Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

It is of course welcome that more land is to be brought under the scope of agricultural property relief, but given the introduction of the £1 million cap on agricultural property, is it not somewhat redundant? I know the Government use different numbers, but the industry believes that the majority of farms will be over that threshold anyway, so bringing more land within the scope of APR does not actually make much difference to the bill they will have to pay at the end.

[James Murray]

As the hon. Lady knows, because we have debated this many times, the data that we have published, based on His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data, shows that the large majority of small farms will not be affected. I am sure she knows well the statistics on the 530 farms affected by the reforms to APR and business property relief in ’26-27, because she will have seen them in the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee and we have discussed them many times in this place.

Clause 61 relates specifically to land managed under certain environmental agreements, and was a measure proposed by the last Government. If the hon. Lady allows me to continue explaining why the clause is important, she might feel able to support it, given the benefits it will bring. The clause was welcomed by the sector, and the Government agree with the approach. I can confirm that there have been no changes to the design outlined by the previous Government in March 2024, which is why I hope to get the Opposition’s support for the clause.

As a result of the changes made by clause 61, from 6 April 2025 APR will be available for land managed under an environmental agreement with or on behalf of the UK Government, devolved Governments, public bodies, local authorities or approved responsible bodies. This includes but is not limited to the environmental land management schemes in England and equivalent schemes elsewhere in the UK, as well as any agreement that was live on or after 6 March 2024.

The Government are fully committed to increasing the uptake of environmental land management schemes in England, and we are providing the largest ever budget of £1.8 billion for this in 2025-26. The changes made by clause 61 will ensure that the tax system is not a barrier to uptake, thereby supporting farmers and land managers to deliver, alongside food production, significant and important outcomes for the climate and environment. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As I was saying, the clause also increases the relative value of small producer relief for both draught and non-draught products, and clause 64 ends the alcohol duty stamps scheme. To reassure Members, in consideration of what position to take at the autumn Budget, I had meetings and officials had further meetings with representatives from the wine, beer, spirits and cider industries, as well as with public health people, to understand the full range of opinions and how we could carefully calibrate our policy response.

[Harriet Cross]

The Scotch Whisky Association is not on the list of people the Minister met. Can he confirm whether he did meet the association?

[James Murray]

The association is included under “spirits”.

As we know, alcohol duty is frozen until 1 February. The OBR’s baseline, reflected in its forecast, is that alcohol duty will be uprated by RPI inflation each year. The Government have decided to maintain the value of alcohol duty for non-draught products by uprating it from 1 February. At the same time we are recognising the social and economic importance of pubs, as well as the fact that they promote more responsible drinking, by cutting duty for draught products, which account for the majority of alcohol sold in pubs.

A progressive strength-based duty system was introduced on 1 August 2023 by the previous Government following the alcohol duty review. The reforms introduced two new reliefs: a draught relief to reduce the duty burden on draught products sold in on-trade venues, and small producer relief that replaced the previous small brewers relief. The clause increases the generosity of both reliefs.

The alcohol duty stamps scheme is an anti-fraud measure applied to larger containers of high-strength alcoholic products, typically spirits. It requires the mandatory stamping of certain retail containers with a duty stamp. In 2022, HMRC was commissioned to review the effectiveness of the scheme. It found that it is outdated, susceptible to being undermined and now plays a diminished compliance role, and concluded that the cost and administrative burdens imposed on the spirits industry could no longer be justified. The previous Government announced the end of the scheme at spring Budget 2024. That is a decision that this Government will implement from 1 May 2025. That date was chosen after consultation with businesses, which requested sufficient time to prepare.

Clause 63 makes four changes. First, it increases the rates of alcohol duty for non-draught products to reflect RPI inflation. Secondly, it reduces the rates of alcohol duty on draught products by 1.7%. Thirdly, it amends the tables in schedule 9 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 that are used by small producers to calculate their duty discount under small producer relief. This increases the value of small producer relief for both draught and non-draught products in relation to the main rates for these products.

In cash terms, the current cash discount given to small producers for draught products is maintained, while the discount provided to small producers for non-draught products is increased. Small producer relief provides the same relative discount, irrespective of whether a product also qualifies for draught relief. As a consequence of the RPI increase in non-draught rates, it increases the simplified rates in schedule 2 to the Travellers’ Allowances Order 1994, which is used for calculating duty on alcoholic products brought into Great Britain.

Some hon. Members raised questions about the impact of these measures on pubs and the hospitality industry. To support the hospitality industry, particularly recognising the role that pubs play in local communities, the Government have announced a reduction in the alcohol duty rates paid on draught products. This reduces businesses’ total duty bill by up to £100 million a year and increases the duty differential between draught and non-draught products from 9.2% to 13.9% for qualifying beer and cider.

As we have mentioned a couple of times in this debate, the reduction to draught relief rates will also result in the average alcoholic strength pint at 4.58% ABV paying 1% less in duty. Draught relief provides a reduced rate of duty on draught products below 8.5% ABV packaged in containers of at least 20 litres designed to connect to a qualifying system for dispensing drinks.

Clause 64 ends the alcohol duty stamps scheme from 1 May this year, removing the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 and the secondary legislation in the Duty Stamps Regulations 2006. It also makes consequential changes and removes references to the scheme where they appear elsewhere in legislation.

Amendment 66 would freeze alcohol duty for alcoholic products above 22% ABV. That is contrary to the Chancellor’s decision at the autumn Budget to increase those duty rates to reflect inflation, and would cost the Exchequer £150 million a year.

Specifically in relation to the Scotch whisky industry, I would like to set out that the overall alcohol package balances commercial pressures on the alcohol industry with the need to raise revenue for our vital public services and reduce alcohol-related harms. Consumers and brewers in Scotland will benefit in line with the rest of the UK, with consumption and production patterns roughly equal nationwide. Of course, 90% of Scotch whisky is exported, which means it pays no duty. The Scotch Whisky Association’s own figures show the health of the industry. The Budget offers support to the Scotch whisky industry by removing the alcohol duty stamps scheme, which we have just considered, and through investment in the spirit drinks verification scheme by reducing fees for geographical verification.

New clauses 2 and 4, which were also tabled by Opposition Members, would require the Chancellor to make additional statements about the impact of the alcohol duty measures. The Government do not believe further statements to be necessary. As usual, a tax information and impact note was published at the autumn Budget, outlining the anticipated impacts of the measures on alcohol producers and the hospitality sector. Alcohol duty, like other taxes, will be reviewed in future Budgets.

New clause 2 also requires a review of the impact on trade, but UK alcohol duty is, of course, not charged on exports. Some hon. Members raised the impact of the changes to business rates on the hospitality sector in Scotland, but business rates are, of course, devolved. The Scottish Government are accountable to the Scottish Parliament on devolved areas.

