London already. If they succeed, the VAT liability would shift from the company to the individual drivers, many of whom are not VAT-registered owing to their earnings level. What is the Minister’s response to that shift, which is already taking effect in parts of the country?
Concerns have also been raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that the list of qualifying services in proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 is too narrow. The institute contends that the list excludes other key designated travel services, most notably trips, excursions and the services of tour guides. That creates a genuine issue for tour operators who supply day-trip packages, whether to the coast of North West Norfolk or to other parts of the country. A lot of small, often family firms provide these services.
For example, if the package consists of a private car transfer, picking up someone from King’s Lynn station and taking them up to sunny Hunstanton, and that is combined with a professional tour guide or excursion ticket, under the clause the private hire element will fall out of TOMS while the guide or excursion will remain in it. What will that do? It will add considerable complexity, forcing the unbundling of a single commercial package. It will require changes to systems and changes to invoicing.
If the intent, as the Minister will no doubt tell us, is simply to go after taxis and private hire vehicles, this is a glaring example of where the drafting is wrong and goes too far. The ICAEW contends that the existing ancillary tests are robust enough to avoid any obvious attempt to dodge paying the tax that is due.
This is a tax rise that will increase fares, hurt rural and vulnerable passengers and create fresh uncertainty in a vital sector. In my constituency, the funding that has been provided for buses is reducing in comparison with the funding provided by the last Government. I expect that that position is being replicated across the country. People in my constituency do not have the luxury of the regular services that I am sure the Minister has in his Chipping Barnet constituency, with maybe three an hour. In parts of my constituency, three a day would be frequent.
I hope that the Minister recognises the points that are being made on behalf of rural areas; I am sure that other hon. Members who represent rural areas will not sit silently when the issue is being discussed, but will speak up for their constituents.
As I say, this is a tax that will increase fares, hurt rural areas and vulnerable passengers and create uncertainty. It will also add to the cost of living. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that real living standards will increase by 0.25% in each year of this Parliament, which is a staggeringly low figure when the average has been 1% in each of the past 10 years. That is not a great record—no wonder the Government are cancelling elections left, right and centre.
If the Government are intent on pressing ahead, the very least the Minister can do is agree to review the measure, looking at fare levels, passenger numbers and any reduction in service availability. Otherwise, I look forward to pressing to a vote my amendment, which would protect rural areas.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
In November, the Chancellor told the House that what we are now seeing in clause 79 would protect about £700 million of tax revenue, ensuring that VAT is paid on fares. Yet, according to The Guardian on 2 January, Uber
“has swerved paying millions of pounds”
by simply rewriting its contracts with drivers so that it acts
“as an agent, rather than as the supplier”
outside London. That means that the vast majority of Uber fares outside the capital will avoid the 20% VAT tax on Uber and, as the majority of drivers’ earnings are below the VAT threshold, that money will not come into the Treasury. Meanwhile, passengers in London, where Transport for London has prevented the agency model, will see higher fares.
Can the Minister explain how much of the projected £700 million in revenue is actually going to be protected, given Uber’s change? Why are we now in a position where we have an absurd two-tier system in which identical journeys are taxed differently depending on whether they take place inside or outside London? I note that no Government amendment to the clause has been tabled. Has the Treasury accepted that because of Uber’s decision, this policy has failed before it has even begun?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
On reading the clause, I too was concerned about the costs for SEND. Devon, which is a very rural county, spends something like—from memory—£50 million a year on taxis to move children across the county who require special schools in different areas. A 20% tax on that would equate to £10 million. Will the Minister clarify whether taxis used for SEND transport by councils are included? If so, will the Minister please negotiate the extra money that will be required, so that we do not have our SEND budget in Devon cut by £10 million?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am very glad to see you in the Chair. Rather than running through these changes in detail, let me respond to some of the points that have been raised, because they are important and, in some cases, valid.
As a tax Minister, I am not going to comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers, by which I mean individual businesses, but I will say that the exclusion from TOMS applied to several large private hire vehicle operators. Crucially, it ensured that they were subject to the same tax rules as everyone else. That is what this change is trying to do.
Regarding any subsequent potential changes to the operation of business models that may or may not have taken place—hon. Members have mentioned some reports, but at this stage they are only reports—HM Revenue and Customs will always make an operationally independent assessment of whether a private hire vehicle operator is operating as an agent or, as it is sometimes called, a principal, and it will charge tax accordingly. If there are any implications—we do not know yet whether there will be—any costing update will flow into the forecast as usual.
James Wild
May I return to the point about the ancillary services? Proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the 1994 Act requires only
“the provision of accommodation, or…the transport of passengers by bus, coach, train, ship or aircraft.”
Excursions or trips are not covered, which is why the ICAEW has suggested simply amending the wording to include the services of tour guides, trips and excursions to ensure that genuine day-trip packages, wholly within TOMS, continue to be protected. Under the clause as drafted, they will not be; a proportion of them will face an extra 20% charge. That is the case, is it not?
Dan Tomlinson
We are confident that the exclusion drafted in the Bill is carefully targeted and will not have unintended implications by limiting the activities of legitimate tour operators. It is right to make this change, which will raise £700 million of tax revenue that the Government believe should already be being paid. It will be a vital contribution to the public finances.
Dan Tomlinson
The Government are, of course, aware of the pressures on local council finances as a result of the growing number of children with additional needs who require transportation or other support. It is important to note that the clause does not seek to apply additional VAT to those who are not already seeking to make use of the TOMS. The vast majority of taxi services across the country are not using the TOMS and will be unaffected by this change, but we think it right to ensure that this particular use of the TOMS cannot continue, in order that we can raise revenue.
Dan Tomlinson
I have given way multiple times, but I am happy to do so again, because we are in Committee and it is good to have thorough scrutiny.
Mr Reynolds
I thank the Minister for his generosity. Will he confirm that if any local authority sees an increase in its spending on SEND transport because of the 20% VAT, the Treasury will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those authorities are paid back in full for that extra cost? That reassurance would help to put our minds at ease, along with council leaders and council chief executives across the country who are worried that they might have a hole in their budget come the next financial year.
Dan Tomlinson
Local authorities have usual and long-standing mechanisms for handling their VAT liabilities, including reclaiming the VAT where permissible.
I hope that I have responded with sufficient thoroughness to the points that have been raised. I commend the clause to the Committee and urge that amendment 42 be withdrawn and new clause 14 be rejected.
James Wild
I need to hammer the nail about day-trippers while we have the taxman on the Government Benches. Proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the 1994 Act does not provide for day-trip excursions not to be in scope; it refers simply to accommodation and passenger transport not being captured. I hope that the Minister might look at that again, because certainly in tourist areas such as my own constituency, those day trips are part of the local economy and hospitality sector. He knows well from his portfolio that pressures are being placed on hospitality businesses more broadly, not just on pubs.
I am not sure whether we got the full guarantee on SEND. Perhaps the Minister will write to the Committee to set out the position on that, so we all have clarity and can go back to our local authorities to assure them that the £700 million that the Government are looking to raise in additional taxes will not be coming from our council tax payers.
I am not satisfied that the Minister has dealt with the rural issue or the impact on such areas. I appreciate that he does not come from a rural constituency, so he does not have that at his fingertips, but certainly in my area, people rely on private hire vehicles and taxis to get around. That is a big issue, so I will therefore be pressing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
James Wild
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 80, page 96, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The Treasury must, each year, amend by order the applicable limit set under section 5A(2)(a) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.”
This amendment would provide for the £200 applicable limit to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index.
James Wild
Having debated so many clauses that tighten the rules and put up taxes on individuals and businesses, we finally reach something unusual for the Chancellor: a tax break. I will speak to the amendment—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—and to the clause. The clause addresses a long-standing phenomenon in the VAT rules governing the donations of goods to charity.
In the present situation, when a VAT-registered business donates stock, those goods can sometimes be treated as if they were sold, triggering a VAT bill on a notional supply that never took place. Sensibly, the clause corrects that anomaly. It provides that qualifying charitable donations of goods will no longer count as taxable supplies for VAT purposes. In practical terms, that means that no output VAT charge will be liable simply because a business chooses to donate stock to a charity, provided that it meets the conditions and value limits set out in the legislation.
I acknowledge that the change has been warmly welcomed across the charity sector, unlike some of the other provisions about which concerns have been raised. It represents a small but meaningful step towards encouraging more corporate donations. The Opposition, however, have tabled amendment 43, which would ensure that the £200 cap set out in the legislation would increase by the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year—as with amendment 41, that would mean that the measure would retain its value over time.
The Opposition support the principle behind the measure. It is right to remove a barrier that discourages generosity and adds unnecessary complexity to charitable giving, but the Association of Taxation Technicians has already cited concerns. In its view, the changes do not fully match the existing relief for goods donated for resale. Businesses will still face different VAT treatments, depending on how a charity uses the donated items.
Clause 80 adds yet another outcome, meaning that the system remains complex for what is, in simple terms, the same act of giving goods to charities—the charities across our constituencies. Practical guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will therefore be vital, because businesses need to understand exactly when the new relief applies, how the value limits work and what evidence they must keep to stick on the right side of the rules. Without that clarity, many could decide that donating just is not worth the administrative hassle. Will the Minister commit to providing such guidance and working with the sector to produce it?
According to the Budget documents, the measure will cost around £10 million to the Exchequer, which is a small price to pay for allowing more goods to reach charities and the communities they serve. However, amendment 43 would ensure that the measure retains its value over time. The current £200 limit risks eroding year by year as inflation drives up the cost of goods. Our amendment would simply link that cap to CPI, so that it keeps pace with prices, rather than becoming less generous each year. I think the Minister would have to agree that this is a modest and practical suggestion that would ensure the relief continues to operate as intended, so I hope he might agree to accept the amendment.
To conclude, I will ask the Minister three things. What estimate has the Treasury made of the additional volume and value of goods expected to be donated following the change? Secondly, will HMRC commit to publishing clear and accessible guidance for small and medium-sized businesses so that they can use the relief with confidence? Finally, if the Government will not support our amendment, will they at least agree to review the £200 limit within a year or so, listening to evidence from charities and donors about how the policy is working in practice?
In the end, the change is about making generosity easier, not harder. If we can make the tax system work just a little better for those who give and those who do so much vital work on the ground in our constituencies and communities, that is something that all members of the Committee would want to support. I look forward to the Minister’s response to what is a very modest and helpful amendment.
Mr Reynolds
The Liberal Democrats fully support clause 80 and would support amendment 43 if it were pushed to a vote. When I worked in retail, including in grocery retail for a significant number of years, I saw time and again that goods were going in the bin that should have been going to a good home, such as a charity, but that was not happening because it was cheaper to dispose of those goods than to donate them to a worthwhile cause. That is an unacceptable position, and one that we should not be in, so I am really glad that the Government have brought forward clause 80 to help change that.
Clause 80 explicitly names the household goods to which the £200 limit applies—household appliances, furniture, flooring, computers, tablets and phones. As someone who is renovating a house at the moment, I am not sure whether many household appliances can be bought for £200 or less, and I do not know whether the Treasury has set that limit deliberately. When buying a tablet or phone, there are very few options under that £200 limit, and I wonder whether the limit has been drawn too narrowly to ensure that the majority of products donated will not fall under it. I would welcome the rationale from the Minister as to why £200 was chosen as the appropriate number, and what consideration the Treasury has given to widening that limit.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their questions. [Interruption.] Spokesmen—very good. Before the Budget, I attended a roundtable with businesses, charities and those who had been campaigning and advocating for the change we brought in at the Budget. In response to many of the questions asked by the Opposition spokesmen, I can reassure them that we worked through the limits and detail of the clause really closely with the charitable sector and with the businesses that would have a different VAT treatment or that may pass on their goods in this way.
On the specific question about guidance, it has already been shared with stakeholders and we continue to engage with them. I will see if my officials can send the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, the guidance if he would be interested to see it. The value of goods will be commensurate with a £10 million a year Exchequer cost.
