Finance Bill (First sitting)
James Murray ExcerptsTuesday 28th January 2025
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2025 View all Finance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - (28 Jan 2025)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
New clause 3.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as the Chair, Mr Mundell. Clauses 1 to 3 impose a charge to and set the rates of income tax for 2025-26, and clause 4 maintains the starting rate for savings limit at its current level of £5,000 for the ’25-26 tax year.
Income tax is the largest source of Government revenue and helps to fund the UK’s schools, hospitals and defence, and other public services that we all rely on. In ’25-26, it is expected to raise around £329 billion. The starting rate for savings applies to the taxable savings income of individuals with low earned incomes of less than £17,570, allowing them to benefit from up to £5,000 of income from savings interest before they pay tax. It specifically supports those taxpayers with low levels of earned income.
As Committee members will be aware, both the income tax rates and the starting rate limits for savings must be legislated for each year. The Bill will not change the rates of income tax. We are confirming that they will remain the same, thereby meeting our manifesto commitment not to increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax.
Clause 1 imposes a charge to income tax for the year ’25-26. Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax, namely the basic rate of 20%, the higher rate of 40% and the additional rate of 45%. These will apply to non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers in England and Northern Ireland. Income rates in Scotland and Wales are set by their respective Parliaments.
Clause 3 sets the default rates at the same levels as the main rates, namely 20%, 40% and 45%. These rates apply to the non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers who are not subject to the main rates of income tax, Welsh rates of income tax or Scottish rates of income tax. For example, they might apply to non-UK-resident individuals. The clause also sets the savings rates of income tax—again at 20%, 40% and 45%.
Clause 4 will maintain the starting rate limit at its current level of £5,000 for the ’25-26 tax year. The limit is being held at this level to ensure fairness in the tax system while maintaining a generous tax relief. In addition to the starting rate for savings, whereby eligible individuals can earn up to £5,000 in savings income free of tax, savers are also supported by the personal savings allowance, which provides up to £1,000 of tax-free savings income for basic rate taxpayers. Savers can also continue to benefit from the annual individual savings account allowance of £20,000. Taken together, as a result of these generous measures, around 85% of savers will pay no tax on their savings income.
Finally, I should mention the Government’s efforts to encourage those on the lowest incomes to save through the help to save scheme. We recently extended the scheme until 5 April 2027, and we have extended the eligibility to all universal credit claimants who are in work from 6 April 2025. I encourage Committee members to do what they can to promote the scheme to their constituents.
New clause 3 would require a review of how many people who receive the new state pension at the full rate are liable to pay income tax this year and in the next four tax years, and specifically what the tax liability of their state pension income will be. The Government consider the new clause to be unnecessary, given the information that is already publicly available.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has published statistics for this tax year and past tax years that cover the number of income taxpayers, including breakdowns by marginal rate, tax, band and age, and the Department for Work and Pensions has published figures for pensioners’ average incomes. The Office for Budget Responsibility is the Government’s independent economic forecaster and most recently published projections of the number of income taxpayers for future years in its “Economic and fiscal outlook” at autumn Budget. Those projections include a breakdown by marginal rate.
Income tax is a vital revenue stream for our public services and the clauses will ensure that that remains the case in 2025-26, while also retaining the starting rate of savings at its very generous existing value. I therefore commend clauses 1 to 4 to the Committee, and I urge the Committee to reject new clause 3.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. This is one of many Finance Bill Committees that I have participated in. The subjects have changed somewhat each time, but something has remained consistent: the presence of the hon. Member for Ealing North. It is a pleasure to see him in his place, and I hope that his experience as the Treasury Minister in a Finance Bill Committee is as unpleasurable as mine when I was facing him.
As the Minister rightly set out, clause 1 imposes a charge to income tax for the year 2025-26, which is a formality. Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax in England and Northern Ireland for 2025-26—the 20% basic rate, the 40% higher rate and the 45% additional rate—leaving them unchanged. Clause 3 sets the default rate and savings rate of income tax for the tax year 2025-26 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Clause 4 freezes the starting rate limit for savings at £5,000.
Of course, the Government’s big announcement on income tax in the Budget was that they would not extend the freeze to income tax thresholds beyond April 2028. Committee members will be aware that that announcement does not need to be legislated for, as the income tax personal allowance and the basic rate limit are subject to consumer prices index indexation by default, unless Parliament overrides that via a Finance Bill, and Parliament has not overridden indexation beyond the 2027-28 tax year.
As the current legislative framework did not allow the Government to enact their announcement on income tax thresholds at the Budget, we must take them at their word that they will keep their promise and not succumb to the temptation to override the thresholds in future. Given the possibility that rising borrowing costs have eliminated the Chancellor’s headroom under the Government’s own stability rule, I would be grateful if the Minister could reconfirm that they will allow CPI indexation to resume from 2028-29 and that they will not renege on that promise.
On a point of clarity, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the unfreezing of income tax thresholds in 2028-29 will involve an increase to the fixed portion of the income tax higher limit, which he will be aware of. The limit is set at £100,000 plus twice the personal allowance, and that £100,000 is not indexed to CPI by default. Should we expect the additional rate to rise only in so far as the personal allowance rises, or will that £100,000 be unfrozen too? I would appreciate an explanation on that.
I leave it to others to interpret what it says about this Labour Government and Budget that a non-binding commitment merely not to raise some tax thresholds in three years’ time is presented as a big win for the British taxpayer. On income tax, as with most of the Government’s more positive policy announcements, the benefits are prospective and entirely speculative.
Meanwhile the pain, as we have seen with national insurance contributions and in other areas, is very much immediate and certain. Pensioners left out in the cold by the Government this winter will recognise that all too familiar pattern. A pensioner who receives the full rate of the new state pension without additional income—whose income from April is roughly £12,000—is now in most cases no longer receiving the winter fuel payment. The Government have defended that decision by referring to the triple lock.
Will the Minister update the Committee on when the Government now project the full rate of the new state pension to exceed the income tax personal allowance, and how many pensioners they expect will be newly taken into income tax as a result of the development? If he cannot tell the Committee, perhaps he and his colleagues will vote in favour of new clause 3, which would require the Treasury to produce and publish forward projections for the number of people receiving the full rate of the new state pension who are liable to pay income tax, and specifically what the tax liability of their state pension income will be.
