Stamp Duty Land Tax

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bobby Dean]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I made the point earlier that the welfare bill went up on the Conservative Government’s watch, not least because they cut back NHS funding.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bobby Dean]

I will make some progress; I have been intervened on quite a few times. In the Chamber, we may agree on the analysis of stamp duty’s failings, but the Liberal Democrats cannot support the motion, because it is not a credible plan. Also, if a stamp duty cut were made in isolation, it might not deliver what Conservative Members say it would. It might just gum up the housing market further for the next generation.

It is high time that we had a serious debate about property tax reform. Some of that has happened in the Chamber today, but the motion does not reflect that serious debate, so I will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Going back to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), we need to take this seriously. We can either look back the whole time, or we can look forward and think about what policies are right for the people of this country and deliver for the people of this country.

[Mr Snowden]

That point shows the complexity of the issue. Painting it with “14 years this” and “14 years that” does not represent what is happening. In Fylde, we have seen the largest amount of house building taking place in the villages and small towns, because developers know that they can get planning permission there and sell the houses for a lot more than they could 5 or 10 miles in a different direction. In some areas, there has been significant overdevelopment on the green belt, and we should not use individual examples as a reason to redefine vast chunks of the green belt as grey belt simply in order to concrete over our countryside.

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend’s excellent point is pertinent to my constituency as well, which is full of amazing and beautiful green-belt land. We are suffering from what this Government have done on housing targets, which have doubled in Reigate and Banstead while going down in London. That means that we are building more homes, but not for local people and not for the children the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned, who want to stay close to home. It is for people living in London who then move out to Reigate and Banstead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bedford]

I will give the hon. Member an example of Conservative aspiration. My family never owned their own homes—my grandparents did not own their own home—but Margaret Thatcher gave them the opportunity to do so. She gave many people like my grandparents the opportunity to aspire, to achieve and to own their own homes. That is the aspiration we need to get back to as a country. Every generation of Conservatives has understood this ambition. It is not our background that shapes our future. This is equality of opportunity in action, not the equality of outcome that the Labour party desire so much.

We cannot talk about aspiration without celebrating the Prime Minister who understood it best. Mrs Thatcher gave people the freedom to own their own future. She rewarded hard work through lower taxes, turned millions of people into shareholders through privatisation and made dreams of home ownership a reality for many across the country with her right-to-buy scheme. Mrs Thatcher just got it; she understood human nature. She understood that people are ambitious and she knew that when we trust individuals and not the state, Britain succeeds.

[Mr Snowden]

Going back to what a former fantastic, great Prime Minister did—and comparing it with the policy on stamp duty—we know that it was hated by Labour Members, because it took away the choking role of the state and freed people up to have that aspiration and that social mobility. It proved that allowing people to buy their own homes and removing the state from their lives created social mobility in the same way that removing that tax and allowing people the aspiration to smash those ceilings is important. Labour Members hate it because it would reduce the size of the state, the dependency on the state and the hold that they have over people’s lives.

[Mr Bedford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, Labour Members tend to have the mantra: what I cannot have, you shall not have. We on the Conservative Benches want everyone to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Access to home ownership has never been harder. Fewer and fewer people can afford to buy a home of their own, and 12,000 households in my county of Somerset are languishing on the waiting list unable to get a home at a decent rent. We have heard a lot about Mrs Thatcher, but since the sell-off of council houses began, 2.3 million were never replaced. The Conservatives broke that promise over and over again, so although our population has increased by five times that amount, we have had a massive loss of homes for social and council rent; several Conservative Governments never replaced them.

By taxing transactions, stamp duty land tax is unfair on buyers. It needs to be reformed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has said, as part of a full review of property taxes. The vast majority of first-time buyers would be completely unaffected by the Opposition’s proposals, because they already pay no stamp duty land tax. It seems clear that, by triggering a big increase in house prices, the policy would mostly benefit those who are selling homes at high prices, and probably only those right at the beginning of the chain.

More importantly, wiping out tax revenue without wider tax reform or any serious proposals for the resulting massive hole in public finances would be another Liz Truss Budget in the making. Perhaps she planted the magic money tree, but this autumn we are seeing the fruits of it in more mad Conservative tax proposals. It seems clear that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the Truss Budget’s rocketing of inflation and increasing of mortgage rates, which affected everyone in my constituency.