On the threshold, the Government have decided not to uprate it in line with CPI, but we will continue to keep it under review. As I said, it was set after detailed and extensive conversations and engagement with the groups that will be involved with the different treatment through either receiving or donating the goods.
It is worth noting that, due to the wonders of modern capitalism, lots of the prices of consumer goods have actually been falling in real terms over time—for example, we might think about how expensive a traditional washing machine or a television is today compared with 20 or 30 years ago. It is not clear to me that it would be appropriate to continue to uprate the threshold as default in line with CPI. For that reason, I encourage that amendment 43 be rejected, and commend clause 80 to the Committee.
James Wild
The hon. Member for Maidenhead makes a reasonable point about the £200 limit. The Minister said that there had been a lot of discussion to arrive at that threshold, but I do not think he exposed the entire rationale underpinning it—he talked about washing machines and their prices, which was an interesting diversion. The point remains that if we have a £200 limit and we think that is the right limit now, why do we not just automatically uprate it? Then the Minister will not have to come back with regulations or put other clauses in future Finance Bills. It would save us all a lot of hassle and palaver, and would mean that people and charities know where they stand. Our amendment is a modest measure, which I am surprised that the Minister has not simply accepted, so I will test the will of the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dan Tomlinson
My remarks on clause 81 will be very brief. The changes that the clause makes will add combined county authorities to the list of bodies eligible for refunds under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. This will remove the need for individual Treasury orders each time a new combined county authority is established. I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Wild
I thank the Minister for that very succinct description of the clause. He will be pleased to hear that I have only a few points to make—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley says, “That’s good.”
The clause allows newly created combined county authorities to reclaim VAT incurred on non-business activities, such as statutory public functions. At present, established local authorities can recover VAT on such activities under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act, but the definition does not explicitly include combined county authorities. We understand that that change took effect last year.
The explanatory notes make it clear that the clause is intended to ensure fiscal neutrality for the new governance arrangements. Combined county authorities should be no worse off than traditional counties because of their form, but of course the beneficiaries are the combined authorities that are being formed under the Government’s local government reorganisation plans.
My own county of Norfolk is set to be joined with Suffolk in one of these combined county authorities, with a mayor sitting across the two counties. People in Norfolk and Suffolk were looking forward to that mayor being elected in May, until the Government cancelled our election as a late Christmas present in December. As a result, we will not have a combined county authority mayor in place and we will lose out on the £40 million that the mayor was meant to have through the investment fund.
The county council elections for the authority that will make way for the combined county authority, which will then benefit from this VAT exemption, were also cancelled. So there is more delay and uncertainty, and a loss of funding, as people look at the creation of these combined county authorities, which are the subject of the clause, and the refund that they will be able to get. The clause is sensible, but the Government’s wider plans that sit behind it are somewhat chaotic, and cancelling elections is undemocratic.
Mr Reynolds
Balancing VAT refund rights to ensure fairness for CCAs is, of course, welcome, and we support it. We support the idea that VAT refund rights should be balanced across groups and institutions that are similar and have a similar purpose. That is why I hope you will allow me to share some surprise, Mrs Harris, that the Government have not gone further in balancing refund rights. For example, a school with a sixth form attached can claim its VAT back, but a sixth form college cannot. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) has been campaigning on that for a significant time. In answer to a written question, the Minister confirmed that the Government are not planning to extend the VAT refund right to sixth form colleges, but they have done so for combined county authorities. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that? We all support the idea of balancing VAT refund rights, so we should surely be extending that to other situations.
Dan Tomlinson
I am glad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead is aware of the answer to the written parliamentary question. I have also responded in writing to Members who have written to me about this issue, and the rationale has been set out in that correspondence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
UK listing relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Review of extension of three-year period for UK listing relief—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the potential benefits of extending beyond three years the period for which UK listing relief applies under section 82.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must assess the—
(a) impact that extending the period could have on the attractiveness of UK markets for new listings,
(b) potential effects on capital raising and investment in the UK, and
(c) implications for Exchequer revenues.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the potential benefits of extending beyond three years the period for which UK listing relief applies under section 82, including effects on the attractiveness of UK markets, capital raising and Exchequer revenues.
Dan Tomlinson
The Government are committed to ensuring that world-leading capital markets support our firms to raise the capital they need to continue to grow and invest. Clause 82 introduces UK listing relief, which means that transfers of a company’s securities will be subject to relief from stamp duty reserve tax for the first three years after the company lists in the UK.
Stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty are charges on transfers of UK securities. They are vital sources of revenue for the Exchequer, and combined they are forecast to raise up to £5.3 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. The Government are focused on ensuring that the UK is the best place for firms to start, scale, list and stay, and we have delivered an ambitious programme of reforms to build on those strong foundations.
The changes made by the clause will remove the 0.5% stamp duty reserve tax charge on the transfer of a company’s securities for three years from the point at which the company lists its shares on a UK-regulated market. That will enable newly listed companies to secure higher share prices, boost trading volumes and improve access to capital.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is great to hear the Minister talking about making the City of London a pre-eminent place in which to grow and list companies, and this is a very welcome measure. However, if he accepts that stamp duty is what has been holding back the listing of shares, why do the Government not go the whole hog and get rid of stamp duty altogether, thereby making the City of London comparable with pretty much every other major developed stock market in the world?
Dan Tomlinson
As the hon. Member knows, there are always trade-offs to be considered in taxation policy design. As I have just outlined, there is around £5 billion of revenue here. We must ensure we get the balance right between raising revenue and continuing to support growth and the ability of companies to grow and invest in the UK.
We did make changes at the Budget, for example to venture capital trusts, enterprise investment schemes and enterprise management incentives to encourage start-ups in particular to scale up in the UK, as one of our frontier sectors seeing growth. We have made changes to support that. I note the Opposition’s perspective, but on balance we think this is a good change to make on its own. We look forward to seeing the impact that it will have and we will continue to keep our tax measures under review.
New clause 15 would require the Chancellor to publish, within 12 months, a report on the potential benefits of extending the period in which the UK listing relief applies beyond three years. The Government have carefully considered the scope of this relief, including the length of the relief period. The first few years after listing are crucial for companies as they endeavour to establish long-term viability on public markets, with the most vital period being the initial one or two years. However, our judgment is that the benefits of significantly extending the relief beyond this period would not represent best value for money, as the Exchequer cost would increase while the benefits for firms would diminish with each additional year. I therefore commend clause 82 to the Committee and ask that new clause 15 be rejected.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clause 82 and new clause 15 tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As we have heard, clause 82 introduces a time-limited relief from stamp duty reserve tax for companies listed on a UK-regulated market. The Committee will know that stamp duty is charged at 0.5% on trades in chargeable securities such as shares. This form of transaction tax is among the most economically inefficient, in the same way stamp duty is on homes: it dampens the market, prevents people from moving and undermines labour market flexibility. As a result, we have committed to abolishing stamp duty on house sales—not stamp duty on shares—and that has been very warmly welcomed.
Under clause 82, trades in a newly listed company’s securities will be exempt from that 0.5% charge for the first three years after the company lists, provided specified conditions are met. The relief will apply to new listings from November last year, with the detail on the qualifying markets and securities set out in the clause, with which hon. Members will, I am sure, have familiarised themselves. We on this side of the Committee support the principle behind the clause.
Some Opposition Members have highlighted the potential benefits of scrapping this transaction tax entirely. We all want to see more companies listing and raising capital in the UK, and steps to lower frictional trading costs can contribute to that ambition. However, my new clause 15 seeks to go further by requiring the Government to publish a report on the potential benefits of extending the stamp duty relief beyond three years. Specifically, I am asking Ministers to assess how a longer relief period could affect the attractiveness of UK markets for new and returning listings, and the impact on capital raising, investment and Exchequer revenues. According to the “Budget 2025 Policy Costings” document, historical listing activity has raised between £14 billion and £17 billion of capital each year. The same document shows that the relief is expected to cost the Exchequer £25 million in the first year, rising to about £50 million a year once fully implemented.
Dan Tomlinson
As with other measures that have been debated this week, for example on business rates, it seems that the Conservatives were just getting around to reform on the issue. Now they are in opposition, they seem to have developed a significant zeal for reform and tax cutting that they did not show at all when they were in government—for example, leaving business rates unreformed, as well as leaving this measure totally unreformed.
James Wild
I am surprised that the Minister has brought up business rates. This is very important. We look with sympathy at having to reverse the Chancellor’s mess, although the Minister will be coming back in a few months, I am sure, with a further U-turn. Just to clarify on business rates, did the Government choose to scrap the 40% relief that was in place when they came into office?
Dan Tomlinson
I do not know whether you want the conversation to continue on a tax that is not in scope, Mrs Harris, but I am happy to answer the question.
Dan Tomlinson
Indeed, Mrs Harris. I respect your judgment and authority in such matters.
As I said, the Government carefully considered the scope of the relief, including the length of the relief period. The first few years after listing are vital in establishing longer-term liquidity, the most important period coming right at the start. The benefits of extending the relief significantly beyond that period, in our judgment, would not represent value for money for the taxpayer.
Mark Garnier
The Minister talks about value for money and the cost, but the alternative is that there will be no listings, so it does not cost anything because this is revenue that the Government would not otherwise have. If they levy this stamp duty, people will not list—they will go to other markets. If they remove it, people will list. There is not actually any change in the revenue to the Government. I do not understand why they cannot extend it. It is not lost revenue because it never would have been generated in the first place.
Dan Tomlinson
Of course there will be companies that will list under the current tax regime, and changing the tax would lead to lower revenues for the companies that would have listed anyway. We have to look at both sides of the coin. [Interruption.]
Dan Tomlinson
The Government are doing a lot to continue supporting the UK’s vibrant capital markets. We have some of the deepest capital markets globally. We have, for example, changed UK listing rules to bring the UK into line with international best practice. We are also changing and improving the prospectus regime, significantly cutting the amount of paperwork that a firm needs to produce while providing better and more relevant information to investors.
We are taking a range of actions to support our capital markets and to support firms to list here. We have seen some good progress in recent months, with more companies choosing to list in the UK, and I hope and expect that we will see more of that soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Rates of duty effective from 6pm on 26 November 2025
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 88 stand part.
New clause 31—Review of effects of sections 87 and 88 on illicit tobacco market—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions made under sections 87 and 88 on the illicit tobacco market.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of sections 87 and 88 on the illicit tobacco market.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 87 and 88 implement changes announced at Budget 2025 concerning tobacco duty rates.
At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that the Government will increase tobacco duty in line with the escalator. Clause 87 therefore specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2 percentage points above retail prices index inflation. The new tobacco duty rates will be treated as having taken effect from 6 pm on the day they were announced, which was 26 November 2025. In October 2026, tobacco duty will rise again in line with the escalator with the introduction of vaping duty. That is to preserve the price differential between vaping and tobacco products to ensure the duty on vaping does not make smoking more attractive, and will maintain the incentive to choose vaping over smoking.
New clause 31 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes to tobacco duty rates on the illicit tobacco market within six months of the Bill being passed. The Government will not accept the new clause, as the potential impact on the illicit market is already one of several factors that we consider when we take decisions on tobacco duty rates. We have already published a tax information and impact note alongside the Budget to set out the expected impact of this measure. I commend clauses 87 and 88 to the Committee and I reject new clause 31.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clauses 87 and 88, as well as new clause 31 tabled by the Conservatives. As the Minister said, clause 87 increases tobacco duty and the minimum excise tax with effect from Budget day, as is traditional. As he also outlined, tobacco duty is clearly charged on cigarettes and other tobacco products, while the minimum excise tax ensures that cheaper cigarettes do not escape the appropriate levels of taxation.
Clause 88 sets out a further increase from October this year, introducing an additional uplift in line with RPI, alongside a one-off increase of £2.20 per 100 cigarettes and a similar rise for hand-rolled tobacco. The one-off increase coincides with the introduction of the new vaping products duty, which we may get to talk about later in Committee.