Hon. Members also raised questions around the wine easement and why it had not been extended or made permanent. I remind them that the wine easement was intended as a transitional arrangement to give the wine industry time to adapt to the strength-based duty calculation for wine. The revised alcohol duty system simplified and reduced differences between categories of alcohol. Making the wine easement permanent would introduce a new differential into the system and add to the complexity of that system. It would further lead to a duty regime in which stronger ABV wines pay less in proportion to their alcohol content than lower ABV wines. Making the wine easement permanent would, therefore, undermine the simplification and public health objectives of the revised alcohol duty system.

In conclusion, the changes to the alcohol duty balance public health objectives, fiscal pressures, cost of living pressures and the economic and social importance of pubs, while also supporting small producers by increasing the generosity of small producer relief. Furthermore, the end of the alcohol duty stamps scheme will simplify procedures for approximately 3,500 registered alcohol importers and producers, reducing overall costs on the spirits industry by an estimated £7 million a year. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee, and urge it to reject amendment 66 and new clauses 2 and 4.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray]

Clauses 5 and 6 make changes to ensure long-term certainty on company car tax by setting the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30. The increases in the appropriate percentages will help to ensure that the tax system contributes to supporting the sustainability of the public finances. The effect of the clauses is to gradually narrow the differential between zero emission and electric vehicles and their petrol and diesel counterparts, while ensuring that significant incentives to support the take-up of EVs remain in place. The provisions also increase rates for hybrid vehicles.

Company car tax applies when a company car is made available to an employee or their family member for private use. Company car tax rates were confirmed by the previous Government up until 2027-28. In the 2024 autumn Budget, the Government set out the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30, to provide certainty.

The Government recognise that the company car tax regime continues to play an important role in the EV transition by supporting the take-up of EVs and their entry into the second-hand car market. Although it is important to maintain strong incentives to encourage the take-up of EVs, the Government need to balance that against the responsible management of the public finances by gradually withdrawing them over time, as EVs become more normalised. That is why we have committed to raising the company car tax rates—or appropriate percentages—for EVs, hybrids, and petrol and diesel vehicles in 2028-29 and 2029-30, gradually narrowing the differential between EVs and other vehicle types, and bringing the treatment of hybrids closer to that of petrol and diesel cars.

The changes made by clauses 5 and 6 will set the company car tax appropriate percentages for the tax years 2028-29 and 2029-30. Appropriate percentages for EVs will rise by two percentage points per year, rising to 9% by 2029-30. Meanwhile, the appropriate percentages for cars with emissions of 51 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre or over will rise by one percentage point per annum. By 2029-30, the appropriate percentages for petrol and diesel cars will rise to between 20% and 39%, depending on the car’s specific emissions. Together, the measures will gradually narrow the gap between EVs and their petrol and diesel counterparts, while maintaining a generous incentive for EVs.

On the changes to the hybrid appropriate percentages, I draw the Committee’s attention to recent research from the European Commission that has shown that the real-world emissions of hybrid vehicles are in fact three and a half times higher than previously thought. Consequently, the Government have announced that they will align the treatment of hybrids more closely with that of petrol and diesel cars.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

On aligning hybrid cars more closely with petrol and diesel cars, what assessment has been made of the impact on the hybrid car market and the take-up of hybrid cars, if we are ultimately looking to move away from petrol and diesel in the long term?

[James Murray]

Over the coming years we need to make the transition to electric vehicles. Hybrid cars obviously play an important part in the car market and car manufacturing in the UK. The clauses are about a plan over the next five years or so regarding what will happen to the appropriate percentages. This is not an overnight change. Actually, one of the important principles of our setting out the appropriate percentages now for some years in advance is to give car manufacturers and everyone interested in the car industry certainty about what will happen. That is why, as I have been setting out, the appropriate percentages for EVs will rise, thereby narrowing the gap between them and petrol and diesel vehicles, but there will still be a generous incentive to help to shift people towards purchasing EVs.

Hybrid vehicles obviously fit within the general scheme of appropriate percentages. However, as I was setting out, European Commission research shows that emissions from hybrid vehicles are in fact three and a half times higher than previously thought, so in setting the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30, we have decided to reflect that fact in the appropriate percentages that we are legislating for. That means all cars with emissions between 1 gram and 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre—those that largely fall in the hybrid category—will see their appropriate percentages rise to 18% in 2028-29 and to 19% in 2029-30. As I outlined to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, by setting out the rates until 2029-30 we will give the industry and consumers certainty about the future rates.

The company car tax system offers generous incentives to encourage EV take-up and makes an important contribution to the EV transition. The Government, however, must balance incentives against responsible management of the public finances. We are announcing the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30 to start to narrow the differentials between EVs, hybrids, and petrol and diesel vehicles. I therefore commend clauses 5 and 6 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I listened to the shadow Minister’s comments, and he must have a different definition of “overnight” from me. Legislating now for changes that will come in in 2028 does not feel like overnight. Some Budget changes come in on the day of the Budget—had he called one of those overnight, I might have had some sympathy with the description, but not for legislating now for changes that will come in in 2028, toward the end of this decade. Part of the point of legislating now for changes that will happen some years down the line is precisely to give that signal to consumers and manufacturers, to ensure that the consumers are aware of what is to happen and manufacturers know what is planned.

[Harriet Cross]

People might be buying cars now—that is, overnight—that they still have in ’28-29, when the changes come in. They will be making decisions now that will be caught up in future changes.

[James Murray]

The hon. Lady makes a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, which is that the changes will come in further down the line, but they are critical of the fact that we are pre-announcing the changes now so that we give greater certainty and stability. I cannot understand that criticism, because I thought that giving as much forecasting, certainty and stability as possible would be welcomed by the industry and consumers. People expect taxes to change over time, and the greater the forecasting and advance notice they have, the better for consumers and for manufacturers. Without making this too political, I know that the Opposition were not a great fan of certainty and stability when they were in office, but we are rather different. That is why we are setting out the changes now.

The shadow Minister referred to the DFT consultation, and of course, he is right that I would not pre-empt its outcome. In combination, our giving information about what the appropriate percentages will be towards the end of the decade, thereby providing certainty and stability, will help us to work closely with other Departments to ensure that consumers are well informed about what is likely to happen towards the end of the decade and manufacturers have the certainty and stability that were so desperately lacking under the previous Administration.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I was expecting a series of amendments from the Opposition; I was not expecting the shadow Minister to quote back at me an amendment I tabled several years ago. It is a new, although interesting, approach to opposition to rely on what I tabled in opposition and quote that back at me. I am sure it was an excellent amendment, although I cannot remember its exact detail.

On the hon. Gentleman’s questions about corporation tax rates, I am sure he will remember from his time in the Treasury that it is standard practice to legislate the charge to corporation tax on an annual basis, even when the rates remain unchanged. That is a long-standing convention that applies to income tax as well. However, because we were so determined to give businesses stability and certainty, we published the corporate tax road map alongside the Budget. In that road map, we made clear our commitment to maintaining the main rate—or, indeed, to capping it—at 25% for the duration of the Parliament.

The small profits rate and marginal relief will also be maintained at their current rates and thresholds. Full expensing and the annual investment allowance are also guaranteed for this Parliament. When it comes to corporation tax, full expensing and the annual investment allowance, the various Finance Bills in this Parliament will be quite a different experience compared with those in the previous Parliament.