Pensioners cannot easily alter their financial circumstances, yet they were given less than six months’ notice of the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. They must not be blindsided for a second time by the taxman—especially not those who are just about getting by without additional income beyond the state pension. I urge Members and the Minister to vote for new clause 3 to prevent that from happening.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for the comments at the beginning of his speech, if not for all the questions subsequently. First, on the question about whether the £100,000 threshold will be unfrozen in due course, that threshold does not move, and it sets the personal allowance taper beyond that level.
The shadow Minister asked broader questions about the personal allowance and our decision to change the policy we inherited from the previous Government. In the many Finance Bill Committees that he and I served on before the general election, the personal allowance would routinely be frozen for more and more years into the future. That is what we have inherited: the personal allowance is frozen up until April 2028. We made clear that we would do things differently. As well as not increasing the basic higher and additional rates of income tax, as we set out, we did not freeze the personal allowance beyond April 2028, which means that it will continue to rise with inflation.
The shadow Minister asked specific questions about how the change affects pensioners, and referred to new clause 3, which I addressed earlier. I will repeat what I said: new clause 3 is not necessary because the data the shadow Minister requests is already in the public domain. We need to ensure that as the personal allowance begins to rise from April 2028, that will benefit not just people in work but pensioners, because they will see the personal allowance that applies to their pension income rising as well. That is underlined by the fact that we are maintaining the triple lock, which will see generous increases in the state pension as the bedrock of state support for pensioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Appropriate percentage for cars: tax year 2028-29
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clauses 5 and 6 set the appropriate percentage used for calculating the taxable benefit for a company car for tax years 2028-29 and 2029-30. In those tax years, the appropriate percentage for EVs will increase by 2% to 7% in 2028-29 and 9% in 2029-30. For most other vehicles, the appropriate percentage will increase by a further 1% in each year, up to a maximum of 39%. Hybrid vehicles are the standout exception. The effect of these clauses for vehicles capable of operating on electric power while producing between 1 gram and 50 grams of CO2 per kilometre is to introduce a steep increase in the appropriate percentage of as much as 13% in 2028-29 to reach 18%, before rising to 19% in 2029-30.
Whereas previously the appropriate percentage for cars with emissions between 1 gram and 50 grams of CO2 per kilometre would rise as the electric range reduced, from 2028-29 that system will be replaced with a single flat rate, regardless of the electric range. That means that hybrid cars with the greatest electric range, which are presumably the least polluting, will see the steepest tax rise. Any distinction between hybrid vehicles will be eliminated for the purposes of these provisions. Indeed, as the explanatory notes make very clear, rates for hybrid vehicles will align more closely with the rates for internal combustion engine vehicles, as the Minister just pointed out.
It will not have escaped Members that these new rates take us to 2030. The Government have confirmed their intention to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by that date. What has not yet been confirmed is the future of hybrid vehicles. The Department for Transport is consulting on which hybrid cars can be sold alongside zero emission models between 2030 and 2035. The Minister, naturally, will not pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, but these measures effectively do just that. While the Department for Transport parses the differences between plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles, the Treasury is eliminating that distinction altogether by 2028, let alone by 2030.
Not only that, but the Treasury is effectively lumping all hybrid vehicles in with those powered by internal combustion engines. Treasury Ministers will be aware that the manufacturing of hybrid vehicles and engines supports thousands of British jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan alluded to, and car manufacturing firms operate on a multi-year investment cycle. The contradictions between the Bill and the Department for Transport’s consultation send a less than clear signal, which puts those jobs at risk. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister clarified the Government’s intention in making these changes, especially when the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee has heard that these rates have been the single most effective intervention to date in changing consumer behaviour around different types of vehicles.
I would also be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps the Treasury and HMRC are taking to make the general public aware of these changes. I grant they are quite technical, but they could impose a significant additional tax bill on certain taxpayers with plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Chartered Institute of Taxation raised that as a key area of concern, which could confront unsuspecting taxpayers—those seeking to do the right thing by purchasing a less-emitting vehicle— with a massive and steep tax rise. A higher rate taxpayer on £51,000 whose company car is a plug-in hybrid VW Golf could face an additional tax bill of as much as £1,600 in 2027-28. That strikes me as neither fair nor proportionate.
It has been reported that this Labour Government ordered no fewer than 10 petrol hybrid Jaguars upon assuming office to supplement the existing departmental, chauffeur-driven pool cars. If the Minister is confident that the consequences of the changes have been communicated and fully understood, I am sure he will be able to inform the Committee of the extra tax liability in 2028-29 of someone on a salary similar to that of a Treasury Minister—£110,000—whose full-time work car is a plug-in hybrid Jaguar F-Pace valued at roughly £60,000 with an electric range of just under 40 miles.
As the Committee can tell, we have serious reservations about the communication of the changes, the unfair overnight tax hikes they impose on taxpayers just trying to do the right thing, and the mixed messages they send to vehicle manufacturers by contradicting other areas of Government policy and consultation. The measures concern the ’28-29 and ’29-30 tax years, so the Government have time to think again and to bring back a better calibrated policy in a future Finance Bill. For the reasons that I have set out, we will vote against the clauses.
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.
James Murray
Clause 13 sets the charge for corporation tax for the financial year beginning April 2026, setting the main rate at 25%; and clause 14 sets the small profit rate at 19% for the same period. As Members know, the charge for corporation tax must be set every year, so it is important to legislate on the rate for 2026 now to provide certainty to large and very large companies, which will pay tax in advance on the basis of their estimated tax liabilities. That is also why we have committed to cap corporation tax at 25% for the duration of the Parliament, as set out in the corporate tax road map published at the autumn Budget. The changes made by clause 13 will establish the right of the Government to charge corporation tax from April 2026. The clauses maintain the current rates of 25% and the small profits rate of 19%. Tax certainty is of great importance to businesses, and clauses 13 and 14 ensure that they continue to benefit from stable and predictable tax rules. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clauses 13 and 14 set the charge and rates of corporation tax for financial year 2026. The main rate remains unchanged at 25%, with the standard small profits rate at 19%, and the standard marginal relief fraction remains three 200ths.