[Mr Snowden]

The interest rates on the bond market are now higher than they were after that mini-Budget. Constantly harking back to that, when we are in a worse position now than we were then, makes the point that the Lib Dems are on everybody’s and nobody’s side.

[Gideon Amos]

I understand why Conservative Members keep asking us to look forward not backwards: their own Government’s experience with the Truss Budget is one that they do not want to remember and would like to forget, but unfortunately its effects were long, far-reaching and serious for all of our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I would say that I hope the hon. Member in question is closer to this Budget, but having listened to some of his other utterances, perhaps most of us on the Conservative Benches would not hope for that. Never mind!

The main criticism we have heard from Government Members, which is a fair criticism, is that of cost. There has been some constructive criticism from Labour Members who have agreed that stamp duty is a bad tax, but have then said that cost is the problem. They should be a little bit self-aware about that, because one of the reasons we are in such a fiscally precarious place is that some of the decisions the Government made in their previous Budget have put us in something of a fiscal doom loop, which we do not seem to have any chance of escaping.

[Mr Snowden]

While we are on the subject of paying for things and ownership of land—trying to find the funds to abolish a tax and allow our citizens to purchase their own home—one obvious solution would be to not give away territory that we already own and pay £36 billion over the lifetime of the deal to do so. One way of paying for this policy that my hon. Friend might suggest to Labour Members is to avoid paying to give away our own land, taking money off our citizens who want to buy their own land.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Although we are at risk of picking apart the Budget in its entirety, I would suggest that giving away our sovereign land and paying for the privilege might not be a great thing to do at any time, but particularly in a fiscally constrained environment.

Despite having to have a reasonable answer on the question of cost, which I will get to later in my remarks, Conservative Members should not be shy when it comes to talking about some of the other positive fiscal benefits that abolishing stamp duty would yield. One area in which we Conservatives have not done as well as we could is that of making the positive, dynamic argument for some tax cuts, because every move in the housing market engages a raft of removers, decorators, window cleaners, gardeners, plumbers and electricians. Do those sound like the kind of people who could be described as “the rich”, as we have heard from Labour Members? These are real working people with decent jobs, generating income for the Exchequer through VAT, income tax and national insurance, and we should not be shy about saying that. If we are lucky, abolishing stamp duty might also lead to a reduction in welfare spending through job creation.

There are also gains that cannot be recorded in a spreadsheet. Those include families such as mine moving into homes that are the right size for them, and pensioners rightsizing—some people have used downsizing, but I think rightsizing is the better word—to be closer to their grandchildren, which might provide childcare support for young families. They also include economic and social mobility, such as taking a promotion in a new area. Those things might not show up on a Treasury balance sheet, but they are really important things for our society. Cutting stamp duty would generate extra revenue for the Treasury in myriad ways that we should be happy to talk about.

That said, as a credible Opposition, we still need to cost this policy. That is why, as we have heard already in this debate, the Conservative party has found £47 billion of savings, all while being able to honour our golden economic rule. That economic rule says that the majority of public sector spending reductions that we identify must go on deficit reduction.

As a policy, the abolition of stamp duty aligns with many of the principles that those of us on the Opposition Benches hold dear to our hearts. It rewards ambition, it unlocks free markets, and it lowers the tax burden on families. Labour will not make any difference on housing because it is just too conflicted. Fixing the housing market needs holistic solutions. We cannot talk about improving the housing market with the levels of migration that we currently have. We cannot talk about improving the housing market while overseeing record low house building numbers in London, as our developers are strangled in regulation. We need a holistic solution. We need to abolish stamp duty. We need to end mass migration. We need, I am afraid to say, to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants.