[Harriet Cross]

Although we of course welcome a road map as a way to give businesses confidence on corporation tax, we should not get mixed up in the smoke and mirrors of what business taxes are. Because of the Budget, businesses now face many taxes and the uncertainty that they bring. Will we also see road maps for things such as the national insurance rises, the increase in business rates, minimum wage increases and measures in the Employment Rights Bill, all of which have an impact on business?

[James Murray]

The hon. Lady mentions business rates. I do not know whether she has read the discussion paper “Transforming Business Rates”.

[Harriet Cross]

indicated assent.

[James Murray]

I am glad the hon. Lady has read it, because it sets out our approach to business rates in the coming year, from April 2026, and what we want to do over this Parliament. Businesses want stability and certainty from Government; they recognise that, over a five-year period, things will happen that cannot be predicted on day one, but they want that certainty and predictability. That is why, in the corporate tax road map, we give certainty on capping the main rate and on the small profits rate, marginal relief, full expensing and the annual investment allowance—everything on which we can give full certainty. However, where there are areas that we seek to explore or consult on, we are also clear about that. We developed that approach in partnership with business to make sure that we give as much certainty up front as we can, while also signposting those areas that we want to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The clause and the schedule abolish the furnished holiday lettings tax regime from April 2025, removing the tax advantages that landlords who offer short-term holiday lets have over those who provide standard residential properties. Furnished holiday let owners benefit from a more generous tax regime than landlords of other property types, such as standard residential properties. The advantages of that tax regime include capital gains tax reliefs: FHLs can qualify for gains to be charged at 10%, unlike buy-to-let properties and second homes. FHLs also benefit from unrestricted income tax relief on their mortgage interest, rather than the 20% restriction on relief for standard lettings, and from capital allowance on furniture and furnishings. FHL profits are also counted as earned income for pension purposes.

The previous Government announced at the spring Budget 2024 that they would abolish the FHL tax regime to level the playing field with landlords of standard residential properties. We are now legislating for that measure and abolishing the FHL tax regime from April 2025, which will raise around £190 million a year by 2029-30 and thereby support the vital public services we all rely on. The changes made by clause 25 and schedule 5 mean that FHL landlords will be treated the same as other residential landlords for the purposes of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax.

[Harriet Cross]

Does the Minister recognise the difference between properties with a use clause compelling them to be used for holiday let accommodation and houses that do not, and that can therefore be used as residential properties? Those two things do not necessarily line up in terms of what the owner can use the property for.

[James Murray]

If I understand the hon. Member’s question correctly, it might relate to clauses in the lease of the property, but I am not quite sure what her point was. I will come back to this if I have misunderstood her question, but clause 5 relates specifically to the tax treatment of these properties. It is about how FHLs, which can still operate in the same way as they have previously in terms of lettings, will be treated by the tax system to bring them in line with standard residential property tax treatment. This is about equalising the tax treatment of FHL landlords and standard landlords, rather than seeking broader changes, which may be what she was alluding to, but I am happy to return to it later in the debate if I have misunderstood her question.

This measure does not penalise the provision of FHLs; it simply brings their tax treatment more in line with long-term lets. It does that to remove the tax advantages that FHL landlords have received over other property businesses in four key areas. First, finance cost relief will apply in the same way as for long-term lettings, with income tax relief on their mortgage interest restricted to the basic rate. Secondly, it will remove the capital allowances rule for new expenditure and allow replacement of domestic items relief. Thirdly, it will withdraw access to reliefs from taxes on chargeable gains for trading business assets. Fourthly, FHL income will no longer count as earned income for pension purposes. After repeal, former FHL properties will form part of a person’s UK or overseas property business and be subject to the same rules as non-furnished holiday let property businesses.

However, the Bill does not equalise tax treatment entirely. Holiday lets, whether they qualify as FHLs or not, are subject to VAT, whereas longer-term, private rented sector accommodation is not. Withdrawal of finance cost relief will mainly affect higher rate and additional rate taxpayers, with basic rate payers largely unaffected. The Government have also introduced transitional arrangements. FHL properties will become part of a person’s overall property business and past FHL losses can be relieved against profits of that business in future years. Existing capital allowance claims can be continued, but new capital expenditure will be dealt with under the rules for standard residential let properties. The legislation also confirms that where a business has ceased prior to April 2025, business asset disposal relief may continue to apply to a disposal that occurs within the normal three-year period following cessation, which is in line with current rules.

Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The Government are committed to delivering the reforms announced in the Budget. We have carefully considered their impact, and designed the policy to provide generous exemptions from inheritance tax for small family farms and businesses, while ensuring that we balance the public finances as fairly as possible.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

In the light of the uncertainty in the OBR’s report; the fact that the policy will hit elderly farmers the hardest and put food security at risk; and the fact that rural communities will suffer the most, given the impact on tenants and young farmers, and the wider agricultural sector, does the Minister really still believe in this policy?

[James Murray]

The OBR’s allusion yesterday to a degree of uncertainty is exactly the same as what it said at the time of the Budget. The costing is exactly the same as what it published at the time of the Budget. Yesterday, the OBR published more information about how the costing was arrived at, but the costing itself, the degree of uncertainty and the calculations remain exactly the same as at the time of the Budget.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government’s clean energy mission will mean that we are less reliant on foreign dictators for our basic energy needs. That is why we are investing in carbon capture and storage and floating offshore wind, and it is why we are getting rid of the previous Government’s absurd ban on onshore wind.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The Chancellor referred in her statement to safeguarding national security, which I welcome, but this must include energy security. Yet her changes to the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and not permitting new licences at a time when we are still reliant on oil and gas, not only undermines our energy security but dwarfs the £600 million that she has brought back from China with the £12 billion of tax revenues that will be lost from the sector. Why, rather than supporting our energy security, is the Chancellor turning her back on the sector, turning her back on these tax revenues and risking selling our energy security to China?

[Rachel Reeves]

If the hon. Lady has a brief look at the documents from the Office for Budget Responsibility, she will see that the changes to the energy profits levy—taking the tax rate up from 75% to 78%, the same rate as in Norway—raises money; it does not lose money.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The expert valuers who do this for a living have come out with different numbers, but they are all violently different from the Government’s assumptions. Even on the basis of the Government’s own figures, if I take Beverley and Holderness—as a rural constituency—it would be a farm a year. And of course, everyone is affected. They are all having to spend and bring advisers into the room. They are sitting there, as a small business that might be making less than £25,000 a year, and having to pay £1,000 an hour to get the expertise in the room to advise them on something that, sure, depending on the longevity of family members, may not have an impact for 15, 20 or—hopefully—30 years, but none the less they are spending that money now because of the uncertainty of this policy, which is very ill advised.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is so important. Just this morning, I was at the meeting on food security, speaking to poultry farmers there, and they said that they are already taking decisions not to invest in new buildings, directly because they are now thinking of how they need to save for an APR bill. Of course, that has a knock-on effect on other businesses that will be the suppliers, and therefore we come into the BPR argument as well. Does he share my concerns that, if farmers cannot invest in their holdings, they will not be as profitable in future? It is a huge cycle—a self-fulfilling prophecy that will mean that more farms will be impacted down the line.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. I say to the Minister that rather than looking at the issue through a fairness lens or an “attack wealth” lens, it must be in terms of incentives. Incentives are what drives behaviour, and behaviour is what drives wealth creation and security. If we come at it with some sort of A-level politics student’s approach, rather than one grounded in human behaviour and incentive, and get it wrong, we will see reduced investment from farm to farm and business to business.