In Committee on the last Finance Bill, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury—a great Opposition role—told the House that if Labour won the election, they would bring certainty back for businesses by capping the rate of corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. At that point, he spoke of capping corporation tax and publishing a business taxation road map as though they were two separate things.
This year’s Budget makes clear that there is no cap outside the road map, and once again, as with income tax, we must take Labour at their word that they will stick to a non-binding commitment, which is not legislated for in this Finance Bill. It is unclear how much certainty or stability such a loose commitment will bring, especially when the Budget blindsided businesses with a £25 billion tax hike. Not only that, but the corporate tax road map itself says that, while the Government are committed to providing stability and predictability in the business tax system, they cannot rule out changes to the corporate tax regime over the course of this Parliament.
Given the Government’s ongoing worries about headroom and the uncertainty and instability that has created, will the Minister reconfirm for the parliamentary record the Government’s commitment, first, not to raise the headline rate of corporation tax for the duration of this Parliament; secondly, not to raise the small profits rate or reduce the marginal relief currently available; and thirdly, to maintain full expensing and the annual investment allowance, as well as writing down allowances and the structures and buildings allowance without meaningfully altering their eligibility?
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”.
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.
Gareth Davies
Let us be clear: it is good when a Government set out a tax rate over a multi-year period; we accept that that is a good thing. However, does the Minister accept—to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan—that although a road map has been set out on corporation tax, the Labour party has created uncertainty by saying, before the election, that it would not increase national insurance contributions and then, immediately after the election, hitting businesses with a £25 billion tax rise, including not only a rate change but a threshold change that brings many new businesses into the tax regime? Does the Minister accept that the problem is about more than corporation tax? It is about the entire business tax ecosystem. On that basis, the charge is very clear: his Government have caused great uncertainty and great damage to British businesses.
James Murray
Although I am mindful that the clauses are on corporation tax, Mr Mundell, let me briefly respond to the shadow Minister’s comments. This Government were elected to bring an end to the instability that had become endemic under the previous Government. I like the hon. Gentleman a lot, but for him to imply that the previous Government had stability from day to day is for the birds. I was in the House of Commons Chamber so many times for debates on Finance Bills. I think we went through the entire introduction and repeal of the health and social care levy in the space of a few months. There was no stability under the previous Government, and that was a large part of what led people to vote for change at the last general election. They wanted us to sort out the public finances, get public services back on their feet and restore the economic stability that is the bedrock on which investment can rise and on which we can get the economy growing as we know it can, supporting British businesses, entrepreneurs and wealth creators to do what they do best.
To bring us back to the clauses, publishing the corporate tax road map shows our commitment to not just campaigning on the prospect of bringing stability but delivering it in our very first Budget. The corporate tax road map clearly sets out our approach to corporation tax, related allowances and other areas we will look at. I may have discerned support for it in the shadow Minister’s comments; it was bound up in other comments but, reading between the lines, I think he supports the publication of the corporate tax road map. He is welcome to intervene if he disagrees.
Gareth Davies
I will intervene anyway. As I said, any certainty that can be provided to businesses regarding the tax system is a good thing. The point I am trying to make—I will try again—is that corporation tax is just one tax paid by businesses. They also pay national insurance contributions. They also use reliefs such as the business rates relief the Minister talked about—by the way, the Government have cut that from 70% to 40%, although I am not sure that it was clear before the election that they would do that. The uncertainty has been caused by all the things that the British public were told would not happen, but that then did happen.
We are talking about corporation tax today, and I can see that you are, quite rightly, about to bring us back in scope, Mr Mundell. I will leave it here by saying that British businesses pay more than just corporation tax, and what they need is certainty across the board. We have a corporation tax road map, but why do we not have a holistic, comprehensive business tax road map that includes national insurance, business rates and other taxes borne by businesses? That is my point.
James Murray
Yes. In the context of this discussion on corporation tax, I will address the comments about other taxes. The shadow Minister again mentioned business rates and business rates relief, but he might want to recall the situation we inherited on business rates relief. This year it is operating at a 75% discount for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, up to a cap of £110,000, and it was due to expire entirely in April 2025. What we inherited was not just instability, but a cliff edge—it was going to go entirely in April this year. I notice that that part of the story is conveniently erased from the shadow Minister’s account of history.
Business rates relief was going to expire entirely in April 2025, so we were keen to ensure that we continued it, while being mindful of the public finances. Our decision to continue it for a further year at 40% was the right thing to do while we ensure that we are ready from April 2026 to have permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with a rateable value of below £500,000. That is the stability that businesses so badly need. Frankly, the shadow Minister, who is talking about business rates in the context of corporation tax, overlooked that fact entirely. Under the previous Government, the reliefs were extended one year at a time, with the rates going up and down, which provided no stability for businesses trying to make investment decisions. From April 2026, with our permanently lower rates, we want to provide exactly that stability.
To return to corporation tax, which is the subject of these two clauses, one of the conversations that I had many a time with businesses while in opposition was about their desire for certainty on corporation tax and the system of allowances. I recall challenging the shadow Minister, when he was a Treasury Minister himself, about the number of changes there had been to full expensing, the annual investment allowance and indeed to the super-deduction, which came and went entirely within one Parliament. That instability is what prompted our desire to provide stability for businesses, and publishing the corporation tax road map and these clauses begins to implement the commitments we made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Pillar Two
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 1 to 3, 21 to 23, 4 to 11, 24 to 29, 12 and 13, 30, 14, and 31 to 37.
Schedule 4.
James Murray
Clause 19 and schedule 4 introduce the undertaxed profits rule—the third and final part of the internationally agreed global minimum tax known as pillar two. They also amend the existing legislation on multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax to incorporate the latest international agreements and stakeholder feedback.
It is essential that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in the UK. Pillar two protects the UK tax base from large multinationals shifting their profits overseas to low-tax jurisdictions, by requiring multinationals that generate annual revenues of more than €750 million to pay an effective tax rate of 15% on their profits in every jurisdiction in which they operate. Where their effective tax rate falls below that, they will pay a top-up tax.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. As we heard from the Minister, clause 19 and schedule 4 amend the parts and schedules of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 that implement the multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax. Part 2 of schedule 4 introduces the undertaxed profits rule into UK legislation, and part 3 makes amendments to the multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax. These taxes represent the UK’s adoption of the OECD pillar two global minimum tax rules, and we are supportive of the measures before us.