As the Committee discussed last year, in the autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced that the measure was intended to preserve the price gap between tobacco and vaping products, with the same £2.20 rate applying across both categories. These measures will result in a sharp rise in the duty per pack and per pouch. While we broadly support these measures, there are concerns about the implications for illicit trade and enforcement. As we discussed in the Committee of the whole House on the Budget and the Finance Bill in relation to the Government’s almost doubling of gambling taxes, the risk, as always, is that such steep increases widen the price gap between legal and illegal products, making it more profitable for criminal networks, and more tempting for consumers to turn to the black market.
The tobacco duty has been around for a long time, and in recent years successive increases have sought to maintain the financial incentive for people to switch to vaping or to give up entirely. The OBR forecasts that tobacco duty will raise around £8 billion in the current financial year, a modest rise of 0.8% from the previous year, before receipts fall steadily to £7 billion by 2031. The tax information and impact note suggests that the Exchequer impact from this measure will peak at about £130 million before tailing off, consistent with those forecasts.
In economic terms, it would appear that tobacco duty is pushing beyond the point of maximum returns—beyond the Laffer curve peak. As Members of this House, our focus should be on ensuring that further increases in gambling taxes, or the tobacco taxes that we are debating here, do not simply fuel illegal trade. Raising prices on tobacco inevitably risks boosting demand for illicit products, with the associated criminality that blights our communities and fuels organised crime gangs. Even the TIIN acknowledges that some consumers may switch to cross-border or illicit purchases.
HMRC says that it will “monitor and respond” as part of its anti-fraud strategy, but frankly, more clarity and more action are needed. Will the Minister outline specific measures that HMRC will use to counter any shift towards the black market? What assessment has been made of the risk to consumers who buy illicit products, both in terms of the health impacts and the costs to public services such as our NHS?
Mrs Harris, you are probably wondering what the scale of this problem is. According to HMRC, 10% of cigarettes and 35% of hand-rolling tobacco consumed in the UK are from illegal or non-UK duty-paid sources. However, industry data suggests—I of course recognise that the companies have an interest, and I do not take their figures at face value—that the problem may be far worse, with up to 30% of cigarettes and over 50% of hand-rolling tobacco now being sourced illicitly. If accurate, those are levels that have not been seen the mid-2000s.
I cited similar data in Committee during the passage of the Finance Act 2025, when similar provisions were brought forward. Can the Minister update me and the Committee on what discussions have taken place with HMRC about the discrepancy in the estimates? We have one estimate of 10% and another of 30%; that is a huge difference, and we have to get to the actualité.
HMRC’s own director of indirect tax—I want to see that on a business card—has said that illicit tobacco costs the taxpayer around £1.8 billion a year in lost revenue. That is a lot of tax being avoided that could be collected, were this legislation properly implemented. Is that the Government’s estimate? If not, can the Minister provide more up-to-date figures on the gap between legal and illegal sales? It would also be helpful to know whether the Government have assessed the cumulative impact on retailers and enforcement bodies, if the illegal market continues to expand. That is precisely the purpose of new clause 31, which would require
“an assessment of the impact of the provisions made under sections 87 and 88 on the illicit tobacco market.”
HMRC launched its first strategy to tackle illicit tobacco back in 2000. I will not go through them all, but subsequent updates, working closely with Border Force, have delivered progress. They have reduced the duty gap on cigarettes by a third and on hand-rolling tobacco by half, which is a welcome success. The previous Conservative Government launched a strategy in March 2024, building on that record.
I am pleased to see that the trading standards powers we introduced in July 2023 are producing results. By early January this year, over £1.4 million in civil penalties had been issued for illicit tobacco sales. When in government, we recognised the importance of enforcement. The Public Accounts Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire serves and I had the pleasure of serving for two years, estimated that every £1 spent by HMRC on compliance recovers £18— a fine rate of return.
Dan Tomlinson
Let me respond to some of the Opposition spokesman’s points. HMRC’s estimate of illicit trade is published annually in “Measuring tax gaps”, which are official statistics produced to the highest quality standards. They adhere to the values, principles and protocols set out in the UK Statistics Authority’s code of best practice for statistics and are regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation. HMRC is always looking for ways to strengthen them, but the Government consider them to be the most reliable estimates of illicit trade. As he set out, the figures produced by the tobacco industry or those working on its behalf cannot be regarded as a fully neutral assessment of the situation on the ground.
The Opposition spokesman asked about the latest figures. The latest figures from the 2023-24 tax year are that the tobacco duty gap was 13.8%, equivalent to £1.4 billion. He is right that every penny not collected there is a penny not going towards public services. We need to continue to focus our efforts on what we can do to reduce that figure. He mentioned the work of the previous Government, and this Government will build on that. We will continue to work with Border Force to seize cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. The Committee may be interested to know that in the 2023-24 tax year, HMRC and Border Force together seized 92,435 kg of hand-rolling tobacco. We are continuing to see what more we can do. HMRC and Border Force published a strategy in 2024 setting out the continued commitment to reduce the trade, with £100 million of funding in enforcement capability and £1.4 billion to recruit 5,000 compliance officers.
I had not heard the Opposition spokesman’s point on trading standards before; I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Public Bill Committee of last year’s Finance Bill when he raised it. The Government’s policy position is as it stands, but I am always interested to hear policy ideas. I will take his point back to the Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Vehicle excise duty for light passenger or light goods vehicles etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 17—Statement on increases to vehicle excise duty for cars and light goods vehicles—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons, on the increase to vehicle excise duty made under section 89.
(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—
(a) the automotive sector,
(b) household incomes, and
(c) the UK economy.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House on the impact of the increase to vehicle excise duty under section 89 on the automotive sector, household incomes and the UK economy.
Dan Tomlinson
I will keep my remarks brief, if only to give the hon. Member for North West Norfolk more time to inform us of his opinions on this matter. Clause 89 makes changes to uprate vehicle excise duty rates for cars, vans and motorcycles in line with the retail prices index measure of inflation from 1 April 2026. New clause 17 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House on the impact of that 2026-27 increase to VED rates, but the increase announced in the Budget is in line with the retail prices index, meaning that rates will remain unchanged for vehicle owners in real terms by that metric. It is therefore the Government’s judgment that the new clause is unnecessary. I therefore commend clause 89 to the Committee, and recommend that new clause 17 be rejected.
James Wild
I am very happy to share my views with the Committee on each and every clause as we go through; that is part of what we are here to do. I am also happy for the Minister to expand on the merits or otherwise of his legislation at will. If he prefers to keep it brief, we can read into that what we wish.
Clause 89 increases vehicle excise duty, the annual charge for keeping a car, van or motorcycle on the roads, in line with the retail prices index. Those changes take effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April. Let us be clear: in practice, that means higher costs for almost every driver. New clause 17 seeks to make sure that those impacts are assessed. It specifically looks at the impact on the automotive sector, household incomes and the UK economy.
We will not vote against clause 89, but the Government should not take our position as an endorsement of their wider approach to motorists. Vehicle excise duty flows straight into the Treasury’s general fund, and the amount that a driver pays depends on the vehicle type, registration date and emissions, with rates adjusted. According to the OBR, vehicle excise duty is forecast to raise getting on for £12 billion by the end of the decade, due in no small part to the RPI increases. It is interesting that the Minister is keen to increase people’s taxes by RPI on a regular basis but will not give such a commitment on a fairly minor charitable threshold. We will leave that there, though, as we have debated that clause.
Ministers like to describe these increases as modest. On their own they may be, but we have to look at all these things in the round, and the impact of these clauses on individuals. If we look at all the costs—the hike in fuel duty and the new mileage-based charge planned for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which will cost the average driver £255 a year—the cumulative impact begins to bite. That is why the new clause looks at the impact of this measure. That all comes on top of rising insurance premiums, servicing costs and of course the wider pressure on household budgets. Everyone’s bills are going up, and there seems to be no end in sight.
Let us not forget that it was this Government who decided to end the 5p fuel duty cut that the last Conservative Government introduced—a decision that will cost the average family around £100 a year from September. Then, from next April, the long-standing fuel duty freeze that was in place for 16 years will also be scrapped, replaced by inflation-linked rises. That freeze has saved motorists £120 billion since 2010, but once again, drivers are being asked, through this measure, to pay the price for the Government’s failure to get a grip on the economy.
Motorists and motoring organisations including the RAC have rightly warned that these charges come at a time when the cost of living remains high and public transport options are patchy—particularly outside our major cities, as we discussed in the context of private hire vehicles and taxis. For many in rural areas like my own, a car is not a luxury but a necessity to get around, get to work and see family. Many people do not have an alternative to their car. Drivers are paying more, yet the Prime Minister boasts about things like his £3 bus fare cap, which he quietly increased by 50%. That is why new clause 17 would require an assessment of the impact of the increase in vehicle excise duty.
Although we will not vote against the clause, we expect some answers from the Minister. Will he confirm whether the Treasury has modelled the combined impact of these motoring costs—VED, fuel duty, the upcoming road pricing charges—on household budgets, particularly in rural areas where public transport is limited? What assessment has been made of the impact on small businesses that depend on vans and light goods vehicles to operate in each of our constituencies every day? Those are the people we should think of when we consider clauses such as this. New clause 17 would help to deliver the clarity that Britain’s 50 million motorists deserve.
Dan Tomlinson
In response to the shadow Minister’s question, the Government do consider the impact of each individual tax measure on businesses and consumers in the round with the others, at Budgets and in between them too. As a result, we have concluded that this is the right and proportionate way forward, to protect revenue and make sure that we can increase revenue in line with inflation, rather than beyond it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Vehicle excise duty for rigid goods vehicles without trailers and tractive units
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 91 to 93 stand part.
Clause 95 stand part.
New clause 18—Statements on HGV Vehicle Excise Duty and HGV Road User Levy—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the increase to HGV vehicle excise duty made under sections 90 to 93 and the increase to the HGV Road User Levy made under section 95.
(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on the—
(a) haulage sector,
(b) decarbonisation of the logistics industry, and
(c) UK economy.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House on the increases to HGV vehicle excise duty under sections 90 to 93 and to the HGV Road User Levy under section 95, including their impact on the haulage sector, decarbonisation of logistics and the UK economy.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 90 to 93 will make changes to the vehicle excise duty rates for rigid goods vehicles without trailers and tractive units, the cab of an articulated lorry, rigid goods vehicles with trailers, vehicles with exceptional loads, and haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles. Clause 95 will make changes to uprate the heavy goods vehicle—HGV—levy.
The registered keeper of a vehicle is responsible for paying VED. The rates depend on the vehicle’s revenue weight, axle configuration and Euro emissions status. The HGV levy is payable for both UK and foreign HGVs using UK roads. A reformed HGV levy was introduced in August 2023, which varies according to the vehicle’s weight and Euro emissions status.
New clause 18 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House—in a similar way, I believe, to new clause 17 that we just discussed—on the increases to HGV vehicle excise duty under clauses 90 to 93, and the HGV road user levy under clause 95. Similarly, given that the uprating is in line with inflation and that rates will remain unchanged in real terms for vehicle owners, it is the Government’s view that the new clause is not therefore necessary, and I urge the Committee to reject it.
James Wild
The clauses deal with changes to vehicle excise duty for heavy goods vehicles, rigid good vehicles with and without trailers, vehicles with exceptional loads, and haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles. I welcome the exemption for showman’s vehicles as we look forward to the King’s Lynn Mart, which has been going for 800 years. On 14 February, I will be joining in the civic procession through the middle of King’s Lynn, before getting on the dodgems for the traditional dodgem ride, with other civic figures. Hon. Members should feel free to come along—it is on a Saturday. It is always cold for the Mart, but it is well worth coming along to.