If someone is not buying that new piece of planting machinery, they will not be investing in the training of their staff or they will not take on that extra employee who would have been brought on, because to justify expenditure they needed to invest in them, pay them more, and bring on more staff. All of that goes into reverse. I hope that as they come face to face with the realities of being responsible for the economy, Ministers will take that onboard and start to have a different philosophical approach in the way they do policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I have only a few moments, so I will make progress.

The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that she would prioritise that tax break within the public finances, but we do not believe it is fair or sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of the wealthiest claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for those reasons that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. We are doing so in a way that maintains a significant tax relief for estates, including for small farms and businesses, while repairing the public finances fairly.

Let me be clear that individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. On top of that, as we know, there will be a 50% relief, which means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Importantly, those reliefs sit on top of the existing spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands. Depending on individual circumstances, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax.

[Harriet Cross]

At the Oxford farming conference, the Secretary of State suggested that farms should diversify to be more profitable, but diversification has become a lot less incentivised because that all gets wrapped up into the BPR, as well as the APR. Does that not completely negate the Secretary of State’s argument for diversification if it will all be taken away in tax?

[James Murray]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important point about diversification, but whatever category the assets fall into, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax; that applies across agricultural and business property relief. The point I was making is that the agricultural and business property relief sit on top of the existing transfers and nil-rate bands, so when considering individual circumstances, we must look at the details of the situation that an individual or couple face.

I have a minute left, so I will be brief. Some hon. Members questioned the statistics about how many estates will be affected. We are very clear—we have published the data, and the Chancellor has written to the Treasury Committee about it—that up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those claiming business property relief too, will be affected by these reforms to some degree. That means that about three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those also claiming business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of these changes in the year they are introduced. All estates making claims through these reliefs will continue to receive generous support at a total cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been clear that it does not expect this measure to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for securing this debate.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

That is exactly why our fiscal rules are non-negotiable. While the Conservatives borrowed to pay the bills every month because they did not have enough money to pay for all their promises, this Government are investing in the future of our country, whether through reforming public services or investing in infrastructure and opportunities for growth. That is exactly the right approach to the economy; it is what our fiscal rules demand, and what we will be held to.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Next has said that it will increase prices by 1%, directly because of the increases to national insurance contributions, and has warned of slowing growth. With business confidence plummeting, gilts at a 26-year high and growth stagnating, do the Government still maintain that they have an iron grip on public finances, or will they admit that their Budget has done exactly what the Conservatives warned: increase costs, increase prices and reduce growth?

[Darren Jones]

The question was whether the Government have an iron grip on public finances; the answer is yes.

Finance Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

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

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

At the Budget in October, the Chancellor set out the decisions that we are taking to restore economic stability, put the public finances on a firm footing, and embed fiscal responsibility in the work of Government. Having wiped the slate clean of the mess we inherited, our Government can now focus on boosting the public and private investment that is essential for sustainable long-term growth. It is through sustainable economic growth across the UK that we will create wealth and provide security, making people across the country better off.

That goal of raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pocket is at the heart of the Government’s plan for change that the Prime Minister set out last week. That plan also set out the Government’s commitment to securing home-grown energy, and to protecting bill payers by putting us on track to secure at least 95% clean power by 2030. Making the transition to home-grown energy has required us to take immediate action to unblock investment, including deciding to reverse the de facto ban on onshore wind. The Government have their part to play, alongside the private sector, in making sure that investment happens on the scale and at the pace that we need. That is why the clauses that we are debating are so important—they are a key mechanism for raising the funding that is needed for that investment to be delivered.

We are taking a responsible approach that recognises the role of businesses and their employees in the energy industries of today and tomorrow. Since we formed a Government, my colleagues and I have been working closely with the sector affected by the energy profits levy to make sure that the transition is managed in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries. Our approach recognises that oil and gas will have a role to play in the energy mix for many years to come, during the transition, and it balances that with ensuring that oil and gas help to raise the revenue that we need to drive investment towards the energy transition. Our legislation delivers that approach, and I welcome the chance to set out the details of how it does so.

The clauses that we are debating concern the energy profits levy, a temporary additional tax on profits from oil and gas exploration and production in the UK and on the UK continental shelf. The levy was introduced by the previous Government in response to the extraordinary profits being made by oil and gas companies—and, it is fair to say, in response to substantial political pressure from Labour Members.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?

[James Murray]

I believe that it is fair that the oil and gas industry makes a reasonable contribution to the energy transition. We need to ensure that during the transition from oil and gas, which will play a key role in our energy mix for years to come, the industry contributes to the new, clean energy of the future. The way to have a responsible, managed transition is to work with the industry and make sure that it makes a fair contribution, but to not shy away from making that transition at the scale and pace needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

At the heart of the debate is a stark injustice, understood by every man, woman and child on the streets of Great Britain. In the last few years, oil and gas giants have made eye-watering profits—in many cases, they are profits that they did not expect to make—and they have made them off the back of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues that caused energy prices to soar. At the same time, people have seen their living standards drop and their energy prices soar. In too many cases, people have had to choose between heating and eating.

We Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021, but it was not until May 2022 that the previous Government eventually introduced the energy profits levy. It was half-hearted and woefully late. If it had been brought in when we had called for it, there would have been additional revenue to reduce people’s energy bills and launch an emergency home insulation scheme, reducing energy consumption, which would have been good for the climate, and reducing people’s bills, which would have been good for their pockets.

The previous Government effectively let oil and gas giants off the hook, by initially setting the energy price levy at just 25% and putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. That allowed the oil and gas giants to get away with vast sums at taxpayers’ expense, with the excuse of investments that they would have made anyway. In essence, the Conservatives gave them tax relief on polluting activity when they should have been doing everything to raise funds to reduce people’s bills and urgently insulate homes.

Thanks to the investment allowance—the big loophole—in 2022, Shell admitted that it had paid zero windfall tax despite making the largest global profit in its 115-year history: a profit of £31 billion. As some colleagues in the Committee have referred to, energy prices have come down since those record levels of 2022, but the oil and gas producers have still seen huge profits. In 2023, Shell saw its profit come down from £31 billion, but it still made £22.3 billion.

[Harriet Cross]

How much of that profit was made in the UK versus globally?

[Daisy Cooper]

To be honest, I do not know what the distinction is between global profits and UK profits. The point is that the levy is put on UK profits made out of UK operations. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that when her constituents cannot afford to put their heating on, she should not miss the opportunity to raise taxes from the big oil and gas companies.