In October 2021, under an OECD inclusive framework, more than 130 countries agreed to enact a two-pillar solution to address the challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. Pillar one involves a partial reallocation of taxing rights over the profits of multinationals to the jurisdictions where consumers are located. The detailed rules that will deliver pillar one are still under development by the inclusive framework. As the Minister said, pillar two introduces a global effective tax rate, whereby multinational groups with revenue of more than €750 million are subject to a minimum effective rate of 15% on income arising in low-tax jurisdictions.
The multinational and domestic tax top-ups were introduced in the Finance Act 2023, as the first tranche of the UK’s implementation of the agreed pillar two framework. Measures in the Bill extend the top-up taxes to give effect to the undertaxed profits rule. That brings a share of top-up taxes that are not paid under another jurisdiction’s income inclusion rule or domestic top-up tax rule into charge in the UK. The undertaxed profits rule will be effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2024.
Following discussions with the Chartered Institute of Taxation, I have a number of points to raise with the Minister. First, as the institute points out, there is an open point around the application of the transitional safe-harbour anti-arbitrage rules. The OECD’s anti-arbitrage rules for the transitional safe harbours are drafted very broadly, and may therefore go further than originally anticipated. Will the Minister clarify HMRC’s view of the scope of those rules?
There are also questions about taxpayers’ ability to qualify for the transitional safe harbours. A transitional safe harbour is a temporary measure that reduces the compliance burden for multinationals and tax authorities. There has been some uncertainty as to whether a single error in a country-by-country report could disqualify all jurisdictions from applying the transitional safe harbours. HMRC has recently indicated that it would be open to permitting re-filings of country-by-country reports where errors are spotted. Can the Minister provide further clarity on HMRC’s proposed approach?
The UK’s legislation will need to be updated regularly to stay in line with the OECD’s evolving guidance. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that clear guidance is provided in a timely manner? The new top-up taxes and undertaxed profits rule are complicated. Schedule 4 runs to over 40 pages and includes an eight-step method to determine the proportion of an untaxed amount to be allocated to the UK. It is important that the Government minimise the cost of implementation and compliance. How will the Minister ensure that it is kept to a minimum?
While I welcome the work the UK is doing at a global level, there are still significant issues. I was interested, as I am sure the Minister was, to see that one of the first actions of President Trump, just hours after he took office, was to issue a presidential memorandum stating:
“This memorandum recaptures our nation’s sovereignty and economic competitiveness by clarifying that the global tax deal has no force or effect in the United States.”
It states in clear and unambiguous terms:
“The Secretary of the Treasury and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the OECD shall notify the OECD that any commitments made by the prior administration on behalf of the United States with respect to the global tax deal have no force or effect within the United States absent an act by the Congress adopting the relevant provisions of the global tax deal.”
The OBR estimates that pillar two is expected to generate £2.8 billion by the end of this Parliament. What impact could the US position have on the future operation of pillar two and the UK’s ability to levy top-up taxes on multinationals as planned? The same memorandum issued by President Trump notes that
“a list of options for protective measures”
will be drawn up within 60 days. What action are the Government taking to engage with the US Treasury and to prepare for such actions? Has the Chancellor raised this with her opposite number?
The Minister referred to the more than 30 Government amendments that have been tabled to schedule 4, which correct errors in the calculation of the multinational top-up tax payable under the UTPR provisions that would have resulted in an excessive liability; secure that eligible payroll costs and eligible asset amounts are allocated from flow-through entities in a manner that is consistent with pillar two model rules; and ensure that multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax apply properly in cases involving joint ventures. They are all perfectly sensible, but the number of amendments tabled underlines the complexity of the issue.
As I mentioned, this is a two-pillar system. The corporate tax road map confirmed the Government’s support for the international agreement on a multilateral solution under pillar one and the intention to repeal the UK’s digital sales tax when that solution is in place. The digital sales tax raised £380 million in 2021-22, £567 million in 2022-23 and £678 million in 2023-24. I would welcome an update from the Minister on pillar one and the future of the digital sales tax.
The Opposition will not be opposing the clause, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to the specific points I have raised, including those on developments under the new Trump Administration and on implementation.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the provisions before us and our general approach.
First, it is the case that we are amending the Bill in Committee, but that is because, as his colleagues may remember from their time in government, these are complex rules and it is important that pillar two rules work as intended. This is a complex international agreement and it represents one of the most significant reforms of international taxation for a century. It is to a degree inevitable that revisions would be needed as countries and businesses introduce pillar two and set it in progress. It is complex, but we should not forget that pillar two applies only to large multinational businesses, and the reason it is being introduced is to stop those businesses shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions and not paying their fair share here in the UK. The rules need to respond to that, and we need to make sure that they work for all sectors and all types of businesses.
James Murray
The clause repeals the offshore receipts in respect of intangible property legislation, known as ORIP, which was aimed at disincentivising large multinational enterprises from holding intangible property in a low-tax jurisdiction if the intangible property was used to generate income in the UK. Such enterprises could thereby gain an unfair competitive advantage over those that held intangible property in the UK. The policy is no longer required, because pillar two—the global minimum tax—will more comprehensively discourage the multinational tax planning arrangements that ORIP sought to counter.
As set out in the corporate tax road map, which we debated earlier, the Government are committed to simplification of the UK’s rules for taxing cross-border activities in the light of pillar two. Repeal will take place alongside the introduction of pillar two’s undertaxed profit rules in the UK from 31 December 2024, which we debated with clause 19. Clause 20 simply repeals chapter 2A of part 5 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and I commend it to the Committee.
James Wild
As we heard from the Minister, clause 20 repeals the ORIP rules, which are about ensuring that profits derived from UK consumers are taxed fairly and consistently, regardless of where the underlying intangible property is held. The previous Government announced in the 2023 autumn statement that they would abolish ORIP, so we support the clause.