I look forward to seeing more ambition from the Opposition on reforming our planning system. That is part of a vision for my party, and I am proud to be a part of it. However, it is not a new vision. Home ownership and supply-side reforms have been at the centre of the Conservative vision throughout our storied history, whether that is Stanley Baldwin, Harold Macmillan or Mrs Thatcher. It is a moral mission to support young aspirant people through these important gateways of life. Buying your own home and starting a family—these are the building blocks of all our communities. Abolishing stamp duty in this costed way will give people the keys to their own futures and secure the future of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government back a third runway at Heathrow. We are a country that is open to global trade and investment—we have done three trade deals with countries around the world and have secured £120 billion of inward investment. Heathrow Airport Ltd and others have now put forward a bid to build the third runway, and have been very clear that they will be investing in the infrastructure to make that possible. I welcome investment into Britain, and I hope that parties all across the House will do the same.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

If the Chancellor is looking for some quick-win infrastructure projects that will unlock economic growth, I recommend taking a look at a passing loop on the South Fylde line, which would better connect trains to employment and education sites through more reliable services. It would also act as a boost for the tourism industry on the Fylde coast; people across Lancashire—maybe from other great towns such as Chorley—like to visit Lytham St Annes and the Fylde coast, and would be able to do so on half-hourly rail services. Will the Chancellor take a look at that fantastic opportunity to boost economic growth in Lancashire and the Fylde?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, and no one in this House would want to do anything to upset Mr Speaker. I am very happy to look at investment opportunities in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and right across Lancashire, including just up the coast in Blackpool, where we put in significant investment at the spending review earlier this year to build the housing and infrastructure our country desperately needs.

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I will also speak to amendment 1. I add my voice to the request for assurances from the Minister on the alignment of sustainable development with the UK’s net zero goals, and also on community benefits. I agree with him that we must not lay too narrow a scope on the Crown Estate and seek to limit its opportunity as a key revenue driver for the UK economy. Goodness knows, we need it after 14 years of Conservative failure.

I am really concerned, however, about the potential bypassing of deprived coastal communities in the revenue from the Crown Estate to the Treasury. It would be nice to get reassurance from the Treasury of the Government’s plans to ensure that coastal communities closest to many of these huge revenue opportunities will see some of the benefits of that growth.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you on this Committee, Ms Furniss. I would like to echo the final points—not some of the other points, obviously—of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth regarding reassurances from the Minister about the economic benefit that these offshore projects will create for local communities. I represent a coastal community with the beautiful Fylde coastline, and north of us is Blackpool and Fleetwood. The Crown Estate owns significant amounts of seabed off the coast of Fylde. There are a number of projects under way, including the Morgan and Morecambe wind farm, which will cable through Fylde constituency to get to the national grid.

These amendments reference the Environment Act 2021 and regional economic growth. Can the Minister give reassurances that when projects such as offshore wind go ahead—they could be further encouraged by these amendments—local communities will be taken into account regarding the economic benefit? At the minute, a lot of the projects end up being opposed by and very unpopular with local communities, because all they see is the environmental damage being done to their area, countryside and coastline, and there is no economic benefit left from residual cabling that runs through areas. Although I welcome some of what the amendments try to do, I seek assurances that, at the heart of this, we have the communities who are negatively impacted by these projects seeing benefit as well.

[James Wild]

Clause 3, the first of several clauses added on Report in the House of Lords, will amend section 1 of the 1961 Act to require the commissioners to review the impact of their activities on achieving sustainable development.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I rise to speak to amendment 9 and new clause 10.

Amendment 9, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would mean that in satisfying proposed new subsection (3A) of the 1961 Act, which states,

“The Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”,

the commissioners must assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. I very much understand the concerns reflected in the amendment, but protections against coastal erosion are not the responsibility of the Crown Estate, and therefore the amendment is not relevant to the Bill.

The UK has dedicated statutory bodies under each devolved Administration with responsibility for ensuring adequate protection against coastal erosion. The Crown Estate always collaborates and complies with the relevant statutory authority for any assessment of the impact of offshore activity on coastal erosion, and the potential for coastal erosion should be considered as part of marine licensing, which is considered by the relevant regulator, depending on the jurisdiction. However, the statutory responsibility falls on the relevant body in each devolved area.

The Crown Estate becomes involved in coastal defence only when the statutory bodies responsible for coastal erosion wish to construct defences. In such cases, the Crown Estate typically grants leases to those bodies for defence works.