As I said, Shell made a profit of £22.3 billion in 2023, and BP saw profit of £11 billion, its second highest in a decade. I hope the Committee agrees that where those profits are made on UK operations, they should pay their fair share. We are glad that the current Government have listened to calls from Liberal Democrats and others and finally scrapped the unfair investment allowance loophole, but we would like the Minister to give the Committee some clarity on how much money will be raised, particularly through the abolition of the carve-out. By extension, we would be able to see how much money could have been raised under the previous Government but was gifted to the large gas giants. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but their constituents are choosing between heating and eating. People should know just how much money could have been raised and how much will now be raised through this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

Our constituents understand the stark injustice that the amendment will address. I hope the Minister will accept it, be transparent and show just how much money it will raise to help put public services back on their feet.

[Harriet Cross]

I will speak to clauses 15 to 18 briefly, but mainly to new clause 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). It would require the Chancellor to publish within three months a review of the expected changes introduced by the Bill on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand and the economy. It is inherently sensible, and considers the importance of the oil and gas sector to regional and national employment and economic growth in the UK.

On the need to review the impact on employment, 82% of direct jobs in the oil and gas sector are located in Scotland. My Gordon and Buchan constituency is at the heart of that. New clause 3 would review the impact of the changes to employment across the country, as it is not just direct jobs that are on the line but supply chain and other indirect jobs. Of those, 90,000 are in Scotland and 200,00 are across the UK.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?

[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.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we are in a transition period, which we need in order to get to net zero? Of course, we need to protect jobs, but the transition to net zero is essential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the mobility of investment in the oil and gas industry. Is it not ironic that, since we will need oil and gas, if we tax companies on production in the United Kingdom, they will simply produce elsewhere, other Governments will get the revenue from the tax on that production and we will pay more for imports?

[Harriet Cross]

Exactly. There must be a balance between production and demand—I will come to demand later. There is no point reducing our domestic production while our demand stays the same, because we will only fill the gap with oil and gas from abroad, which is produced with a higher carbon intensity in poorer working environments, where overseas jobs and investment will take precedence over investment at home. It makes no sense that while we are using oil and gas—the Minister himself confirmed that we will be for a while—we do not prioritise taking it from our own North sea domestic basins.

New clause 3 also asks for a review on capital expenditure and investment in the UK. In Scotland alone, oil and gas contributed £19 billion of gross standard volume. In the UK, it contributed £27 billion. A 2022 report by Experian showed that for every £1 million of investment by the oil and gas industry, 14 jobs and £2.1 million of GVA are added. This industry is blatantly a net benefit to the UK and the Exchequer, and one in which we should encourage investment and capital expenditure, not an environment where the returns do not justify the risk of investment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the OBR’s own figures show that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, and therefore production of oil by 6.3% and gas by 9.2%, because of these changes. We must ask, can the UK afford this? Maybe those were the parameters that the Exchequer and the Treasury are looking for, if they see them as allowable. But if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact on the economy and jobs across the UK?

The OEUK has put the projected drop in production down to a rapid decline due to underinvestment over the decade. Under new clause 3, we can assess the impact of the changes to the EPL and head this off to begin with because, as I said, it is important that while we have demand, we have production. It has been confirmed that we will need oil and gas in the UK for years to come, but through the changes to the EPL in the Bill, in particular clauses 15 and 16, which increase the EPL by 3% and remove the investment allowances, the Government are choosing to make our homegrown domestic energy sector so uncompetitive that current investment falls away and future investment is no longer on the cards.

We cannot afford to lose investment because, as I said, it will drive the transition. It is so important that it is protected now, to help us bring the transition forward quickly and efficiently into the future. Clauses 15 to 18 were introduced without adequate consultation on the impact assessment. New clause 3 simply asks for proper scrutiny of their impact. If the Government are confident in their approach, why resist a responsible request for transparency? My Gordon and Buchan constituents, and people in Scotland working in the oil and gas sector and across the UK, deserve to understand how these changes will impact their livelihoods.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call Dave Doogan, I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they need to be bobbing consistently—I cannot read people’s minds to put together a speaking list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 2. I welcome the Government finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole for the oil and gas giants, which the Liberal Democrats have advocated for and called for since the previous Government introduced the levy—too late, and half-heartedly—in May 2022. Oil and gas companies made eye-watering profits off the back of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain problems that caused energy prices to soar. While the oil and gas giants saw record profits, my constituents in Bath and others across the country faced a cost of living crisis.

The previous Government have a lot to answer for. They sat and watched as the oil and gas giants lined their pockets off the back of people struggling with their bills. It did not have to be that way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but it did not have to be that way. Those were the political choices the previous Government made.

The measures announced by the Government in this Bill are welcome, in particular the removal of the 29% investment allowance except for investments on decarbonisation. This has been a Liberal Democrat policy, and I am pleased the Government have picked up on it and that it will now become a reality.

We Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021. While the previous Government did eventually introduce the energy profits levy, they did so half-heartedly and woefully late in May 2022. It matters that we repeat that again and again: it is something that the previous Government failed to do. That Government let the oil and gas giants off the hook by putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. It was thanks to that allowance that in 2022, Shell admitted it had paid zero windfall tax, despite making the largest global profits in its 150-year history of £31 billion. That cannot be right while our constituents have been struggling to pay their bills.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has tabled new clause 2, which would require the Government, as we have already heard, to produce a report about the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the EPL and relief for investment expenditure. We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. To avoid a repeat of the energy crisis, we must end our reliance on oil and gas. Investing in renewables would mean cheaper energy across the country. We would no longer be reliant on dictators such as Vladimir Putin who use natural gas as a weapon. As well as being more affordable, renewables are the best route to energy security. It is very disappointing to hear Conservative Members advocate for business as usual. We need to transition away from oil and gas.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. At what point does she believe we will be fully reliant on renewables?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is absolutely by putting in place the measures for transition that we will meet net zero. If we continue with business as usual and continue to listen to people who ultimately do not understand that unless we get to net zero our whole economy will suffer, then people will suffer. We will also have big, big problems with issues such as huge migration if climate change can rule unchallenged. This is why the Liberal Democrats believe the transition to net zero is important and why we need to put measures in place to make that happen. It is disappointing that the Conservatives, as the previous Government and now the Opposition, still do not understand how urgently we require climate action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She says it is clear who is on the side of working people versus the companies. My constituents are the people working in the oil and gas sector. They are the ones most at risk of losing their jobs if the changes brought in through the EPL go wrong. I am on the side of working people, and I am on the side of my constituents. No matter what MPs across the House say, I will always fight for my working people in Gordon and Buchan who just happen to be working people in the oil and gas sector.

[Yuan Yang]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and, at this point, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support from the unionised voices of those who work in the sector to which she referred. I commend the Government’s green prosperity plan to initiate a skills transition, and provide funding for it, so that those workers can profit from the industries of the future rather than the industries of the present and the past.