The ORIP rules were a short-term, unilateral measure introduced in the Finance Act 2019 to disincentivise large multinational enterprises from holding intangible property—assets such as patents, trademarks and copyrights—in low-tax jurisdictions if it was used to generate income in the UK. Such multinationals could thereby gain an unfair competitive advantage over others that hold intangible property in the UK, as well as eroding the UK tax base. However, the legislation is no longer required, because the OECD/G20 inclusive framework pillar two global minimum tax rules will comprehensively discourage the multinational tax planning arrangements that ORIP sought to counter.
As the Minister said, the repeal will happen alongside the introduction of the pillar two undertaxed profits rule from 31 December 2024. Has he assessed how successful the ORIP rules have been since their introduction? HMRC’s tax information and impact notes state that this measure will have a negligible impact on around 30 large multinational groups and a negative impact on the Exchequer, peaking at £40 million in 2026-27. Can the Minister clarify why the repeal of the ORIP rules is having a negative impact on revenues to the Exchequer? I note that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has welcomed the measure and specifically said that
“any reduction in the legislative code to minimise overlap and unnecessary measures is welcome.”
We say amen to that.
As I have set out, we will not oppose the clause, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to my specific points about ORIP.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the clause. I think his question was about the impact of repealing ORIP. A fundamental point here is that pillar two, which we debated previously, will now tax the profits that were the target of ORIP. Pillar two is expected to raise more than £15 billion over the next six years, so ORIP is simply no longer needed. The Government believe that simplifying and rationalising the UK’s rules for taxing cross-border activities is important, and as such it is right that we use this opportunity to repeal ORIP.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Application of PAYE in relation to internationally mobile employees etc.
James Murray
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 21, page 11, line 21, after “is” insert “or has been”.
This amendment makes it clear that new section 690 applies if an employee has been internationally mobile in a tax year, even if the employee is no longer internationally mobile.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 16 to 19.
Clause stand part.
James Murray
I will briefly address clause 21 before explaining what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The clause makes changes to simplify the process for operating pay-as-you-earn where an employee is eligible for overseas workday relief. It relates to some of the reforms we are making around non-UK domiciled individuals, which we will return to later in Committee, because those clauses are in a different part of the Bill. More broadly, the context of this measure is that the Government are removing the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system, and replacing it with a new, internationally competitive, residence-based regime from 6 April 2025.
Currently, where an employer makes an application to treat only a portion of the income that they pay to an employee as PAYE income, they are required to wait for HMRC to approve an application, which can result in delays. The changes made by clause 21 will mean that from 6 April 2025, an employer will be able to operate PAYE only on income relating to work done in the UK once they have received an acknowledgment from HMRC of their completed application, rather than having to wait for HMRC to approve it. That approach will simplify the operation of overseas workday relief for employers, while still allowing HMRC to direct employers to amend the proportion of income on which PAYE is operated, should it be necessary to do so.
Amendments 15 to 19 are needed in order to ensure that the legislation regarding the correct operation of PAYE works as intended. The Government are committed to making the tax system fairer so that everyone who is a long-term resident in the UK pays their taxes here. The new regime ensures this, while also being more attractive than the current approach, as individuals will be able to bring income and gains into the UK without attracting an additional tax charge. That will encourage them to spend and invest those funds in the UK.
James Wild
As we have heard from the Minister, clause 21 amends the process by which employers can operate PAYE on a proportion of payments of employment income made to an employee during the tax year. It is a welcome change. We will be supporting the clause and the simplification that it introduces.
By way of background, the clause amends section 690 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. Section 690 provides a mechanism for an individual or employer to seek a decision from HMRC regarding the tax treatment of certain earnings. The resulting determination under section 690 is an agreement between HMRC and a UK employer on the estimated percentage of duties that an internationally mobile employee expects to carry out in a tax year. Once that determination is provided, the employer can operate PAYE on only that percentage of the employee’s salary.
Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. According to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, historically HMRC has missed its four-month target to agree employers’ applications, and in some cases it has taken up to a year to obtain HMRC’s approval. This is just one example of the difficulty that taxpayers have in engaging with HMRC. I welcome the comments that the Minister made at Treasury questions last week about the work that he is doing—he chairs the board of HMRC, I believe—to ensure that HMRC delivers a better service for customers. We all wish him well on that.
Perhaps this is an opportune time to remind the 3.4 million people who have to submit self-assessment tax returns to do so before the 31 January deadline. Colleagues may wish to ensure that they have submitted theirs.
In the absence of an agreement, PAYE must be operated on the whole salary, meaning that the employee would be overtaxed and must claim relief after the year end. That is not a satisfactory outcome for anyone. These changes will allow employers to immediately operate PAYE on only the proportion of earnings that they believe relates to UK duties, rather than having to wait for HMRC to approve the application. This new process is a welcome step forward in dealing with an issue that HMRC has had in meeting its legal obligations under the current tax system.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the clause and the amendments. He rightly recognises that this is a simplification to make things happen quicker in the tax system, and we can all agree on that. He raised some specific points, and I will write to him on the detail of the operation of the clause so that he has a record of that. I endorse his call for anyone who has not already submitted their self-assessment tax return to be mindful of the deadline of the end of the month.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendments made: 16, in clause 21, page 12, line 4, after “being” insert “or having been”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
Amendment 17, in clause 21, page 12, line 22, after “is” insert “or has been”.
This amendment makes it clear that a notice under new section 690A can be given during the mobile tax year if the employee has been internationally mobile during that year, even if the employee is no longer internationally mobile.
Amendment 18, in clause 21, page 13, line 22, leave out “public notice given” and insert “general direction made”.
This amendment means that the requirements of notices under new section 690A will be specified in a general direction made by HMRC rather than a public notice.
Amendment 19, in clause 21, page 15, line 38, at end insert—
“(3) Any direction given by an officer of Revenue and Customs under section 690 of ITEPA 2003 (employee non-resident etc) has no effect in relation to tax year 2025-2026 or any subsequent tax year.” —(James Murray.)
This amendment means that any direction given under the old section 690 will cease to have effect in relation to future tax years.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22
Advance pricing agreements: indirect participation in financing cases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
Clause 22 introduces technical amendments to provide certainty that advance pricing agreements are available for all financing arrangements covered by the transfer pricing rules, in line with the existing HMRC guidance.