Although the Crown Estate is not responsiblefor coastal erosion, the Government are committed to supporting coastal communities and are investing ausb record £2.65 billion over two years in building, maintaining and repairing our flood and coastal defences. Shoreline management plans are developed and owned by local councils and coastal protection authorities to provide long-term strategic plans that identify approaches to managing coastal erosion and flood risk at every stretch of the coastline. Shoreline management plans have recently been refreshed with updated action plans, following several years of collaborative work between the Environment Agency and coastal groups.

The Environment Agency has published the updated national coastal risk map for England, which is based on monitoring coastal data, the latest climate change evidence and technical input from coastal local authorities. There are also strong safeguards to manage the flood and coastal risk through the planning system. I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire feels able to withdraw her amendment.

I turn to new clause 10, which would require that in relation to any decisions made about marine spatial priorities, the Crown Estate must ensure the decisions are co-ordinated with the priorities of the Marine Management Organisation and must consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities.

I can confirm to the Committee that the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation already have well-established ways of working together to ensure effective collaboration for marine spatial planning and prioritisation. The Crown Estate’s collaboration with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant statutory bodies is governed by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which establishes the framework for marine planning and licensing in the UK, and requires the Crown Estate to have regard to marine policy documents such as marine plans in its decision making. It is also governed by the habitat regulations, which require the Crown Estate to conduct plan-level habitat regulation assessments for leasing or licensing activities.

Furthermore, the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation jointly agreed a statement of intent in 2020, which is reviewed periodically to provide a focus on priorities and opportunities for alignment, as well as longer-term ambitions. The statement of intent complements a memorandum of understanding agreed in February 2011, which sets out a framework to encourage co-operation and co-ordination between parties in relation to the sustainable development of the seabed and rights managed by the Crown Estate, based on active management, shared information and effective marine planning and management by both parties.

In addition to the Crown Estate’s relationship with the Marine Management Organisation, there are also various regulatory requirements on developers leasing areas of the seabed from the Crown Estate to engage with the Marine Management Organisation through a number of routes. Those include through marine licensing; developers must obtain marine licences from the Marine Management Organisation for activities that could impact on the marine environment. The process involves consultation with statutory bodies and adherence to marine plan policies. As part of a marine licence application, developers must also conduct environmental impact assessments for projects that could significantly affect the environment, which includes consultation with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant authorities to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. Developers are also encouraged to engage with local communities, statutory bodies and other stakeholders throughout the planning and development process to address concerns and ensure compliance with marine plans.

This new clause therefore duplicates existing regulatory requirements and practice. I hope the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Mr Snowden]

I feel sympathy with the contributions from both the Minister and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. There are some issues at the heart of what the amendment and new clause are trying to achieve, but whether they are within the scope of the responsibility of the Crown Estate is an equally valid point. New clause 9 talks about coastal erosion and, while that is an issue, there is also the issue of coastal damage caused by projects where the seabed in particular is licensed. Again, Morgan and Morecambe off the Fylde coast will lead to years of work trying to rebuild sand dunes that will be cabled and tunnelled through for a new cabling corridor. The dunes will be completely damaged due to activity coming in to connect to the national grid.

Furthermore, the new clause talks about consultation. This is where I really do have some sympathy with the Minister, because that is not the responsibility necessarily and primarily of the Crown Estate. The root cause of the issue is that there are already regulations in place for consultation to happen where licences are being issued. The consultation happens; people consult and then they just ignore local communities and industries. Nothing changes, and perfectly valid objections and alternative routes for cabling corridors coming in from the sea are just ignored—but that is a broader issue rather than specific to this point.

[Pippa Heylings]

I will not press either of these amendments to a Division, but I would like to call attention to the fact that, given the greater borrowing and investment powers, the existing frameworks and regulations under which the Crown Estate has been co-ordinating the Marine Management Organisation need to be considered. I think we can all recognise that the situation has changed hugely. Therefore, I urge the Government to consider how they will ensure that there is greater consultation on decisions around prioritisation of what happens where, that greater weight is given to that, and that more resources and powers are given to the MMO to ensure that that happens. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. In his remarks, the shadow Minister essentially set out a similar question, rephrased in a number of different ways, about the publication of the partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, and I would like to remind him of some of the points we discussed before lunch.