As the Minister said, the energy profits levy will raise £2.3 billion over the current Parliament, which will go towards the funding of, for instance, Great British Energy. GB Energy, whose headquarters are in Aberdeen, will bring innovation in green technologies not only to Scotland but to the whole of the UK. I will forgive, for a moment, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for perhaps not recognising my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—I know that an awful lot of new Scottish Members were elected in the last general election, and it must be difficult to learn all their faces. I ask the hon. Member to reflect on the possible reasons for the election of a record number of Scottish Labour Members while he sets about learning their names and faces.

The Government’s auction of 130 wind, solar and tidal energy projects in the latest round of the contracts for difference scheme points the way to the future. It points the way to the generation of 95% of the UK’s energy through green and decarbonised energy by 2030; to a transition that everyone in this Committee, and certainly everyone on the Government Benches, is looking forward to seeing in the next 10 years; and to the delivery of the local power plan, which will support local energy projects in communities such as mine. I welcome the funding of local projects such as Reading Hydro, which takes hydroelectric energy from the Thames, and the work of Reading Community Energy Society, which generates solar energy on the rooftops of the University of Reading and rooftops across my constituency. I look forward to all those projects and to the projects of the future, which is why I commend the measures that we are discussing today.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

I just set out some statistics that show how this tax relief is very concentrated in a small number of claims. In the context of the dire fiscal situation we inherited and the critical need to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet, it cannot be right to maintain such a significant level of relief for a very small number of claimants. That is why, from 6 April 2026, the full 100% relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property. Above that amount, there will be an unlimited 50% relief, so inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.

The new system, it should be noted, remains more generous than in the past. As I mentioned, the rate of relief prior to 1992 was a maximum of 50% on all agricultural and business assets, including the first £1 million. The reliefs we are providing will be on top of all the other exemptions and nil-rate bands that people can access for inheritance tax. Taken in combination, this means that a couple with farmland will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets to their descendants without paying any inheritance tax.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The CAAV calls the £3 million figure “unrealistic” and “unreasonable”. Does he not agree?

[James Murray]

The £3 million figure is what a typical couple could expect to pass on to their direct descendants using the various nil-rate bands and inheritance tax reliefs. I would advise any specific family to get advice from an accountant or financial adviser. In terms of the scale of reliefs, when we combine the inheritance tax relief to agricultural and business property relief, along with the nil-rate bands, nil-rate residence bands and the transferability between spouses, that is how we come to the figure of £3 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress. I have given way many times already.

Looking at the HMRC data, which relates to estates making claims for agricultural and business property relief, is the correct way to understand inheritance tax liabilities. That data shows that our reforms are expected to result in up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, paying some more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Let me put that in context. It means that nearly three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of these measures.

As this change is introduced, we expect people to respond in a number of ways to reduce their inheritance tax liabilities, and the costings by the Office for Budget Responsibility assume that that will be the case. People may change ownership structures, plan for their succession differently, and make greater use of gifting provisions and insurance.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. He has mentioned claims for agricultural property relief and business property relief, but what about claims for business property relief alone? Have they been included in his figures?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As we know, any farmer who is renting out land or farming it themselves will typically have an estate that includes an element that is eligible for agricultural property relief. The figures I set out include those who claim for business property relief as well, and those figures are set out in the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Pearce]

Sorry, I will not give way at this stage.

This debate has, however, shone an important light on one issue, which I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising: the fact that our farmers are working day in, day out, for very little profit. The question is how we support them to be profitable again. Energy bills are one of the biggest costs farming businesses face. This Government will help bring down those costs through GB Energy and by introducing grid reform to allow farmers to plug renewables into the national grid. We must protect them from being undercut by foreign imports.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Pearce]

I am sorry, but I will not.

We must create a greater marketplace for farming businesses by using the Government’s purchasing power to ensure that 50% of the food bought for our hospitals, prisons and army bases is produced by local farmers.

Here is the most important point: we have to provide farming businesses with economic stability. The Leader of the Opposition has already failed to learn the lessons of the Liz Truss Budget, with £6.7 billion of unfunded tax cuts already announced in a matter of weeks. The Opposition need to tell us how they are going to pay for that. What are they going to cut? Are they going to cut the farming budget—are we going to lose the £5 billion from the farming budget?—or are they going to borrow and put us right back in the position we were in with Liz Truss, with interest rates rising and farms going out of business? I will not be voting for the Opposition motion; I will be supporting farmers in my constituency and providing the economic stability they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris]

They absolutely do; my hon. Friend is right. What people—not just farmers—speak to me about is the need for that growing, stable economy. They are infuriated with the Conservative party for pretending to jump on a bandwagon after taking farmers for granted for 14 years while in government.

[Harriet Cross]

Before the Budget, the hon. Member will remember attending a Westminster Hall debate that I organised specifically on agricultural property relief and business property relief. Will he agree that the Conservatives have not jumped on that since the Budget? We have been speaking about it for a very long time.

[Joe Morris]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She and I must have a slightly different view of a very long time. A few weeks ago is not a very long time for me. I am talking about years in which local farming communities were ignored.

The botched Brexit deal that the Conservative party secured did not do any farmer any favours. Labour is the only party that is genuinely serious about countryside renewal. We cannot pack communities across Northumberland in aspic and pretend that they do not need houses or services. That is why the Conservatives lost. That is why I am here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy MacNae]

It is amazing; one of my colleagues talked about “the green fields opposite” in reference to the empty Conservative Benches.

Given that background, it is no surprise that farmers are angry, worried and feeling vulnerable. I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who called for calm and sense in the debate. Emotive language, designed to sow fear and cause concern is irresponsible at the very least, so let us try to keep to the facts and keep things calm and reasonable.

The focus of Conservative Members seems to be family farms, but the phrase “family farm tax” immediately creates a sense of fear and targeting, which is completely wrong. With some sensible tax planning, £3 million of assets can be exempt. Many speeches have glanced over the importance of gifting rights. Let us take the scenario of a family farm, in its truest sense, that is to be passed between generations. Surely, gifting rights are a massive opportunity to avoid all inheritance tax and remove the sense of fear that Conservative Members are trying to create. Most of the rest of the country has to do that simple estate planning by default.

[Harriet Cross]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, reservation of benefits applies when an asset that is still being used is passed on under the seven-year rule. Is he suggesting that a farmer who has been on their farm for their whole life should move out of their farmhouse, get off the land and pay market rate rent? Where will they get that money from, given that, as we know, farm profits are so small?

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend’s constituents in Thurrock are right to be angry about the waste and corruption that happened under the previous Government. That money belongs to the British people and in our public services, not in the pockets of fraudsters taking advantage of a national emergency. Tom Hayhoe will leave no stone unturned in investigating the carnival of fraud that the previous Government presided over, including in PPE contracts, where they recommended any attempts to reclaim that money be abandoned. Letting huge sums of taxpayers’ money be wasted would be egregious and I will not tolerate that.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The Treasury consistently insists that only 500 farms a year will be impacted by the family farm tax. However, the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers calculates that the real number will be five times higher and will include many farms in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. Who is right: the Treasury or the experts?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have published the detail of how that money is raised, but the numbers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are very clear: only a quarter of estates will pay any additional tax. At the moment, the vast majority of agricultural property relief is enjoyed by a very small number of very large and very expensive estates. That is not affordable, and it will not continue.