Together, these provisions will uprate the VED and the road user levy by RPI. We have concerns about the timing of the increases, and the absence of meaningful backing for the most affected industries, especially the logistics sector, which keeps Britain moving. HGV vehicle excise duty is already complex, with more than 80 different rates, varying based on the characteristics of weight, emissions, class and configuration. Of course, as the Minister referred to, HGVs are also subject to the road user levy, which was introduced in 2014 as a charge for using the network. That levy was rightly suspended in August 2020 during the pandemic, and the reformed levy that the Minister referred to was reintroduced in August 2023, but it was frozen in the autumn statement that year.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly good point about the inflationary effect of these taxes. He has mentioned houses, and we know that the Bank of England is charged with using monetary policy to keep inflation under control. The direct effect of this measure could be an increase in interest rates, and therefore an increase in the cost of mortgages. Does he think that the Government would be happy with that?
James Wild
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effect of these clauses on putting up costs and potentially adding to inflation, which as we know has almost doubled from the rate that the Government inherited. Of course, that is partly due to the decisions that the Chancellor has taken and the huge amount she is borrowing and spending, which was not mentioned in her party’s manifesto.
To my hon. Friend’s point, the Minister must tell us what assessment has been made of the knock-on impact on consumer prices, particularly for essentials such as food that depend on road freight to get to our supermarkets and local stores. This is a time when we should be backing British logistics, not burdening it. I therefore hope that, on reflection, the Minister will accept new clause 18 as a sensible one that will help him provide that information to our constituents, to the public, and—importantly—to the logistics sector, transport operators and supermarkets.
Mr Reynolds
The haulage sector has seen significant challenges in recent years: increases in fuel prices, increases in wages and significant changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025, business rates and vehicle excise duty, as we see here. I would not be the investment and trade spokesman for the Liberal Democrats if I did not mention another challenge for the road haulage sector in recent years, which is the significant amount of red tape involved in Brexit, and the cost of that.
The Government’s EU reset has not touched the sides, as haulage associations have been telling us recently. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about some goods moving from the UK to France that required 29 different stamps on their paperwork. If one stamp goes in the wrong place, the vehicle gets stuck in France or sent back. That is an additional cost for the road haulage sector, on top of all these extra costs and the vehicle excise duty increases.
For example, we were told on the Business and Trade Committee about a vehicle that was sat in France for almost one month because of paperwork that was not quite correct and small technical challenges. That vehicle being sat in France for one month meant consistent driver changes and meant the freezer compartment having to be kept on to ensure that the goods did not spoil. There was a £6,000 cost to the business because of two stamps being in the incorrect place. If we add that to the £2,000 cost per truck of the changes to vehicle excise duty, we see very clearly that the significant changes that the Government are making in quick succession are not helping the sector, which needs all the support it can get.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk for his romantic invitation to King’s Lynn; I may be otherwise engaged on that date, but I thank him for it all the same. I am interested to see whether any Members wish to intervene to say whether they will be taking up the invitation, but it is good to hear that he is an active constituency MP.
We do, of course, look at measures in the round, as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk implored me to. We did so ahead of the Budget, and I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on tax policy in the run-up to the Budget at the end of the year. We are providing stability this year for the private sector and for individuals by moving away from the relatively chaotic approach under the previous Government of having multiple tax events with big swings and roundabouts twice a year, so future tax changes will not come until the end of the year, but that will give me more time to consider things in the round.
James Wild
Is the Minister therefore ruling out any further support for hospitality, leisure and retail businesses in the Chancellor’s spring statement?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government will consider all tax measures in the round in the usual way in the run-up to the Budget. It would not be right for me to speculate on what will or will not be in the Budget; it is a long way away, and there is much to consider in the meantime. Conservative Members decided to bring up inflation, which hit 11% under them in 2022, pushing up prices for everyone up and down the country, leaving businesses and consumers significantly worse off in the worst Parliament on record for living standards.
James Wild
The Minister is a fair man, so he will recognise the impact that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had on inflation and energy prices. Could he confirm what the inflation rate was on the day the Government came into office and what it is today? That is an important context for his comments.
Dan Tomlinson
Over the months ahead, as a result of the action that this Government have taken to bring stability back to the economy, I look forward to seeing inflation return to 2% by the end of the year, as is forecast by the Bank of England.
I thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead for bringing up the botched Brexit deal that the previous Government left us. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and Ministers in the Cabinet Office and elsewhere in Government, we continue to work to reduce barriers to trade and deepen our relationship with our nearest trading partner. As the Minister responsible for customs and excise, I am always looking at what more we can do to support those who move goods across borders and trade with our partners in the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 91 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Vehicle excise duty: expensive car supplement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Report on expensive car supplement—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 94 on—
(a) the automotive sector,
(b) the sale of hybrid cars, and
(c) vehicle excise duty revenues from high-value vehicles.
(2) The review must consider whether the threshold set under section 94 remains appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 94 on the automotive sector, sales of hybrid cars and vehicle excise duty revenues from high-value vehicles, and to consider whether the threshold remains appropriate.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 94 will make changes such that the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement threshold is increased to £50,000 for zero emission cars, from its current level of £40,000. This change will take effect from 1 April 2026 and will apply to zero emission vehicles first registered on or after 1 April 2025 for tax renewals from April 2026.
The expensive car supplement is a supplement to VED payable by vehicle keepers for five years, from years two to six following a car’s first registration. The rate is currently £425 a year; that will increase to £440 from 1 April 2026, in line with RPI, and is charged in addition to the standard rate of VED. The additional charge was, I believe, originally introduced in 2017 under a previous Government so that those who can afford the most expensive cars pay more than the standard rate paid by other drivers.
Clause 94 will increase the threshold for zero emission cars from £40,000 to £50,000. This measure is projected to benefit over half a million drivers of zero emission vehicles over the next five years. It will also incentivise electric vehicle take-up. Increasing numbers of motorists will benefit in future years as the zero emission vehicle population grows.
New clause 19
“would require the Chancellor…to report on the impact of section 94 on the automotive sector”
and on other issues. As is usual practice, a tax information and impact note was published at the Budget, outlining the anticipated impacts of this measure as well as the expected revenue impacts of the change.
The Government remain fully committed to the EV transition, which will drive economic growth, help the country meet its climate change obligations and improve air quality. By increasing the ECS threshold to £50,000 for zero emission vehicles, clause 94 supports those goals.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clause 94 and new clause 19, which stands in my name. Clause 94 makes changes to the expensive car supplement in vehicle excise duty, as the Minister referred to, specifically for zero emission vehicles. This is an extra £425 charge that applies to most cars with a list price above £40,000. Under the clause, the Government propose to increase the threshold to £50,000, but only for zero emission vehicles. That means that buyers of higher-value electric vehicles will avoid paying the charge, while the £40,000 limit still applies to petrol, diesel and hybrid cars. This change is due to take effect from April 2026.
Let us recall that, back in the Public Bill Committee on last year’s Finance Bill, one of the Opposition’s “review” new clauses called for an independent assessment of the £40,000 threshold and its impact on consumers, particularly for electric vehicle sales, because we said that it was not at the right level. The Minister’s predecessor rejected that idea, and now here we are: the Ministers have quietly decided to raise the very threshold that we urged them to raise a year ago. They are playing catch-up, but they get there in the end. Is the Minister willing to admit that they have been a bit slow to follow the points that we made? Maybe we will be here in Committee next year, talking about other clauses on which the Minister has rejected things and reversed his position.
That brings me to the hybrid point. The Government now seem to have decided that hybrids no longer warrant support, despite the fact that they are critical in bridging the transition to fully electric vehicles. I would be grateful if the Minister expanded at length on the reasoning behind that decision, and on how many jobs in the UK are dependent on the manufacture of hybrid models when a lot of our electric vehicles come from China, where the Prime Minister is now.
We are broadly supportive of the measure, having recommended it a year ago, but let us be realistic: it will not do anything for most of the households in our constituencies, who simply cannot afford a new electric vehicle, especially one that costs £50,000. That is completely out of reach for people in my constituency. I do not know whether that is also the case in constituencies nearer to London, but it is certainly the case in mine.
How does this increase fit with the wider EV policy and charging infrastructure and its roll-out? To support ordinary people up and down the country, we should be joining countries such as Canada—along with the EU, or so it looks—in scrapping the mandate forcing manufacturers to produce EV vehicles and ending the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.
New clause 19 would require a proper review of the policy, its effects on the automative sector and the impact on the sale of hybrid cars and on vehicle excise duties. It would ensure a consideration of whether the threshold remains appropriate as market prices shift.
I hope that the Government will accept this accountability and transparency in policymaking, which will benefit everyone. Will the Minister at least commit to reviewing the threshold in future, particularly if it turns out that it needs to be adjusted? Will he also look at the hybrid point?
Mr Reynolds
We welcome the uprating of the expensive car supplement for EVs to the value of £50,000, supporting EVs and EV take-up. However, we are surprised that during the Committee’s first sitting on Tuesday, when I asked about extending zero VAT for charging infrastructure beyond 2027, the Economic Secretary declined to do so. I am aware that the Minister who is present today was not there, but that is slightly confusing. Here, we see the Government supporting electric vehicles and increasing the threshold from £40,000 to £50,000, but not applying the same policy by supporting electric vehicles post 2027 in other clauses of the Bill.
The Economic Secretary, who was in the Minister’s place on Tuesday, is now in China; I do not know whether I should commiserate with the Minister for not being invited on that trip. We are concerned about floods of electric vehicles that are coming in from China, undercutting European and British competitors. We are worried that they will be impacted by that £50,000 change, but several British vehicles will not be. I am sure that we do not want a world in which the Government are unintentionally encouraging British residents to buy electric vehicles made in China rather than electric vehicles from Britain. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point for us.
Dan Tomlinson
I am sorry to report to the Committee that when the Chancellor and I made the decision to increase the threshold ahead of the Budget, I was not aware of the representations that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk had made in last year’s Finance Bill Committee. If I am still in my role in the run-up to the Budget later in the year, of course I will bear in mind everything he has said today. I have already taken some notes that I will take back with me.
The hon. Member is right to note the important role that hybrid vehicles play in the transition. Ultimately, however, to move towards our goal of net zero by 2050, we need to move to a fully clean vehicle fleet over the coming decades, so we want to particularly encourage fully electric vehicles.
We will keep this measure under review; it is important that we do so. This has been an ask of the car manufacturers here in the UK that we want to support. I take the points from the hon. Member for Maidenhead about making sure that consumers can buy vehicles that are produced here in Britain. I hope that a change such as this, which shows the Government’s intent to support the electric vehicle transition, will be a consideration for vehicle manufacturers as they choose where to produce new EV cars in the years to come. Along with other measures that we set out in the Budget, this shows our intention to work alongside the industry to support that transition.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised a point about how high the supplement is. He said that many constituents in rural Norfolk, but also in north London, will find it very challenging to afford to buy a new car that costs between £40,000 and £50,000. That is true in lots of parts of the country, but as I am sure he is aware, it is important that we seek to encourage those who can afford such a car to do so, because they will then sell their cars on at a cheaper value that people may be able to afford. It supports the general health of the car market overall if we can increase the affordability of these—granted—relatively expensive vehicles. That is why the Government have brought forward this change: to support the transition and to reduce the cost of purchasing new vehicles within the £40,000 to £50,000 bracket.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I think now is an appropriate time for a comfort break. Please will Members get back as quickly as possible?
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 20—Review of bands and rates of air passenger duty—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 18 months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes to air passenger duty made under section 96 on—
(a) the aviation industry,
(b) passengers,
(c) household finances, and
(d) the public finances.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1)(c) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by the changes under section 96.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of changes to air passenger duty under section 96 on the aviation industry, passengers, household finances at different income levels, and the public finances.
New clause 32—Air passenger duty change on boarding passes—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must by regulations require travel operators who are liable to air passenger duty to ensure that in the case where a boarding pass is issued, the change in the level of air passenger duty made under section 96 and charged in respect of the passenger’s journey, is clearly stated on the boarding pass.”
I call the Minister.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition for that warm welcome back after our break.
Clause 96 sets the rates of air passenger duty for the year 2027-28, as announced at the Budget. The rates will take effect on 1 April 2027. Following previous increases to APD, the Government will uprate rates in line with RPI from 1 April 2027. As was previously announced, they will be rounded to the nearest penny, which constitutes a real-terms freeze. This will continue to make sure that airlines continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances, particularly given that tickets are VAT-free and aviation fuel incurs no duty. The Government expect these measures to have an impact on approximately 600 airlines and aircraft operators.