The transfer pricing rules ensure that transactions between related parties, such as companies in the same multinational group, are priced as though they were between independent entities, in line with the arm’s length principle. This makes sure that each related party pays the appropriate amount of tax in the country in which it operates. That ensures a fair distribution of tax revenues across different jurisdictions and prevents companies from manipulating intra-group prices to shift profits to lower tax jurisdictions.
The UK’s advance pricing agreement legislation provides for agreements to be entered into between HMRC and businesses in scope of the transfer pricing rules, which determine the transfer pricing method that businesses should use to determine the arm’s length price. An advance pricing agreement is not special treatment for that taxpayer; rather, it provides improved certainty to taxpayers in areas where the correct application of the transfer pricing rules may be in doubt.
HMRC has recently become aware of a technical gap in the legislation that was contrary to its long-established statement of practice. The said statement of practice allows for an advance pricing agreement to be entered into where the parties are acting together in relation to financing arrangements. The changes made by this clause fix that gap and will ensure that HMRC can provide businesses with tax certainty in relation to the application of the transfer pricing legislation to all in-scope financing arrangements, in line with HMRC’s statement of practice.
The intention of this clause is to fix a technical gap in existing legislation and to ensure that HMRC can provide certainty in line with its existing published guidance.
James Wild
As we heard from the Minister, clause 22 makes amendments to parts 4 and 5 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 concerning the meaning of indirect participation in relation to advance pricing agreements. Once again, we welcome these changes. An APA is a procedural agreement between one or more taxpayers or one or more tax authorities on the future application of transfer pricing policies. Advance pricing agreements can help to provide certainty and avoid transfer pricing disputes.
HMRC recently became aware that there is a technical gap in the circumstances in which an advance pricing agreement may be entered into. Clause 22 aims to rectify that gap and provide clarity on what constitutes indirect participation in the context of APAs. The clause amends both the transfer pricing and APA legislation to ensure the validity of advance pricing agreements in cases where the parties to the provision are connected only by virtue of acting together in relation to the financing arrangements.
The clause will ensure the validity of advance pricing agreements with businesses in such circumstances and is intended to ensure that HMRC can provide businesses with tax certainty in relation to the application of transfer pricing legislation. We have spoken a lot during this Committee about the importance of certainty for business, so that is a welcome step.
By providing clarification on what indirect participation means, the Government are confirming the scope of advance pricing agreements, which should improve certainty and dispute resolution. The Chartered Institute of Taxation notes that
“this measure will be helpful for taxpayers that have applied to or want to apply to HMRC for APAs in relation to financing arrangements (such as Advance Thin Capitalisation Agreements) in circumstances where the UK’s transfer pricing rules are only in scope due to persons acting together in relation to those financing arrangements.”
The clause will likely improve the process both for businesses and HMRC. It is, however, a little hard to understand the real-world impact from the tax information and impact notes. Now that indirect participation has been defined and the scope of advance pricing agreements effectively broadened, will there be any extra enforcement cost? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm how many businesses the change is likely to impact. It would also be useful to know whether the Government have calculated the economic benefits of advance pricing agreements and, subsequently, how the change will impact the Exchequer. As I have set out, we welcome this technical change, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the issues I have raised.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. We are on a roll of him supporting clause after clause—may this continue throughout the rest of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman rightly recognises that this is a simplification measure on which all Members can agree. As it is a simplification measure, it is non-scoring, so it does not have an Exchequer impact—it simply provides certainty on how the rules as intended will apply. It does not change how the rules apply or make a policy change to the Government’s approach; it makes sure that there is total certainty and clarity about how they will apply. Only a limited number of taxpayers will be affected, and we expect them to welcome the change because of this certainty.
I welcome the Opposition’s support for this clause, because I think we can all agree on giving as much certainty to taxpayers and businesses as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Expenditure on zero-emission cars
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
Clauses 23 and 24 make changes to extend the 100% first-year allowances for qualifying expenditure on zero emission cars and plant or machinery for electric vehicle charge points by a further year to April 2026. The first-year allowance for cars was originally introduced for expenditure incurred from 17 April 2002 for low CO2-emission cars, including electric vehicles, and eligibility was later restricted to cars with zero CO2 emissions from April 2021. The first-year allowance for electric vehicle charge points was originally introduced for expenditure incurred from 23 November 2016. These first-year allowances were introduced to support the UK’s transition to cleaner vehicles and were due to expire in April 2025.
The changes made by clauses 23 and 24 will extend the availability of the capital allowances for a further year to 31 March 2026 for corporation tax purposes and 5 April 2026 for income tax purposes. This ensures that investments in zero emission cars and charge point infrastructure continue to receive the most generous capital allowance treatment. By extending the first-year allowances for zero emission cars and charge point infrastructure, the measure will provide continued support for the transition to electric vehicles.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clauses 23 and 24 extend the availability of the 100% first-year allowance for business expenditure on zero emission cars and for expenditure on plant or machinery for an electric vehicle charging point. Both allowances are extended for a single year from April 2025. In their current forms, both allowances were introduced by Conservative Governments. Although we will not oppose the clauses, there are a few questions that I would like the Minister to address.
The first relates to a point that has been highlighted by the Association of Taxation Technicians concerning clause 24. The ATT has queried why the specific allowance for charging points is being extended when this expenditure has been covered by both the annual investment allowance and full expensing since the Conservative Government made those reliefs permanent in 2023. That means that the allowance is really relevant only to unincorporated business—for example, a partnership or sole trader— that has already used its annual investment allowance in full, which is a scenario that the ATT considers to be quite rare.
According to the ATT, we should be able to tell how rare this is from the number of claims made for this specific allowance on tax returns. Will the Minister provide any information that he has to hand on that? HMRC has said it expects 6,000 unincorporated businesses to be impacted by clauses 23 and 24. Does the Minister have a figure for clause 24 alone and for specific unincorporated businesses that have exhausted their annual investment allowance? At the very least, I would be grateful if the Minister explained to the Committee the rationale behind that specific extension, given the context that the ATT has so clearly set out.