Finance Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We know that other countries tax in different ways. Norway has a high headline rate, although it has a different set of structures of allowances and so on. It is important for us that we calibrate the headline rate and the allowances in the right way. That is why we have taken the measured decision to increase the rate as I described, to remove the investment allowance but at the same time to retain the 100% first-year allowances and the level of relief available for decarbonisation investment.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the Minister think that that is the right balance, given that Offshore Energies UK suggests that the changes will cost £12 billion in tax revenues?

[James Murray]

I am absolutely confident, through all my engagement with OEUK and many firms that work in the oil and gas sector, that our approach strikes the right balance, as needed in our economy. It recognises that oil and gas producers will have a role in the energy mix for years to come, while also being clear that it is crucial we raise money for the energy transition. The energy profits levy seeks to achieve that by providing the money for that transition while also supporting jobs and investment in the sector, as exists at the moment.

Fifthly, the Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment around carried interest by increasing to 32% the capital gains tax rates that apply as an interim measure from 6 April next year, ahead of reforming carried interest more fully in a future Finance Bill. The reforms, which will have effect from April 2026, will ensure that the reward is taxed in line with economic characteristics. They put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.

As the Chancellor set out both in July and again at the Budget, the fiscal situation we inherited was far worse than we had expected. We know that the previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole and so we have had to take tough decisions to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. Some of those decisions are outside the scope of this Finance Bill and will be debated during the passage of other Bills. However, this Bill includes a number of those decisions, which we have sought to take in as fair a way as possible.

The Bill makes changes to the main rates of capital gains tax by increasing them to 18% and 24% from 30 October 2024. That decision will raise revenue while ensuring that the UK tax system remains internationally competitive. We are supporting businesses through that transition by maintaining business asset disposal relief, with its million-pound lifetime limit, and by phasing in the increase to that relief’s CGT rate, in line with the changes to investors’ relief, to 14% in April 2025 and then to 18% in April 2026.

The Bill maintains inheritance tax thresholds at their current levels for a further two years to 5 April 2030. It also legislates for air passenger duty rates for 2025-26 and for those announced in the Budget for 2026-27. From 2026-27, all rates of air passenger duty will be adjusted to partially account for previous high inflation, and that change will help maintain the value of air passenger duty rates in real terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate as we move to put the measures announced at the Budget on the statute book but, first, I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on a superb maiden speech, demonstrating the commitment and expertise that we are lucky to have on the Government Benches, and the House is lucky to have as a whole.

I suspect that this was not the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) envisaged as her first as Chancellor, but it was the one that was needed once the economic inheritance received by this Government became fully understood. I want to touch on the very difficult financial situation that this Government have inherited, and what difference the measures announced in the Budget will make to residents living in my constituency.

We should be clear about what the inheritance from the Conservative party was: an economy that, over the past 14 years, has seen productivity and wages flatlining, leaving British families significantly poorer than those in France and Germany; and a country exposed to fossil fuel markets, which led directly to the worst cost of living and energy bills crises in generations. Whatever the Conservatives may like to say to wriggle out of that inestimable fact, they left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, with no plan to fix it and—this is the worst part—unfeasible departmental spending targets stretching into future years.

Our response of capital gains tax rises, air passenger duty and agricultural property relief undoubtedly falls on those with the broadest shoulders who are most able to bear those increases.

[Harriet Cross]

May I clarify whether the hon. Member believes that the farmers making on average less than £45,000 year, and the 25% making less than £20,000 a year, are those with the broadest shoulders?

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. We are very clear: the numbers from HMRC show that very few of the sorts of farms that she is referring to will be affected. Actually, it said everything to me that the person leading the march last week had boasted that he had spent £4.25 million on a farm in order to avoid inheritance tax.

This was a Budget to reset our finances after years of chaos, with difficult but necessary decisions—decisions we have not dodged, unlike the previous Government. This Labour Government were elected to fix the foundations of our economy and to begin to rebuild the public services that people across our country—including my residents in Dartford, whom I am privileged to represent in this place—really need. The measures in the Bill will rebalance the tax system, protecting working people and raising the crucial revenue so desperately needed for our public services at a time when their performance is unfortunately at a historic low.

What does this Budget mean for people living in my constituency, in Dartford, Swanscombe, Greenhithe and Ebbsfleet? People living across my constituency rely on their excellent district general hospital at Darent Valley, which is full of brilliant, hard-working staff who do their absolute best; however, after 14 years of a Conservative Government, capacity in the hospital has just not kept up with need. Dartford borough was the second fastest growing local authority area in the period covered by the last census, thanks largely to the development of Ebbsfleet Garden City, but investment in services has not kept up with the needs of a growing population. The more than £25 billion announced in the Budget over two years for our health service will cut waiting times, thanks to 40,000 extra elective appointments each week and the capacity for more than 30,000 additional procedures.

Thanks to the new homes in Ebbsfleet and across Dartford, we are also becoming a much younger constituency, as younger couples settle in our community and start families. We warmly welcome these new residents, and I am confident they will welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase the core schools budget by more than £2 billion a year, meaning the recruitment of 6,500 teachers, and the additional £1 billion investment to address the broken special educational needs system in Dartford and across our country. If Conservative Members disapprove of the revenue-raising measures in the Budget, it really is incumbent on them to say which bit of that extra investment they would cut. I am afraid we are back to magic money tree economics—we heard that very clearly from the shadow Chancellor. All these measures form part of our manifesto commitment to break down the barriers to opportunity, of which sadly far too many remain.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the long-term prospects of our country, I hope the whole House will support the Government’s strong focus on boosting public investment by more than £100 billion over the next five years. This is an area where we have been sadly lacking when compared with our international competitors. The announcement has been further enhanced by the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which included proposals to unlock the power of our pension funds to invest in our country.

Against that background, it would be remiss of me not to mention a project that hon. Members across the Chamber might remember me describing in previous contributions as shovel-ready. The proposed new lower Thames crossing is crucial to unlocking the growth that the new Government are seeking, both in the south-east and beyond, and could be started very quickly, with much of the preparatory work already having been undertaken. It would create jobs and unlock investment across the Thames estuary, addressing the largest traffic bottleneck in the UK, and allow freight to move much more easily from ports in the south-east to destinations across the country.

I will end as I began. I recognise that these are difficult decisions and that they will not be welcomed by all; however, we must not duck the tough choices needed to restore the foundations of economic stability in our country and our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

On the topic of the Scotch whisky industry, does the hon. Member agree that increasing the levy by 3.65%, so that a bottle of whisky now has £12 of tax added before it is even out of the door, is another attack on one of Scotland’s main industries?

[Dave Doogan]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. That is absolutely right, and I am going to touch on that topic a little later.

We see in clause 75 that the rates of landfill tax are going up by 25%. I wonder what discussions Government Ministers have had with local authorities on the impact of this increase. It would be just like this Government to not have put two and two together and realised that it will be a significant upward pressure on costs for councils.