New clause 20 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of changes to air passenger duty under clause 96 on the aviation industry, passengers, household finances at different income levels and the public finances. The air passenger duty national statistics on different APD rates administered by HMRC are published annually through the APD bulletin. The bulletin, which is updated annually, includes statistics and analysis on APD receipts up to the latest full month before its release, and airline passenger numbers one month behind that of duty receipts in the UK. New clause 20 is therefore unnecessary.
New clause 32 would require travel operators liable to air passenger duty to ensure that, where a boarding pass is issued, the change in the level of air passenger duty made under clause 96 and charged in respect of the passenger’s journey is clearly stated on the boarding pass. Air passenger duty is charged to airlines on a per-passenger basis on departure from UK airports. Although airlines can pass the cost of the tax on to passengers, that is a commercial decision for them. I therefore commend clause 96 to the Committee, and encourage the Committee to reject new clauses 20 and 32.
James Wild
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I am almost the only one who has said anything in this Committee, so hopefully people know my name. I rise to speak to clause 96 and to my new clauses 20 and 32.
As the Minister has set out, clause 96 sets air passenger duty rates for the 2027-28 tax year, uprating them in line with RPI. I believe that APD is one of the few taxes for which rates are set well in advance so that the sector knows of the increases. The clause will also expand the higher rate to all private jets over 5.7 tonnes. This applies to passengers departing from UK airports, with rates determined by distance and travel class.
My new clause 20 would require the Government to publish a full impact assessment of the APD changes on the aviation industry, on passengers, on households of all income levels and on the public finances. New clause 32 seeks to bring greater transparency to the travelling public; it would require that the change in the level of APD charge be clearly stated on boarding passes so that every passenger knows how much the rate has gone up as a result of tax imposed by the Government. The Minister says that it is a commercial decision whether airlines pass on the cost, but he will be familiar with how the world works. If a business is taxed more, it is likely to pass on the cost rather than absorbing it into what can be quite thin margins. It may not be able to absorb it, so if it does not pass it on, it will go bust.
This could start a wave of transparency. At the petrol pump, we could see how much of the price of a litre is going straight out in tax. In a pub, we could see on a pint glass how much of the pint goes on tax. Those ideas are not included in my new clause, but they have given me inspiration for when we return to the Floor of the House on Report. The new clause would bring greater transparency; I would hope that the Government and Ministers are willing to be more open.
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, APD will raise £4.1 billion this year, which is forecast to rise to £6.5 billion by 2030-31, driven by rate increases and passenger growth. While the Government reap the higher revenues, they must also recognise the impact and pressure on families getting away for a holiday—I would say, “Come to Norfolk”—and on regional airports and the wider economy. There are concerns about the impact on people saving up for a family holiday; about the availability of routes that might be slightly marginal and which the increases might make uneconomic; and about affordability for families.
The British Airline Pilots Association said that the latest rise is:
“Bad news for passengers, especially families going on holiday”.
The Business Travel Association put it rather more bluntly:
“APD is not simply a passenger charge; it is a tax on global connectivity”.
It highlights an economy flight to India, a key trading partner of the UK. For 2027, the APD alone will be over £100 per passenger, and that is of course before any accommodation or other costs. It is a significant additional factor if a family of four is travelling, perhaps to see family or to go to some of the great sights in India. I enjoyed a visit there a few years ago, and I am happy to discuss where I went with colleagues after this sitting, as I fear it may be out of scope. What will this mean for children? What analysis has been done of how it might affect consumer behaviour? Will it put people off flying?
New clause 32 is about transparency. Everyone would be able to see on their boarding pass how much has been added as a result of this stealth tax. We are unable to put the full amount, due to resolutions passed by the House, which is why we would put the annual amount. Such taxes should be more visible to consumers.
From 2027, all aircraft over 5.7 tonnes will face a higher charge, and that change follows the 50% rise planned for April. When we talk about private jets, people may think of pop stars gadding around, but most private jets are corporate aircraft that are used as capital assets. They are not luxury toys; they are about people flying to trade and secure jobs in our economy. It is about people being internationally connected and going to places such as India—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley is pulling a face, as if that is not the reality, but it is what these jets are. We want people to get on a plane, go and do deals, come back and secure investment into our country. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding. Perhaps that is why he is the Minister and not on the Back Benches.
The Prime Minister has just hired a private jet to go to China, because he could not take the Royal Squadron flight due to national security concerns. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much chartering that plane has cost the taxpayer in air passenger duty.
We do not oppose clause 96, but we expect the Government to be up front about the impact of the tax rises they are ramming through in this Bill. We want transparency for families going on holiday, who will see prices going up and will have to pay more to get away. Our new clauses simply ask for some transparency and accountability, which are often missing from the Government’s approach to taxation.
Dan Tomlinson
One thing to note about Labour Back Benchers is that they are on the Government Benches, making changes for their constituents. They are supporting the work of this Government to improve living standards for people up and down the country, to ensure economic stability and to bring down interest rates. They are doing the right thing by their constituents.
Dan Tomlinson
Of course, Mrs Harris.
On the point that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised, it would be an unnecessary administrative burden to ask airlines to reformulate how they print and design their boarding passes as a result of an Opposition new clause, so I do not support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Rates of climate change levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 21—Report on Climate Change Levy rates—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 97 on—
(a) energy-intensive industries, and
(b) the UK’s international competitiveness.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 97 on energy-intensive industries and the UK’s international competitiveness.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 97 makes changes to the main rates of the climate change levy, with effect from 1 April 2027. Since 2001, CCL has provided an incentive for businesses and the public sector to be energy efficient by adding a tax on the non-domestic supply of energy. Energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways in which businesses can cut emissions, and permanently reducing energy use also helps to improve the UK’s energy resilience.
CCL sets four separate main rates for different energy products. The liquefied petroleum gas rate has been frozen since 2019, and it will continue to be so from April 2027. The changes made by clause 97 will increase CCL rates on gas, electricity and solid fuels in line with the retail prices index. This represents a small increase to business bills, but it will ensure that the behavioural incentives of the tax are maintained while also protecting the public finances. The Government announced a wider review of CCL at the spring statement in 2025, and we remain committed to this to ensure the tax remains up to date in the ever-changing energy landscape.
New clause 21 would require the Chancellor to report on the impact of clause 97 on energy-intensive industries and the UK’s international competitiveness within six months of the Bill being passed. I reassure the Committee that the Government already consider the impact of CCL on energy-intensive industries and competitiveness, and a number of reliefs are available to such businesses. For example, the exemption for certain processes in sectors such as steel, ceramics, cement, glass, metal forming and aluminium provides £270 million of relief per year. The Government do not believe that new clause 21 is necessary.
I therefore commend clause 97 to the Committee and ask that new clause 21 be rejected.
James Wild
Environmental taxes are obviously a very important topic for our constituents and businesses, so it is important that we scrutinise them appropriately. Clause 97 raises the climate change levy—the tax on non-domestic energy use for electricity, gas and solid fuels—while freezing the rate for LPG. As the Minister said, it was first introduced in 2001 to encourage energy efficiency.
This uprating will take effect from April 2027. According to the OBR, around £2 billion will come in as a result. We must look at the additional burden being placed on businesses. Again, we need to look at all of these things cumulatively, which is why I welcome the Government’s decision in the autumn to extend the climate change agreements for a further six years—by allowing qualifying businesses to benefit from reductions at a time when businesses are facing significant headwinds, this offers some much-needed respite.
Of course, British manufacturers are paying higher prices than the European average—I think it is more than 50% more for electricity—while the gap with the United States is wider, for understandable reasons. However, high energy costs are one of the issues holding back growth and productivity in the country. We should be looking to reduce the burden and cost of energy, rather than increase it, and this measure will obviously put up the rate.
New clause 21 would require a report on climate change levy rates, and it would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact on energy-intensive industries and the UK’s international competitors. I am thinking about sectors such as ceramics, glass, data centres and gigafactories. These are the industries that drive innovation, exports and skilled jobs, and we should consider the impact of such measures on their ability to do business in the UK.
That is why we have set out a different approach that does not follow the fundamentalism of the Energy Secretary, who is picking arbitrary dates and loading up costs by rushing to meet them, rather than getting the benefits of technology development and innovation. Our plan would bring down the cost of energy, because taxing industrial energy is not a strategy for growth.
What assessment has the Minister made of the greater impact of these rates on British manufacturers’ productivity, competitiveness and ability to grow? If he cannot answer that question, perhaps he will support new clause 21 so that we can have a review after the event to see what the impact has been.
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk is right that high energy costs are one of the big challenges facing industry and consumers. The Government are doing all we can to accelerate the roll-out of clean power. That includes nuclear power, which as a country we have not invested in for way too long, and we desperately need more of that firm baseload power. We also need more intermittent clean power through wind and solar. We cannot turn things around overnight, but in time, I hope and expect that these interventions will lead to lower bills for both businesses and consumers. However, I would be the first to say there is much more to do on this, given the high energy costs and surging inflation we inherited from the previous Government, particularly after 2022.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 98
Rates of landfill tax
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Review of landfill tax changes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 98.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular assess any effects on—
(a) construction and infrastructure projects,
(b) investment in ports,
(c) levels of recycling and illegal dumping,
(d) progress towards the Government’s environmental objectives, and
(e) Exchequer revenues.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 98, including any effects on construction and infrastructure projects, port investment, recycling and illegal dumping, progress towards environmental objectives and Exchequer revenues.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 98 increases the standard rate of landfill tax in line with the retail prices index. It increases the lower rate by the same cash amount, and it will take effect from 1 April 2026. This tax was introduced 20 years ago, and it is charged on materials disposed of at a landfill site or an unauthorised waste site in England and Northern Ireland. The objective of the tax is to divert waste away from landfill and to support investment in more circular waste management options, such as recycling and recovery.
The Government consulted earlier this year on proposals to reform the tax to drive more materials out of landfill, and to design out incentives for landfill tax fraud. The hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) is not here, but I enjoyed his video on this, in which he appeared with a hard hat. He, and others, have engaged on this issue.
I particularly welcome the engagement from industry, which has welcomed the Government’s decision. The National Federation of Builders said we had
“really engaged with industry”,
and that the decision put forward after the Budget, following the consultation, would
“allow the industry to start preparing for the circular economy”.
Meanwhile, the chief executive of Biffa said that our decision
“not to converge the two rates…is a good outcome for the industry”.
I am glad that we have a very good tax policy. We are making progress, consulting in good time, engaging with industry, and coming forward with a proposal to make sure the gap does not get any wider on landfill tax—we are increasing the lower rate by the same cash amount as the increase in the higher rate—without adding significant burdens on those who seek to construct and build this country’s future, which we must do after 14 long years of under-investment and decline.
New clause 22 would require the Government to make an assessment of the impacts of clause 98. At the Budget, the Government published a tax information and impact note for this measure, and our approach has been informed by extensive engagement with business. The Government oppose new clause 22 on that basis, and I urge the Committee to reject it. I commend clause 98 to the Committee.
James Wild
Clause 98 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax from 1 April, uprating them in line with the retail prices index. In practical terms, that means the standard rate will increase to £130.75 per tonne, with the lower rate applying to less polluting materials increasing by the same cash amount.
Landfill tax, as the Minister said, is intended to discourage disposal in landfill and promote recycling and recovery, and of course we support that aim. However, it is also right that we scrutinise the real-world effect of these changes on business costs, recycling rates and wider environmental outcomes. That is why we have tabled new clause 22.
According to the Budget 2025 costings document, the measure is expected to raise £35 million in 2026-27, increasing to £130 million by the end of the decade. Members will remember the intense speculation ahead of the Budget that the Government might move to a single landfill tax, and the Minister referred to a consultation. The speculation did not come from nowhere; it came from a Government consultation that proposed to do precisely that.