The cost to HMRC of implementing the clauses is a cool £1.2 million—a relatively high figure for the extension of a pre-existing allowance for a single year. If clause 24 is largely redundant, this hardly seems good value for money on HMRC’s part. I therefore ask the Minister to provide a clause-by-clause breakdown of the £1.2 million of taxpayers’ money that HMRC will spend to be able to execute the relief.
Turning back to clause 23, electric vehicles, unlike charging points, are not in scope of the annual investment allowance or full expensing, so I will not question the extension of that specific allowance, which we welcome. However, given the Government’s ambition to accelerate our transition to electric vehicles, I cannot help but wonder why they are putting a brake on the allowance after just a single year.
The Red Book states that the allowance will
“help drive the transition to electric vehicles”,
yet from April 2026, a business investing in these cars will receive relief only through annual writing-down allowances of either 18% or 6%, depending on the car’s emissions—those incentives are less generous and less immediate. At Budget 2020, we extended the EV allowance by four years to provide the support and certainty to businesses that the Minister says he so desperately wants. This Labour Government have declined to do the same, creating what some—not me—may call a cliff edge. As Labour increases the pace and the burden of the transition to net zero, they are also shifting the burden away from His Majesty’s Government and on to British businesses and British consumers. Once again, it is they who will pay the price for the Government’s obsession with decarbonising our grid and imposing net zero policies on the British public.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and his support for the clause. He mentioned a question that the ATT raised about the interaction between the extension of the 100% first-year allowance we are proposing, particularly for charge points, and the context of full expensing in the annual investment allowance. For businesses that are investing over the annual investment allowance limit, there may be circumstances where, if the first year allowance were not extended as it is by these clauses, some investment in EV charge point equipment would qualify for only a 50% first-year allowance rather than 100% full expensing. The Government want to support investment in EV charge point infrastructure by providing full relief for investment in equipment for EV charge points. That is why we have introduced this measure.
The shadow Minister asked for a specific figure. I do not have that to hand, but I am happy to look into what information is available and get back to him. More broadly, the 100% first-year allowance was due to expire in April 2025. This conversation has echoes of an earlier discussion we had around retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, and reliefs or allowances that we inherited and which are due to expire in April 2025. We have decided to extend this, and the reason why is to help support businesses and individuals who are buying or making electric vehicles and associated infrastructure. We see this as one of a series of measures to support the EV transition. It has come up in relation to a number of clauses, so I think it is clear to the Committee that the Government are pursuing a range of different interventions and policies to carefully calibrate the right level of Government support.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
In the interest of providing certainty, would the Minister explain why the Government did not choose a multi-year allowance on this, rather than going for an extension of only one year?
James Murray
As I was saying, we are seeking to calibrate the incentives carefully for the transition to EVs to support manufacturers and consumers and to give as much certainty as possible, while making sure that we have the right support in different parts of the tax system to provide value for money and support the transition in the right way. It is not a question of a single measure being responsible for supporting the transition. This relies on manufacturers and consumers playing their part, but the Government need to play their role, too, which is why this measure sits alongside others we have debated, including those that are not part of the Finance Bill but are part of the Government’s broader agenda. Collectively, they will support this transition.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commercial letting of furnished holiday accommodation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Did the Minister consider the different legislation in Scotland, where we have short-term letting licences, visitor tax and a whole load of extra legislation coming in, which is making it difficult and reducing the amount of holiday letting available? How relevant is the proposal for Scotland?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman’s question goes slightly beyond the ambit of the tax measures we are discussing. As I understand, he is talking about the wider regulation and the approach to lettings in Scotland. To echo my response to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, the measures really relate to the tax treatment of FHLs in comparison to standard property lettings, making them more equal. It does not make them entirely equal—VAT remains a point of difference—but it is about levelling the playing field between FHL landlords and the landlords of standard lettings in the tax system.
Mr MacDonald
My point was really about the cumulative effect of many different taxes and restrictions making it more and more difficult for people in the letting business, which is crucial to the economy of tourist areas.
James Murray
We know that in any local area there needs to be a balance between visitor accommodation and long-term accommodation. I am sure that the hon. Member and others recognise the tension inherent in getting that balance right. We need to ensure not only that we are supporting our visitor economy, but that the tax system supports long-term accommodation for people who live in those areas—not least because those who work in the tourism sector need somewhere to live near their place of work. It is about the balance between supporting visitor economies and long-term residential lets. We agree with the previous Government, who introduced the reform, on this point. The tax treatment of FHL landlords is better if brought more in line with standard residential lets.
I will briefly mention the anti-forestalling rule, which is also introduced as part of the Bill. It will prevent the obtaining of a tax advantage through the use of conditional contracts to receive capital gains relief under the current FHL rules. That rule applies from 6 March 2024.
In summary, the changes made by the provisions will make the tax system fairer by eliminating tax advantages for landlords who let out their properties as short-term furnished holiday lets compared with those who let out properties for longer periods. FHL landlords will now be treated the same as other residential landlords for the purposes of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. We are grateful to all the stakeholders who have already fed in following the publication of the draft legislation and supporting documents.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clause 25 and schedule 5 repeal special tax rules relating to the commercial letting of furnished holiday accommodation. The changes were first announced in our Government’s Budget in March 2024, and we will not oppose them. However, it is important to view the measures in the context of the wider changes to the circumstances of the hospitality sector as a result of Labour’s Budget—most notably the hike in national insurance contributions.
Loan Charge: Independent Review
James Murray Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the Budget, the Government announced that they would commission an independent review of the loan charge to help bring the matter to a close for those affected while ensuring fairness for all taxpayers. Today I can set out further details about the review.
The loan charge was intended to tackle historical use of contrived tax avoidance schemes that seek to avoid income tax and national insurance by disguising remuneration as a form of non-taxable payment (typically a loan). Disguised remuneration schemes have been considered by the courts. In the most notable case in 2017, the Supreme Court agreed with HMRC that schemes that redirect earnings and ultimately pay them in the form of loans do not succeed in avoiding tax. In a further decision in 2022, the Court of Appeal confirmed that even where other parties (such as employers or agencies) have obligations to operate PAYE, the liability for income tax is that of the employee.
The Government believe that it is right that those who did not pay the right amount of income tax and national insurance are required to resolve their affairs with HMRC. Accepting otherwise would be contrary to the decisions of the courts and would be unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers who have never used these schemes.