The Crown Estate is keen to ensure that details of the partnership are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and the Government agree that it is sensible to require the Crown Estate to include the relevant detail in its existing annual reports. I would also emphasise—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that this is less important than we do—that partnership agreements are highly commercially sensitive. It is therefore right that any agreement is not made public or laid before Parliament, as to do so would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the Crown Estate or GB Energy and risk the aims of the partnership, which are to speed up the process of delivering clean energy and investing in clean energy infrastructure.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The shadow Minister talked about the agreement being presented to the Public Accounts Committee in confidence. I am not sure how it would create commercial issues for GB Energy or the Crown Estate if the agreement was viewed in private by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and its members.

[James Murray]

We have considered the importance of making sure that the details of the partnership are publicly available. Because of the highly commercially sensitive nature of partnership agreements, the Government have set out that the way forward is to ensure that the commissioners include in their annual reports a summary of their activities, and of any effects or benefits resulting from their activities, under the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. We believe that that measure fulfils the aim of making sure that the information about the partnership is publicly available.

The work of GB Energy and the Crown Estate is very important for achieving some of the Government’s goals. They will work together to speed up the process of developing clean energy projects by co-ordinating planning, grid connections and leasing to de-risk projects for private developers to build. That will unlock private investment, speed up the deployment of clean energy infrastructure, boost energy independence, save costs for families, create jobs and tackle the climate crisis.

I hope that the Opposition would support some of those goals, although it was drawn to my attention that the shadow Minister campaigned against national grid infrastructure last year in his constituency. He teamed up with Liz Truss to do it; it was the shadow Minister and Liz Truss. Am I going to get sued now for having referenced that? I do not know whether the shadow Minister would like to express his regret at having campaigned against national grid infrastructure, which is obviously so important for the energy transition. Perhaps that is why this debate has touched a particular nerve on the Opposition Front Bench, but that is for him to say, not for me to speculate about.

What I do not have to speculate about, and what I can say with great certainty, is that the Great British Energy and Crown Estate partnership is very important for this Government, and the measures in clause 4 ensure that the relevant information is publicly available. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Salmon farms on the Crown Estate

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

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Restoring economic and political stability is important. When the markets observed the behaviour of the Conservative party in government, it is no wonder they did not want to invest in the UK, and that is why the market crashed, to the detriment of working people across the country. It is very clear that under this Labour Government, not only do we have stable leadership; we have a stable set of policies in our plan for change and fiscal responsibility as the bedrock for the Chancellor’s action. That is a country people can believe in, trust in and invest in, unlike the country that was left to us by the Conservative party.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher and the economy in a worse condition than they inherited, but I think this Labour Government are taking the record for doing that the fastest—within just six months, we see borrowing costs spiralling out of control, GDP growth tanking and the bosses of some of the biggest recruitment firms in the UK warning of job postings plummeting and that a recession is just around the corner. I look forward to seeing how the Chancellor spins this period of employment on her CV in the future. If the Government breach their own fiddled fiscal rules so ingloriously and so quickly, who on the Treasury Bench is going to update their CV and take responsibility?

[Darren Jones]

The fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and they will be met.

Finance Bill

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross]

We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland.

We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying:

“The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.”

According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On the impact that increased tax on the industry will have on jobs, was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was to hear the Liberal Democrats talking only about how much cash can be raised from an industry, without asking how many jobs would be affected across Scotland and the UK, or about the impact on the economy as a whole?

[Harriet Cross]

Absolutely; sometimes there is a complete disconnect in this place between how much we can tax and squeeze something dry and what that does to investment. These companies, especially the global ones, do not have to invest in the UK—they can invest across the world. They are choosing to invest here at the moment, and therefore we get jobs, opportunities and employment. That investment can go abroad, and if it does, it will take jobs with it, to the detriment of all of us, but particularly us in north-east Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The changes to the EPL, particularly those set out in clauses 15 and 17, will have a hugely damaging effect on jobs and the Scottish economy. This is also an inauspicious day for Scotland in this so-called United Kingdom as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund records a €1.7 trillion breakthrough, while Scotland’s oil wealth has been squandered by successive Westminster Governments. Norway gets financial security in perpetuity; Scotland gets Labour’s bedroom tax, cuts to winter fuel payments for our elderly and the highest energy prices in the G20—that is the Union dividend wrapped up and served on a plate right there. More than £400 billion has flowed from our waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back in the other direction. Rather than reverse the train, the Labour Government have, with this increase to the EPL, chosen to accelerate it.