As such, the Minister could have been a bit more up front that this is something the Government were consulting on, presumably because they thought it might be a good idea. Indeed, I recall raising this directly with the Chancellor at Treasury questions earlier last year, where she accused me of scaremongering when I spoke about her own consultation, so I am glad that she has dropped her proposal to move to a single rate. Had she gone ahead with it, material such as topsoil could have faced a thirty-onefold increase.
The Minister kindly referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne and his video; he led a determined campaign alongside the industry to stop the reckless proposals put forward by the Chancellor. They could have added £28,000 to the cost of a new home and increased road construction costs by up to 25%.
When we asked what discussions the Treasury had had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government before coming forward with its proposal for a thirtyfold increase in the tax rate, it was clear that there had not been any. There was then a sudden panic that the 1.5 million new homes target would be sunk by the Treasury’s actions. I welcome the rethinking of this policy—I will be generous to the Minister on that—to spare the sector yet another unnecessary blow that could have worsened house building numbers and jeopardised the key infrastructure upgrades that we all want to see across the country.
So far, so good, but—and there is always a “but”—the Government’s retreat on that issue does not mean all is well with these proposals. The long-standing exemption for dredging material and its removal has caused deep concern, if the Committee will accept the pun, in the ports and water sector.
The British Ports Association, I believe, has written to the Minister as well as the Chancellor, warning that if these changes proceed unchecked, we may see
“the collapse of major industrial and development projects, particularly in ports, rivers and canals”.
I declare an interest, as King’s Lynn in my constituency has a fine historical port. Indeed, the wealth of King’s Lynn was built on our trading links with the Hanseatic League in medieval times. The knock-on effects of removing the exemption could be significant; delayed waterway clean-up projects, increased flooding in vulnerable areas, and reduced investment in our ports, which keep our country trading.
New clause 22 seeks a proper assessment of how these tax changes will affect construction and infrastructure projects, investment in ports, recycling levels and illegal dumping rates, and progress towards the Government’s environmental objectives. The Minister needs to set out how the Government are responding to address the serious concerns raised by the British Ports Association, which, if correct, could have a very damaging effect on major infrastructure. We welcome that the proposals put forward in the consultation have been ditched, but there are concerns that the Minister now needs to address.
Mr Reynolds
I am very glad that the Government have ditched the plan to converge the rates of landfill tax and to massively hike the charge for inert waste, adding tens of thousands of pounds to the cost of a new build home at a time when the Government want to build 1.5 million new homes. That was not joined-up government, and I am concerned at the lack of joined-up thinking when the Treasury put forward this proposal.
There are a number of gravel quarries in my Maidenhead constituency, and converging the rates would have meant that a significant number of those quarries would have gone unfilled, resulting in more quarry lakes in our town. We know that quarry lakes are dangerous: they are quite shallow until they suddenly become incredibly deep. That is dangerous when young people are out on the water or swimming, and in areas not too far from my own we have seen some unfortunate deaths as a result.
I am glad that the Government have decided to back down on this and are not going to burden the quarry sector or developments with that proposal. However, can the Minister confirm what the cost would have been to UK infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, and what the additional cost to the taxpayer would have been?
Martin Wrigley
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. We have a number of quarries in Newton Abbot, and the same principles apply. I am, however, doubly pleased that the extensive increase was not included in the Budget. I was taken to a local factory in Newton Abbot that makes high-value, high-performance propellers that it exports all over the world. The factory was to be put out of business, because it pours the metal into moulds of sand, and the cost of disposal of that sand would have been more than it could have borne. That would have shut down a £20 million-a-year business. I am extremely grateful that the increase has not been implemented, but I draw the Minister’s attention to such side effects when considering future proposals.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank Opposition Members for their contributions and for welcoming the Government’s decision on this matter at the Budget. I find it a bit tiresome that the Conservatives, when we consult, accuse us of consulting, and when we do not, accuse us of not consulting. It is right and proper, where possible, for the Government to engage with industry on proposals and then come forward with good policy outcomes. I am glad that there has been acknowledgment across the Committee that we have listened, engaged and come forward with proposals that are proportionate.
James Wild
It was not the fact that the Government consulted that we objected to; it was that they were consulting on a crazy idea that would have increased costs for industry 31-fold. Consult away, but do not consult on bad ideas.
Dan Tomlinson
The refining fire of a consultation process is something that I am happy to stand behind.
On the shadow Minister’s important point about the decision to remove the dredging exemption, I have received correspondence from the sector on the issue and will continue to engage with it. The change is not scored in the Budget. To be very clear, it was not made with the express intention of raising revenue; the Government’s judgment, after consultation, was that it would get the balance right between supporting the circular economy and encouraging more environmentally friendly ways of carrying out the activity. I want to continue to engage sincerely with the sector, so I will be responding to the correspondence I have received. I am sure that we will continue to engage.
James Wild
The industry’s concerns are urgent, so if it persuades the Minister on certain points, will he table amendments on Report—the Bill will return to the House in the near future—to address them?
Dan Tomlinson
I am sorry to tell the shadow Minister that this matter is not being legislated for in this Finance Bill; it will be for next year’s Finance Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99
Rate of aggregates levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 100 stand part.
Government amendments 27, 28 and 26.
Schedule 23.
Government motion to transfer schedule 23.
New clause 23—Report on aggregates levy rate—
“The Treasury must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 99 on—
(a) the construction industry, and
(b) infrastructure projects.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to report on the impact of section 99 on the construction industry and infrastructure projects.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 99 makes changes to increase the rate of the aggregates levy in line with the retail prices index from 1 April 2026. Clause 100 and schedule 23 make changes to aggregates levy legislation in preparation for its replacement in Scotland with the Scottish aggregates tax.
The changes made by clause 99 increase the rate of aggregates levy from £2.08 per tonne to £2.16 per tonne from 1 April 2026. The changes made by clause 100 and schedule 23 make aggregate moved from a producer’s site in Scotland to England, Wales or Northern Ireland liable to aggregates levy. In addition, they provide an exemption where the aggregate has previously been supplied and will be subject to Scottish aggregates tax. Lastly, they provide for a tax credit from aggregates levy for aggregate moved from England, Wales or Northern Ireland to Scotland. The changes will take effect from 1 April 2026, when the Scottish aggregates tax is due to come into force.
Amendments 26 to 28 are needed to ensure that the legislation interacts correctly with Scottish Government legislation so that a credit from aggregates levy is available on aggregates moved to Scotland only in circumstances in which Scottish aggregates tax is payable on the movement.
James Wild
Clause 99 will increase the aggregates levy—the tax on commercially exploited rock, sand and gravel—from April. The levy, charged per tonne of primary aggregate, is intended to encourage efficient use of materials. As colleagues will know, aggregates are fundamental to almost every form of infrastructure: they are the foundations of our roads, our concrete structures and our coastal defences. They are the essential components in so many products, from ready-mixed concrete to asphalt, lime, mortar and countless others. As the Mineral Products Association puts it so aptly,
“Aggregates provide the backbone of our world”,
and in the UK we use around 250 million tonnes every year.
New clause 23 would require the Government to assess the impact of clause 99 on the construction industry and key national infrastructure products. Although roughly a quarter of aggregate comes from recycled sources, the overwhelming majority still comes from primary extraction. Around 90% is used by the construction industry itself. While we obviously support the principle of encouraging sustainability that is behind the levy, the construction of a single home requires, on average, around 200 tonnes of aggregate and associated materials, from the foundations to the roof tiles. At a time when the Government are looking to accelerate house building, has the Minister looked at the impact of this measure on housing delivery and cost? We will not oppose clause 99, but new clause 23 would require the Government to assess its impact on construction and infrastructure projects.
The Minister set out that clause 100 and schedule 23 will simplify things for the introduction of the new Scottish aggregates tax, reducing the number of businesses that would otherwise need to account for the levy. That is a perfectly good and common-sense measure, so I have no further comment on it.
Mr Reynolds
Clause 99 introduces a very small increase in the rate of aggregates levy, but a small increase when dealing with massive numbers is still quite a large increase. High Speed 2, for example, is predicted to use 20 million tonnes of aggregate during phase 1. That means that the measure will add about £3.2 million to the bill for HS2, which we know is already significantly over budget. Has the Minister worked out the cost associated with money being passed from the Government to HS2 and then from HS2 back to the Government through things like the proposed aggregates levy increase?
Dan Tomlinson
On the question asked by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and implied in the specific question about HS2 impacts from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, the key thing is that the aggregates levy provides a price incentive to use more recycled aggregate, which we would all support, rather than virgin aggregate. Increasing the aggregates levy rate in line with inflation will ensure that the value of that price incentive does not fall in real terms.
It is important for administrative reasons and for our ability to collect tax without undue complexity that, even where services are provided ultimately for the benefit of the public sector, the taxes apply in a uniform way. It would become more complicated than it would be worth to apply the tax differently to parts of different industries, or to different contracts, depending on whether they were being used for HS2 or something else.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 23
Aggregates levy: amendments relating to disapplication of levy to Scotland
Amendments made: 27, in schedule 23, page 535, line 22, after “from” insert “premises in”.
This amendment together with Amendments 28 and 26 revises the inserted sub-paragraph (za) of regulation 13(2) of SI 2002/761 to accommodate expected changes to provisions of the law relating to Scottish aggregates tax.
Amendment 28, in schedule 23, page 535, line 23, after “Ireland” insert
“operated or used by a person registered under section 24 of the Act for any purpose specified in subsection (6) of that section”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27.
Amendment 26, in schedule 23, page 535, line 24, leave out from “waters” to end of line 25.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27.
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered,
That Schedule 23 be transferred to the end of line 5 on page 468.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Clause 101
Rate of plastic packaging tax
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 101 to 104 encourage greater demand for recycled plastic, help create demand for chemically recycled material, and allow for a more level playing field for plastic recyclers, rewarding the recycling of waste plastic. This is supportive of the Government’s broader environmental goals. The plastic packaging tax was introduced on 1 April 2022 as a part of the previous Government’s resources and waste strategy. It is the Government’s view that the clauses implement that tax in the right and proportionate way. I will not go through each in detail, but I will of course answer any questions that the Committee may have.
James Wild
Clauses 101 to 104 amend the plastic packaging tax introduced in 2022 to encourage the use of recycled and reduced plastic. At the end of August last year, around 5,000 businesses were registered for the tax, and 38% of plastic packaging manufactured or imported into the UK was declared as taxable under it. The tax applies to packaging with less than 30% recycled content and is charged per tonne of plastic packaging components. The Opposition believe that the Government must ensure that the policy is working effectively in practice, encouraging the industry to change and delivering genuine environmental benefit, and not simply adding cost.
Clause 101 increases the packaging tax rate, this time in line with CPI, not RPI. Could the Minister explain why? In principle, that is reasonable, to maintain its value and sustain the incentive to recycle, but it is a practical reality that many businesses simply cannot get enough high-quality recycled plastic at reasonable prices, so raising the rate without addressing that supply constraint risks making packaging more expensive but not greener.
Recycling firms are already facing higher energy bills and rising labour costs as a result of both global pressures and some of the measures that have been introduced. It is often still cheaper to import virgin or recycled plastic from Asia than to buy recycled content from within Europe, and loopholes in legislation may make it more profitable to export plastic waste than to process it here at home.
The Guardian, which I confess is not my usual paper of choice—[Interruption.] It is not the Minister’s either; it is good to get that on the record. It recently reported that 21 plastics recycling and processing plants across the UK have shut down in the last two years, which is a direct result of the imbalance between export incentives, cheap virgin plastic and low-cost imports from Asia.
How much additional revenue does the Treasury expect this rate increase to bring in, given that I think receipts actually fell in 2024-25? What increases in recycled content are the Government assuming will result from the measure? Has the Treasury assessed whether the costs will simply be passed on to consumers through higher prices for everyday goods? We want a tax that drives genuine behaviour change, not one that just adds to the cost of living.