Clause 78 deals with high-sugar drinks. A public health emergency exists in this country—in this state—and the Government are proposing to increase the tax on high-sugar drinks from 24p per litre to £2.59 per 10 litres. That is scarcely an increase at all. A tax of 24p per litre is going up to 25.9p per litre, an increase of 1.9p per litre. We do not sell sugary drinks in litres, we sell them in 330 ml cans, so that is an increase of 0.6p per can. Are the Government kidding? It is a public health emergency—the clue is in the title. Have they got no ambition at all?

This Bill, and the Budget that led up to it, will impose billions of pounds of tax rises and cuts that will hit working Scots in the pocket. We see our old folk freezing in their houses as a result of this Bill and the Budget that underpins it. As a result of the Bill, young people will be chasing fewer and fewer jobs with lower and lower wages. The CBI said this week that the tax rises in the Budget had sent businesses into “crisis containment” and “damage control”, because this Chancellor’s £40 billion raid on businesses is the single biggest tax increase since Norman Lamont’s in 1993. The Chancellor’s decisions hinge on 2% departmental efficiencies that will never ever be realised—we know this because it has never ever been done—so further cuts are coming down on top of these taxes.

This is pure fiscal poison for communities and businesses across these islands. The Government are inflicting the same pain on the Northern hotel in Brechin, Perthshire Timber and Montrose port as they are inflicting on Nissan and Tesco. I am not implying that it is fine for big business and bad for small business; this is a “one size fits nobody” Finance Bill, and the Budget that goes along with it is the same. The clawback that they are applying to the devolved nations, which the Exchequer Secretary would not speak about earlier, does not come close to meeting the cost of the national insurance increase. There is £300 million of compensation for the Scottish Government, who are facing a £750 million exposure, and that is the nature of what this Government are doing. What of the reward for this fiscal pain? Lower growth in the economy, lower profits, increased debt, lower investment, lower wages, falling output, capital flight and the risk of default as the ultimate conclusion. It is almost as though the Chancellor has forgotten that her job is to run the economy, not ruin the economy.

This would be a matter for separate debate—I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to test your patience—but the raid on employer’s national insurance will devastate small businesses, charities and the care sector. It will cost Scottish public services—the public sector with direct employees in Scotland— £600 million, and when we include the partner agencies working with our NHS and our care services, that figure will be very much higher. Supermarkets and other retailers have also said that the inevitable result of the Chancellor’s changes will be higher prices for consumers. The Government make great play about not raising taxes, but it amounts to the same thing when wages are suppressed and prices are going up.

As the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned, the duty on Scotch whisky has been hiked in this Bill, which the industry has called an “indefensible tax grab”. This was despite Labour’s leader in Scotland—for Labour Members’ interest, he is a gentleman called Anas Sarwar—claiming that he spoke to the Chancellor about it. I would be very interested to know about that conversation, but perhaps it was: “Is it okay if I hike up duties, Anas?” with the reply, “Yes, no bother, Chancellor. You carry on.”

One of the glaring omissions in the Bill is any provision for the WASPI women. It is of course welcome that the Budget will address the great impositions put on people affected by the infected blood scandal and on postmasters. However, those were caused by the Post Office, or the NHS and others, whereas the WASPI women issue was caused by the UK Government. That great tragedy was caused by the Government, yet it is the one that is not addressed in this Bill or in the broader Budget.

It is therefore little wonder that polling in Scotland last week showed that 75% of Scots feel they are going to be worse off, or certainly no better off, as a result of the Budget. Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, supermarkets, farms, pubs and telecom providers have all warned that these decisions will be inflationary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I will speak about the impact of the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy on people and businesses in my constituency, and on the UK as a whole, in terms of the energy security the Government are meant to ensure and the Government’s ever-more ambitious decarbonisation targets, which are being put at risk.

The Chancellor’s decision to increase the EPL rate to 38% and extend it to 2030, while also removing investment allowances, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our energy sector—indeed, the global energy sector—and the communities here that depend on it. According to Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, 100,000 energy-related jobs across the UK, but disproportionately in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, are being put at risk because of the changes. The OBR’s figures project that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, with oil production down 6.3% and gas production down 9.2%. For businesses across my constituency, that means fewer contracts, reduced investment and diminishing opportunities. Or to put it another way: fewer jobs, fewer prospects and more redundancies.

What is incomprehensible about the changes to the EPL is that they make no economic sense. Studies by Offshore Energies UK show that the changes will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost tax revenue—£12 billion. If the Chancellor is so convinced that she is in a hole, maybe not digging deeper would be a good idea. The OEUK put that down to a rapid decline in production due to under-investment. While we are still going to use oil and gas for years to come, the Government are therefore choosing to take it from overseas producers where there are low environmental credentials and worse employment standards, rather than from the UK where we will be able to increase employment, secure employment, help our tax revenues and secure our economic growth both locally and nationally.

Labour’s changes in the Budget will see a wholly punitive regime, with the effective tax rate being 78% on oil and gas companies—the highest of any comparable off-sea mature basin. What other industry in the UK would be expected to deliver something as fundamental as our heating, lighting or transport fuel—indeed, energy to ensure the NHS can operate and schools can run—while also being taxed to such an extent that the Government are driving away investment in a sector so crucial to our national security?

What is particularly concerning about the EPL is the impact on home-grown energy businesses. These are not global multinationals that are often used as examples of the energy giants who make massive profits; companies that can and do buffer the impacts of EPL by increasing their overseas investments and reducing their investments in the North sea. Instead, this policy hits hardest the companies that have emerged and grown out of north-east Scotland, employing local people, supporting local supply chains and helping our local economies.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. In January 2023 the Conservative Chancellor increased the energy profit levy by 10%, from 25% to 35%. What was the impact of that change on North sea jobs and the economy?

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We must remember that investment allowances have now been reduced and taken away. Increasing the EPL by a further 3% while decreasing investment allowances makes the North sea a really difficult place to invest in.

[Dave Doogan]

Apache has announced that it is set to pull out of the North sea basin. How does the hon. Lady think that announcement relates to the fiscal decisions of this Government? Does she think that it is inextricably linked to this Government’s ambitions for North sea oil and gas, and their failure to fully understand how the industry works?

[Harriet Cross]

The fact that Apache’s announcement came within a week of the Budget speaks for itself when it comes to the question of the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

As I was saying, the energy profits levy has the greatest impact on our local, home-grown businesses. It is turning the lights off in the very businesses that we should be supporting and championing. By removing investment allowances, the Government are forcing companies to scale back their North sea projects, thereby increasing our reliance on expensive imported energy from overseas.

North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest.

This Labour Government are turning what was a windfall tax into a permanent feature of our tax system, creating long-term uncertainty that will drive investment away from north-east Scotland. The energy profits levy is a blunt instrument, not a balanced strategy. The Government must listen to industry experts, local businesses, and communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan. We need a competitive, open business environment that attracts investment and will support our energy transition, while protecting jobs and supply chains and securing our energy supplies. The nation’s energy security depends on it.