The cumulative effect of clauses 15 to 18 will sound the death knell for Scotland’s hydrocarbon production in advance, crucially, of the transition—economically illiterate, fiscally incompetent and with industrial suicide as the result. A windfall tax is supposed to be a tax on extraordinary profits, yet the extraordinarily high global oil and gas prices that preceded the introduction of the tax have long since abated. Through these changes, the Labour party jeopardises investment in Scotland’s offshore energies and risks the future of our skilled workforce and our ability to hit net zero while employing those workers. Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase and extension of the EPL risks costing the economy £13 billion and putting 35,000 jobs at risk.

The analysis from OEUK also shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. It is increasingly apparent that the Government do not really understand how investment horizons work offshore. They are not on a month-to-month basis; they take years to work up. This loss of economic value impacts on not only the core sector, but domestic supply chain companies, many of whom exist in my constituency, which have an essential role to play in the just transition.

The Labour party promised that there would be no cliff edge, yet it has concocted one for the 35,000 workers whose jobs this EPL change puts at risk. Labour had claimed that these changes would keep the UK in line with Norway, but the regime after Labour’s changes cannot be compared to that of Norway, which allows companies a maximum £78 of relief per £100 expenditure —in the UK, this relief would be £46.25. After these past couple of weeks, I am given to wondering if those on the Treasury Front Bench can actually count.

Changes to the EPL will hinder the just transition. The Government argue that the reduction in the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66% will maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure following the rate increase, reflecting the fact that this relief will increase in value against a higher levy rate. However, the policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation. Rather than allowing more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has striven to ensure that there is absolutely no silver lining to this fiscal attack cloud on Scotland’s energy industry.

[Mr Snowden]

At the heart of this, when we have comparisons to Norway, is a sheer focus on trying to squeeze as much taxation out of the industry as possible, without a focus on how to become more competitive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we need for jobs and for energy security in the UK is to compare ourselves to the most competitive oil and gas economies in the world, and not those that squeeze and tax the most out of the industry and kill jobs?

[Dave Doogan]

Exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of jobs, and the Government are playing fast and loose with jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are playing Russian roulette. They do not seem to understand that when what they have got wrong comes home to roost, they cannot just say, “Sorry, we got that wrong.” When it is gone, it is gone—they cannot bring it back. This is 2024, not 1972. We are already in the closing chapter of the sector; it will not be coming back. This Government seem to completely misunderstand that.

The simple truth is that the UK state cannot meet net zero or create green growth if Labour’s policies to hack away at investment in both the domestic workforce and the sector are allowed to progress. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition into the bargain. With these changes to the EPL, Labour will be creating the worst of all worlds: it will starve industry of investment, sacrifice the jobs of those who can deliver net zero, threaten energy security, keep energy bills high and harm the economy of Scotland, while at the very same time failing to invest the money required to truly deliver against a green transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The Government have set a number of objectives that they wish to achieve over the next five years. Central to those objectives are growth, highly paid jobs, energy security, and increased investment. However, when I look at clauses 15 to 17, I ask myself, “Have the Government gone mad?” They are undermining the very objectives that they are seeking to achieve through their policy of taxation, a policy that I believe is driven more by green ideology and by prejudice against some high-earning companies than by any economic logic. The economic logic of these proposals, and indeed the predictions made by those who have fed in the data and the information about them, indicate that, at least in our major oil and energy industry, investment will go down, production will go down, and highly paid jobs will go down.

The hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) said that hers was the party that was interested in ordinary workers. As has already been pointed out, no Scottish Labour Members are taking part in the debate. I suggest that the 100,000 workers in Scotland who depend on the oil and gas industry feel abandoned today because there is no one here to defend them—although I have to say that if I were a Scottish Member I might not want to stick my head over the parapet, defend measures such as these, and then have to go back to my constituents to explain. I suspect that they will go through the Lobby and vote for those measures, but—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is opening her arms and saying that she is from Scotland. I look forward to hearing her speak later in the debate in defence of these measures, which will cost jobs.