Clause 102 allows chemically recycled plastic to count towards the 30% recycled threshold and introduces a mass balance approach. That is a welcome recognition of innovation and new technology. However, analysis from Pinsent Masons notes that it will introduce significant certification and evidential demands on manufacturers and importers, and many small and medium-sized businesses fear an extra compliance burden in the absence of clear guidance or support. Can the Minister set out to the Committee, and to those companies, what practical support the Government will provide to help businesses adapt to the new rules, and will Ministers commit to reviewing the effectiveness of the measure within a reasonable period to ensure that it is genuinely driving more recycling?
Clause 103 excludes pre-consumer plastics, such as factory offcuts, from the definition of recycled content from April next year. The Government say that that is to ensure that the tax incentivises genuine recycling of post-consumer waste, rather than reusing scrap material. That is reasonable as it goes, but Pinsent Masons has warned that some manufacturers will no longer be able to treat their own production offcuts as recycled content. While the overall burden of tax may not have changed, the burden of liability could shift from those gaining relief through mass balance accounting to those losing relief for pre-consumer materials. The Government should be up front about who will bear the costs of the changes.
Finally, clause 104 deals with commencement. Businesses need certainty ahead of the changes, and time to adapt their supply chains and get the relevant certification and other measures lined up. Can the Minister confirm that HMRC will be publishing detailed guidance in advance? He may tell me that it is already out there and that I have not seen it yet, but if it is not, can he assure me that it will be published in good time for those companies?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokesman for his questions. May I put on record my thanks to the officials for the support that they have provided to me today, in my first appearance in a Bill Committee as a Minister?
The hon. Member asked why the tax is increasing in line with CPI rather than RPI. All new tax measures introduced since 2018 have been uprated by CPI instead of RPI, so that is perfectly in keeping with established practice. That is good to know.
The hon. Member also about the mass balance approach. That is an accepted model already used in a range of industries, including cocoa and timber. Respondents to the consultation on a mass balance approach agreed that combining it with third-party certification is the best approach to prevent fraud and abuse. HMRC will continue to work with stakeholders on the detailed policy development, including independent certification requirements, which will be designed to be fair and robust and to maintain the integrity of the tax.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 105 legislates for the new rates of the soft drinks industry levy to apply from 1 April 2026. It amends section 36(1) of the Finance Act 2017 to reflect the new rates of the levy to apply from 1 April 2026. Those rates are £2.08 and £2.78 per 10 litres of prepared drink, for the lower and higher bands respectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Wild
I am surprised that the Minister covered this important clause so briefly, as will become clear in my remarks. Clause 105 increases the soft drinks industry levy—the tax on soft drinks with added sugar, which is charged per litre, with higher rates applied to drinks containing more sugar. The Government propose to uprate the levy by combining one fifth of the CPI inflation from 2018 to 2024 and full CPI inflation between Q2 2025 and 2026. In practice, that all together means a total rise of 27%—I am surprised that the Minister did not want to get that figure on the record; it is a significant increase.
The soft drinks industry levy has worked in meeting its objectives, but we had a debate on it last year and, and as I warned then, we have serious concerns about the Government’s decision to backdate an inflation increase over a six-year period. That is an unprecedented move, which raises serious questions about fairness, consistency and confidence in the UK tax system.
The soft drinks industry levy was introduced in 2017 by the Conservative Government to help tackle obesity, diabetes and tooth decay, particularly among children. By any reasonable measure, it has been a success. There has been a 46% reduction in sugar in fizzy drinks since the original tax came into force, and 89% of soft drinks sold now in the UK are not subject to the charge due to reformulation. As the British Soft Drinks Association points out, since 2015, more than 1 billion kilograms of sugar have been removed from the UK diet. Soft drinks now account for just 6% of the UK’s total sugar intake.
The industry has responded to the incentives that Parliament put in place by investing heavily, innovating and reformulating on a huge scale. That is why the backdated tax rise in clause 105 is so troubling. Imposing, in one go, six years of inflation over a period when it was not imposed represents a 27% retrospective increase, something that I think—unless I am corrected by the Minister—is without precedent in recent UK fiscal policy. It is not simply a technical adjustment; it is a departure from the principles that underpin our tax system, such as clarity and predictability.
As we have recently discussed when considering other clauses, inflation uprating is normally applied annually, not retroactively over a six-year period. When alcohol duty or fuel duty is frozen, the Treasury does not go back and seek to make up for the years it was frozen by adding them to the rate—although maybe that is what the Government are going to do—but that is precisely what the Government are now doing with the soft drinks levy. As I pointed out to the Finance Bill Committee last year, if the same backdating principle were applied elsewhere, the results would be very troubling. According to research that the House of Commons Library kindly produced for me, if the Government were to take the same approach to fuel duty as they applied to the soft drinks levy—there has been a long freeze in fuel duty—fuel duty would rise by 64%, while the aggregates levy would rise by 67%. No one would defend that, so why is it acceptable in this scenario to have such an increase?
Businesses make long-term decisions on investment, employment and pricing based on the stability of the tax regime. To introduce retrospective changes on this scale undermines that certainty and, I fear, risks setting a dangerous precedent. Is this now Government policy? Can the Minister rule out—as the Minister at the time failed to rule out—the Government taking a similar approach with other taxes, such as fuel duty? I wonder if he will be able to give us a bit more confidence. Will the Government commit to not applying such levels of retrospective taxation-inflation increases to other sectors?
In the context of this debate about the soft drinks industry levy and the increase in it, also important is what might happen—given that the threshold and the rates have been set—if there are proposals to lower the rate to bring more soft drinks into the tax, such as milk-based drinks—the milkshake tax—coffee drinks and milk substitutes that exceed the same sugar threshold. If that happened, that would potentially be another hit to the cost of living. Industry has estimated that compliance costs could run into the tens or possibly hundreds of millions of pounds, if such an approach were taken, moving the goalposts when the policy has delivered on its aims. The hospitality and drinks sector already face a lot of pressures, so they do not need to see further increases.
I therefore think that applying a retrospective 27% tax increase is a move that the Government should not take lightly. We support the principle of the industry levy and the goals that it serves, but this is concerning, and I look for some confidence from the Minister that the retrospective approach to taxation will be a one-off.
Dan Tomlinson
Our approach to uprating taxes is plain to see for all the different approaches that we have taken. The Government set out their position on fuel duty, for example, and we have discussed many upratings today in Committee. The Government’s judgment in this specific circumstance was that uprating in line with inflation, as in previous years, was an appropriate step to take to protect the real-terms value of the SDIL and to maintain incentives for manufacturers over time. The Government are happy to stand by that position, although of course it is well within the rights of the Opposition to take a different approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106
Amendment of customs tariff power
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
The clause relates to trade defence. As set out in the trade strategy, the Government committed to strengthen the UK’s trade defence toolkit in response to an increasingly turbulent global trading environment. The clause supports those commitments and ensures that the Government can continue to respond to changes in the global trading system.
Unfair trade practices, including distortionary subsidies and dumping goods below cost in foreign markets, have a long pedigree. What has changed rapidly in recent years is their sheer volume and the range of markets and indeed British businesses that they threaten. Our trade defence system needs to be sharper and more flexible to respond to the increasingly turbulent global trading system.
The UK remains committed to upholding the rules-based international system that has benefited us well, but in an unstable and volatile world, we cannot afford to be left behind and we need to be more agile in the face of a range of potential future shocks. That is why clauses 106 to 108 strengthen the UK’s trade defence toolkit, making it more closely aligned to that of international peers. The clauses will help to ensure that we can best protect UK interests, including in critical sectors such as steel, which are vital to our national security and critical infrastructure.
The changes made by the clause will put beyond doubt that we are able to apply tariffs on a global basis or against a group of countries, where consistent with international agreements to which the UK is a party. This measure strengthens the UK’s trade defence toolkit, ensuring that the Government can continue to respond to changes in the global trading system, as well as to unfair trading practices where they occur. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
Before I go into the details of the clause, and before the Committee discusses the subsequent two clauses, it is worth getting on record how much the Opposition object to trade wars and increasing tariffs. Such tariffs harm the country that introduces them. Take what has been going on in America as an example. On its “liberation day”—as I think its Government called it—it introduced very heavy tariffs, including on something as simple as the iPhone, which the American people would consider to be one of the greatest inventions and greatest products they have ever had. It seemed that the person who introduced those tariffs had completely failed to observe that 95% of an iPhone is made in Vietnam and China, as a result of which the tariffs increased the price of iPhones for the American people, which was completely against the intentions of that Government.
Tariffs are really bad, and we have been trying to get them down for an awfully long time. However, I completely understand the point that the Government are trying to make with the Trade Remedies Authority and the toolkit that the Government need in order to respond to certain issues. It is vital that we have the ability to move on things such as tariffs, and I suspect that the Minister is 100% aligned with me on this, but I stress that we have lessons from history, from when such actions have gone hideously wrong.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, introduced by President Hoover, was designed by Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley to try to help American businesses and American farmers by increasing tariffs. The net result was a global trade war that resulted in a 65% drop in global trade. That is what happens when people muck around with tariffs; that is where the damage can come. I completely appreciate that these measures are, I suspect, a very necessary response to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, where there is a very unpredictable trade policy, so it is the right thing to do. However, I urge the Minister to talk to all his colleagues about this matter, and to reassure the Committee that these measures are not about having our own version of that policy, and about increasing tariffs in order to have a trade war, but about having a set of relevant measures that mean that the Government can act in defence to what could be a hostile attack on trade.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. It is good to converse with a new Opposition spokesman and I look forward to more conversations and discussions with him—though I do not have favourites. I want to be really clear—and I am glad to have the chance to be so—that the UK will continue to champion the free and fair trade that has benefited us so much in our history as a small, independent trading nation. We will always look to work with international partners to protect the rules-based international trading system. With this measure, we are not lapsing into protectionism and we will always make sure to balance the need to use these powers when and if they may be required in individual circumstances, with a continued focus on the need to be open because that is the route to sustained and long-term prosperity for a country with an economic and geopolitical position such as ours.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 106 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Dumping and subsidisation investigations
Mr Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 107, page 129, line 32, at end insert—
“(10) Before giving a direction under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact statement setting out—
(a) the evidence on which the Secretary of State has concluded that the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) have been met,
(b) an assessment of the potential impact on consumer prices and UK supply chains,
(c) the reasons why a direction is considered necessary in the circumstances, and
(d) whether coordination with other jurisdictions, including the European Union, has been considered.
(11) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to have effect if, within the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement under sub-paragraph (10) is laid, either House of Parliament resolves that the direction should be annulled.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with an impact statement before directing the TRA to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation, and would give Parliament the power to annul such directions within 21 sitting days.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 107, page 129, line 43, at end insert—
“(6A) In paragraph 17, at end insert—
‘(11) Before making a recommendation under paragraph 17, the TRA must prepare and publish an assessment of—
(a) the likely impact of the proposed anti-dumping amount or countervailing amount on consumer prices,
(b) the effect on UK businesses that use the goods subject to investigation as inputs in their production processes,
(c) the overall impact on the UK economy, including benefits to UK producers and costs to UK consumers and supply chains, and
(d) whether a lower duty than the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy would be sufficient to remedy any injury to UK industry.
(12) The Secretary of State must have regard to the assessment made under sub-paragraph (11) when making a decision on whether to accept the TRA's recommendation and at what level to set any anti-dumping or countervailing duties.’”
This amendment would require the Trade Remedies Authority to assess and publish the consumer and wider economic impact of proposed anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
Clause stand part.
Clause 108 stand part.
Mr Reynolds
Amendments 44 and 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and I, strengthen the democratic accountability in our trade remedies system. Trade remedies exist to protect British businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition from goods dumped below cost or artificially subsidised. Since Brexit, the Trade Remedies Authority has operated as our independent investigation body. That independence matters, because trade remedy decisions affect jobs, consumer prices, business costs and our international relations.
Mark Garnier
Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation. We support measures that tackle any unfair trading practices, including dumping and subsidisation. We are also supportive of measures that bring power back into the hands of Secretaries of State and Ministers. That is especially important when it comes to practices that could harm our industries and our constituents.
One example of that is the steel industry. Back in 2016, it was reported that Tata Steel had suffered more than 1,000 job losses, including 750 from Port Talbot alone. Tata stated that the reason for this was the flooding of cheap imports, particularly from China. This will continue to be a problem. According to the OECD, Chinese steel imports surged to a record level of 118 million tonnes in 2024. Interestingly, there are different points of view on this. For those in the building industry, the idea of having an awful lot of cheap steel coming into the country is not that unattractive, but it would affect our domestic industries.
How the Government curb dumping and subsidisation must be accompanied by, at least in part, a deterrent effect. That is crucial for investigations that implicate large and powerful countries. Clause 107 removes the opportunity to implement any deterrent effect because it caps duties imposed on the dumping margin or subsidy amount, not at the injury margin. I acknowledge that this is in line with World Trade Organisation rules. However, injury margins can often exceed dumping and subsidy margins due to their accurate reflection of the true economic harm inflicted on UK industries. Each time, they have been overridden due to the lesser duty rules, and the removal of this rule could have given the Government the opportunity to apply a regime that reflects injury margins better in dumping and subsidy investigations. That would not only protect UK industries but send a clear message to those who engage in these abhorrent trade practices that this will not be tolerated and will be met with serious repercussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s rationale not to cut duties at the injury margin. It is quite a technical question, and if he feels the urge to write back, that might save him the trouble of getting into a lot of technical detail.
We are supportive of the thrust of amendments 44 and 45, tabled by the hon. Member for Maidenhead. It is important for decision makers to be accountable to Parliament for their decisions, whether that is the Secretary of State or the Trade Remedies Authority. I suspect that these amendments will be voted down, so could the Minister help the Committee understand what safeguards are in place to address the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Maidenhead?
Clause 108 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a safeguarding investigation. It is important that the UK has the necessary defensive measures where there is injury to UK industries. However, clause 108 requires clarity on the conditions that enable the Secretary of State to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate an investigation.
I have two points on this. First, on the requirement of evidence of increased quantities in a good, clause 108 does not introduce any parameters or a threshold that would distinguish a legitimate increase in quantity of goods from an increase that warrants investigation. Secondly, there is no definition or guidance on what constitutes “serious injury”; the clause does not make clear what serious injury means. Without the clarification, the clause grants the Secretary of State substantial discretion in determining whether those conditions have been met. Fundamentally, though, on both these clauses, we must ensure that these important decisions are made with technical rigour and on the evidence. It is incredibly important that they are not driven solely by political whim. I ask the Minister for an assurance on that point.
Dan Tomlinson
I will not expound on the detail of the clauses, but I will explain why the Government cannot accept the amendments.
On amendment 44, any public disclosure of evidence before an investigation is formally launched risks undermining it. The formal initiation of an investigation is a defined procedural step, and once an investigation has been formally initiated, the TRA may recommend the imposition of provisional duties. If there was a gap between publicly disclosing evidence and initiating an investigation, it might incentivise exporters to increase shipments of the goods concerned into the UK to avoid potential future duties. It would also risk contravening our international World Trade Organisation obligations. The rules are clear that authorities must avoid publicising the application for an investigation before a decision has been made to initiate it. To our knowledge, no such parliamentary veto exists in comparable trade remedy systems internationally, but I assure the House that the process will remain transparent and led by the evidence.
On amendment 45, the Trade Remedies Authority is already required by our domestic legislation to publish the consumer and wider economic impact of proposed anti-dumping or countervailing duties. As part of its dumping and subsidisation investigations, the Trade Remedies Authority must advise the Secretary of State on whether and how any recommended anti-dumping or countervailing duties would meet the economic interest test as set out in legislation. The Secretary of State must then have regard to that advice when considering whether to accept or reject the recommendation. This advice is included in the TRA’s published reports across the case life cycle, including a statement of essential facts, which is included on the public file ahead of a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
Since he has given me leave to do so, I will write to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, on his specific question.
Mr Reynolds
It is important to remember that one can support both free trade and protection against unfair dumping—they are not mutually exclusive—and I think the amendments strike a balance between them transparently. Amendment 44 gives Parliament meaningful oversight of ministerial decisions to initiate investigations, and amendment 45 ensures that decisions account for impacts on consumers and businesses relying on imported inputs. Together, they strengthen democratic accountability while maintaining our ability to act against unfair trading practices. I ask the Minister to reconsider his thoughts on amendment 44 when we push it to a vote.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 109 amends sections 20 and 20A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to update HMRC’s existing powers to require all ports to provide and fund customs infrastructure.
Customs infrastructure is essential to protecting the UK by ensuring that risk-based checks on goods entering and leaving the country can take place. Provision of that infrastructure by ports is a long-standing requirement. When we left the EU, the Government funded and operated customs infrastructure at inland border facilities for ports that do not have enough space for this infrastructure within the port itself. Only two inland border facilities remain: Sevington inland border facility in Kent and Holyhead inland border facility in Wales. As confirmed in the border target operating model in autumn 2023, Government provision of these inland border facilities was always intended to be temporary.
Clause 109 would, first, require the small number of ports assessed as having insufficient space on site for customs infrastructure to provide equivalent infrastructure at an offsite location, which must be approved by HMRC. Secondly, all ports will now be responsible for providing and funding the customs infrastructure required for border checks on goods. This levels the playing field between ports, bringing all ports into line with the long-standing model. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
Clause 109 shifts the responsibility for the remaining two inland border facilities from the Government to the port authorities. The switching of inland border facilities services and operations to a commercial basis was something that the last Government were exploring.
However, we query whether clause 109 goes a little too far. It would require the ports to prepare to take on the additional responsibility of providing equivalent infrastructure. We appreciate why the ports received the additional Government assistance in the first place, especially considering the far-reaching effects that any disruption in Dover could have. However, while I agree that the ports must be able to stand on their own feet, clause 109 risks the ports’ introducing additional import and export charges being applied to every lorry and trailer that passes through. The magnitude of the price increases could be substantial for businesses, which may end up passing on the additional costs to consumers—not to mention that they would be in addition to the port inventory charges that the port of Dover implemented from 1 January this year.
I recommend that the Government assess the impact that the legislative changes in clause 109 would have on these ports, the businesses and hauliers that rely on them and consumers, who will have to pay a higher price. We get the principle of the clause, but we are concerned about whether there are any adverse knock-on effects on trade through the ports.
Dan Tomlinson
We do not expect that the changes will result in significant cost changes. How ports that currently benefit from the inland border facilities choose to recover any costs is a commercial matter. It is worth noting that the ports have benefited from significant public investment that has already been made in the development and operation of inland border facilities since we left the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Increases to rates of levy
Dan Tomlinson
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 110, page 134, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) In consequence of the amendments made by the preceding subsections, in section 189 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in subsections (3)(b)(ii) and (11) (which operate by reference to provisions amended by this section), for ‘large or very large’ substitute ‘in any of bands B to D’.”
This amendment makes a consequential amendment as a result of the new bands.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 110 will make changes to the rates charged to businesses under the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy from April 2026. The changes will increase the revenue raised each year by the levy by £110 million from 2027-28 onwards.
The levy was introduced to provide a long-term, sustainable source of funding for initiatives aimed at tackling money laundering. In 2024-25, the levy funded 455 new roles fighting economic crime in organisations, including in the National Crime Agency and City of London police, and delivered a new digital service for suspicious activity reporting, which onboarded precisely 15,211 organisations. In a constrained funding landscape, we believe that the levy is right place to find the money for these initiatives. The Government have decided to change the rates charged to businesses under the levy to provide sufficient funding to deliver key projects in the economic crime space over the next three years.
The changes made by clause 110 will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue between £10.2 million and £36 million from £10,000 to £10,200 per annum. It will also introduce a new band for businesses with an annual revenue between £500 million and £1 billion. Lastly, it will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue exceeding £1 billion to £1 million from April 2026. As the levy is collected a year in arrears, the increased rates will first be collected in the financial year beginning April 2027. The changes have been designed with proportionality and fairness at their core, and no business will pay more than 0.1% of its UK annual revenue in levy charges.
Government amendment 12 seeks to update the language in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which refers to the current band names “large” and “very large”. These will be changed to refer to the new band names A, B, C and D. The amendment contains no policy changes; it will just bring existing legislation in line with the new economic crime levy band names. I commend the clause and the amendment to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
The previous Conservative Government introduced the levy back in 2022 as a proactive measure to combat money laundering and strengthen our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), now the shadow Business Secretary, said when he brought it in,
“the levy will provide an important private sector contribution from those industries at highest risk of being abused for money laundering.”
We support robust action against money laundering, but we have one or two concerns about the scale. The introduction of a new band C, with a £500,000 levy for businesses with a revenue of between £500 million and £1 billion, is a substantial new burden on businesses that are already heavily regulated and are already investing significant sums in anti-money laundering compliance. To be clear, a business with £500 million to £1 billion revenue used to pay £36,000 and will now have to pay half a million—a 1,289% increase.
The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that between 100 and 110 businesses will be affected by the levy rise in this band C. It is a really big rise, so it would be helpful if the Minister could justify the nearly 1,300% rise for firms moving into the new band C. Perhaps he could also say whether he has had any representations from any businesses about the effect it could have on investment, staffing level, productivity and all the rest of it.
The simultaneous reduction in the threshold for the “very large” band, band D, means that more businesses fall into the higher levy. Will the Minister talk about the rationale for that? Has he considered the potential impact on the UK’s competitiveness, particularly mid-sized firms that may now face substantially higher costs?
Dan Tomlinson
On competitiveness, the Government of course do not place any additional burdens on businesses lightly, but reducing economic crime helps the good functioning of the UK economy and our competitiveness, so we think that this is a proportionate change.
The shadow Minister is right to identify that there are significant changes in band C. Previously, businesses with revenue of £500 million paid only 0.007% of their UK revenue, while those with revenues of, for example, £36 million paid 0.1%. That was a significant imbalance. This change seeks to address that disparity by aligning contributions more closely with revenue size so that contributions are proportionate to revenue—more proportionate, but still bands over the broad swathe of business size. This is to make contributions fairer and more consistent, and it will ensure that larger businesses contribute proportionately to the overall funding requirement.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111
Removal of time limit to claim relief under section 106(3) of FA 2013
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 111 removes a restrictive time limit within which relief from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings can be claimed. This measure updates the legislation to remove the current restrictive time limit for claiming relief from the ATED. Companies are still required to deliver their ATED returns on time—typically 30 days from the start of the chargeable period. ATED returns not delivered by the filing deadline will remain subject to penalties for late filing. The time limits for amending a return already delivered to HMRC are unchanged. This clause will come into effect from the date of Royal Assent of the Bill and will have effect as if it had always been in force. HMRC is currently applying its discretion to accept late claims pending enactment of this legislative change. The change is necessary to ensure that the law reflects our policy aims for relief from the ATED. I therefore move that clause 111 stand part of the Bill.
Mark Garnier
The ATED was originally brought in back in 2013 under the coalition Government to discourage the use of corporate structures to hold high-value residential properties. Reliefs were built into the system to ensure that genuine commercial property businesses were not caught by the charge. However, those reliefs were subject to a clear 12-month time limit for making a claim. That was for two reasons: first, it helps ensure that relief claims are made while the facts are still reasonably clear. Secondly, it simply aligns with normal tax time limits.
Now the Government want to remove that time limit entirely. Without a deadline, if claims are made over the original 12-month period, HMRC could be required to revisit historical ATED returns long after they were filed. Given service levels in HMRC are already stretched, it is unclear why the Government have chosen to do that. It could increase, rather than reduce, administrative burdens on HMRC. Have the Government assessed the resource implications for HMRC of processing claims made more than a year after the relevant adjustment period?
Dan Tomlinson
Yes; in anticipation of the Budget and the announcements made at the Budget, work was carried out between HMRC and policy officials in the Treasury to assess the implications of tax changes on businesses and on the Government, and this is set out in the usual way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Ferguson.)