We have heard that those jobs will be replaced by highly paid, skilled jobs in the renewables industry, but there is little evidence of that so far. Indeed, if we look at the sources of the materials and the providers of, for instance, wind turbines, we see that the skilled jobs are not in Britain. We are making ourselves dependent on countries such as China which have control of the earth metals and valuable metals that are required to provide the necessary equipment for the renewables industry.

[Mr Snowden]

The right hon. Member has touched on an important point. Meeting the Government’s 2030 target and creating the green jobs to which he has referred will require two technologies that have not yet been tried and tested at scale, carbon capture and battery storage. Why would we gamble such an important 100,000-job industry in favour of technologies that have not even been tried and tested at scale?

[Sammy Wilson]

It is not just that they have not been tried and tested. There is also an acceptance—indeed, it is the Government’s own stated position—that even with those technologies, we will be reliant on, and will need, oil and gas not until 2030 and not even until 2040, but beyond 2050. If we do not extract as much oil and gas from our own resources here in the United Kingdom, where will we get it from? We will get it from abroad, which brings us to the issue of energy security.

The places where energy is likely to be produced will not be stable countries, countries that will always be favourable towards us, or countries that are ruled by rational rulers. It will come from countries where rulers are irrational, and take political decisions about who they do or do not trade with on a whim. The idea that we will rely on fossil fuels until well beyond 2050 but not produce them ourselves—in fact, we are going to discourage companies from producing them in the United Kingdom, even though we know that we have the resources—and somehow or other we will still guarantee security of supply, and security of energy, for our constituents is just madness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I would like to echo the arguments made by the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) . I rise to speak to whether clause 18 and schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill. I argue that both should be omitted, to remove the proposed new tax relief for carbon capture and storage installations as currently drafted. The tax regime for oil and gas is riddled with reliefs, exemptions and loopholes. The windfall tax introduced by the last Government was widely reported, but was slightly less reported was the increased tax relief that went along with it, which allowed oil and gas companies to deduct 91% of their capital investment costs from their tax bill.

We are now many years into an escalating climate crisis, and one that the oil companies have known they were causing since at least 1977. There is absolutely no excuse for public subsidies that incentivise fossil fuel companies to expand their operations. So while I welcome the increase in the rate of the energy profits levy and the reduction of the investment allowance, I want to highlight the fact that, because of other reliefs that still exist, North sea oil and gas companies will still be able to offset 84% of capital expenditure against tax in relation to their expansion of operations.

[Mr Snowden]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that capital reliefs are about attracting investment that creates jobs and secures energy security for this country? If UK countries are to make such investments, we have to be competitive in the global market. If we do not make those investments, what does he think will happen to the industry and the 100,000 jobs that go with it?

VAT: Independent Schools

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

From listening to contributions made by Members from across the House, it is clear that these measures represent ideology over reality. The policy is economically illiterate, new consequences and implications are being discovered by the minute, and it will make worse every problem that Government Members say they perceive in the state system. They keep saying that they need to find more money to fill the black holes that they have magically found, yet the headlines show that they keep finding billions for pet projects every week.

I was recently asked to go to a public meeting with over 100 concerned parents in my constituency. I listened to their stories and heard about their circumstances. From that evening alone, before we even got to this debate, it was clear that this policy was an ill-conceived disaster waiting to happen.

Some 1,800 children in Fylde attend independent schools, hundreds of whom receive provision for SEND. Schools, including AKS Lytham and Kirkham Grammar, as well as smaller, specialist independent schools, are major employers and have been at the heart of local communities for generations. The parents of the children at those schools are often not rich. They scrimp and scrape, take on extra jobs, miss holidays and do not buy new cars because they have made personal decisions about their children’s education. Every parent should have that right and should not face a tax on the education of their children. The idea that such parents are all just rich and can take the hit, or that the schools spend 20% of their income on embossed stationery and swimming pools, is simply nonsense.

This policy is fighting the class wars of the past with the future of the children of today. Lancashire county council has already said it cannot get close to meeting the forecast increase in places that will be needed, even before we get to the most acute SEND provision. This tax on education will not just hit independent schools, some of which are already facing closure; it will hurt the state sector more—I say this as someone who was proudly educated at a state school. The policy is clearly the politics of envy done badly—so much for the supposed “grown-ups” being back in charge.