However, the Government recognise that concerns continue to be raised about the loan charge. In particular, there are concerns about the size of liabilities owed by some of those affected and their ability to pay the tax that they owe in a reasonable timeframe.
I have therefore asked Ray McCann, a former president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, to conduct a review into the barriers that are preventing those subject to the loan charge from reaching resolution with HMRC and to recommend ways in which they can be encouraged to do so.
The objectives of this review are to help bring the matter to a close for those affected; ensure fairness for all taxpayers; and ensure that appropriate support is in place for those subject to the loan charge. The full terms of reference for the review have been published here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-loan-charge.
The review will commence on 23 January 2025 and I have asked Mr McCann to present his final report to me by summer 2025. I will provide a further update to the House after I have received that report.
[HCWS386]
Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing
James Murray Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment she has made of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s supplementary forecast information release on the costing of changes to agricultural and business property relief.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the autumn Budget, we took difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending that were necessary to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services. We had to do that to address the mess we inherited from the previous Government, which the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will remember well, having served in that ill-fated Government. We have taken these decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.
The Government are better targeting agricultural property relief and business property relief to make them fairer. These reforms mean that despite the tough fiscal context, the Government are maintaining very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others.
Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is a similar picture for business property relief, with more than 50% of it being claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Our reforms mean that individuals can access 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil rate bands, this means that a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant, inheritance tax free.
Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility published further details on the data sources and modelling used to estimate costings across a number of the tax measures announced at Budget, including the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The costing is the same as published at Budget, and the approach to modelling the costing is typical and in line with other tax policies. As the Government have set out, the reforms mean that almost three quarters of estates claiming APR in 2026-27, including those that also claim BPR, will not pay more inheritance tax. This is a fair approach that protects farms while also fixing the public services we all rely on.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Victoria Atkins
Having inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor’s Budget has led to the highest borrowing costs since the pandemic, growth flatlining, business confidence plummeting and job freezes. Who has Labour chosen to pay the price for its economic illiteracy? Pensioners, family businesses and farmers. For months, farmers, farming businesses, professional advisers and economists, and now eight major supermarkets, have warned the Chancellor that she has got her figures wrong, but Ministers cleave desperately to their soundbites. Let us hope that they listen to the OBR.
Yesterday, the independent OBR released additional information about this particular measure and reiterated the “‘high’ uncertainty” of the predicted yield. It noted that the yield of the measure is likely to be reduced by 35% because of behavioural responses, and that it is unlikely to reach a steady state for 20 years. The OBR also expressed grave concerns about the impact on older individuals and their ability to plan. In short, the reassurances provided by Ministers are falling almost as flat as the economy.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has lectured this House about the perils of sidelining the OBR. In light of its analysis, will the Minister now commit to a full and proper review of this dreadful policy? The public have noticed that Government Ministers are failing to answer reasonable questions about their policies, so will the Minister please give straight answers to the farmers and businesses watching our proceedings today?
In light of the new analysis, how many farms does the Treasury think will be affected by the changes to APR, APR/BPR and BPR alone? What assessment has he made of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers’ finding that the Chancellor has underestimated the number of farms affected by the changes by a factor of five? How many tenant farmers will be evicted? As worrying reports of suicides among farmers begin to emerge, will the Minister please do what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to do and measure the number of suicides over the next 12 months, so that we can understand the human cost of this policy?
Finally, why does the Minister think that Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op have all come out against this tax policy and believe the Treasury’s figures to be wrong? Why does he think they are wrong and he is right?
James Murray
I think there may be some confusion on the Conservative Benches about what the OBR data shows. The data published by the OBR yesterday refers to exactly the same costing as was published at Budget. It sets out the approach to modelling and the costing, which is typical and in line with other tax policies. Indeed, the OBR’s statement makes it clear that:
“The OBR’s role is to provide independent scrutiny and certification of whether the Government’s policy costings are reasonable and central.”
That is exactly what the OBR has done in publishing the extra information, which shows the modelling behind the data that was published at the time of the Budget.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the data. The data on the number of affected estates claiming APR and, indeed, APR/BPR—some 530 is the upper estimate—is in table 1.1 of the OBR document published yesterday. That is consistent with what we have been saying for many months since the Budget. I think Opposition Members are confusing the value of farms with the value of claims under inheritance tax. The only way to truly understand the impact of changes to inheritance tax policy on inheritance tax claims is to look at the claims data itself.
We are working in partnership with the large supermarket chains to make sure they are driving economic growth. We are very clear that some of the decisions we had to take in the Budget were difficult decisions that will have consequences, but we are determined to work with businesses across the country to drive economic growth, which is the No. 1 mission of this Government.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West love the local produce provided by local farmers in our fantastic markets, such as Grainger market, and they enjoy the beautiful countryside of Northumberland, which has been shaped by generations of sustainable farming. However, we cannot help but be aware that most of that land is owned by, for example, the Duke of Northumberland, big landowners and those seeking to minimise their tax exposure, so does the Minister agree that, by keeping this loophole open for so long, the country has pushed up land prices and pushed out the next generation of young farmers?
James Murray
There certainly is evidence that the current inheritance tax system has caused people to use these reliefs for tax planning and to avoid inheritance tax bills. My hon. Friend alludes to the broader question of the fairness and sustainability of this measure. As I mentioned earlier, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates, and 50% of business property relief benefits the top 4% of estates. The Leader of the Opposition has said that she thinks this is a good way to prioritise public money, but we think it is neither fair nor sustainable.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
After years of the Tories failing our rural communities, including with a dodgy and utterly shameful Australian trade deal, it is a great pity that the new Government have picked up the baton. From Orkney to the Isles of Scilly, Liberal Democrat colleagues are extremely concerned about the impact of these proposals.
The report published yesterday clearly demonstrates the uncertainty about the income from the misguided family farm tax over the next two decades. In the light of this, and given that it will hit older farmers in particular and those who put food on the tables of the United Kingdom, will the Minister do the right thing and scrap this tax?
James Murray
The OBR document published yesterday refers to the level of uncertainty associated with this policy, which is exactly what was set out at the time of the Budget, and it is a typical way in which the OBR responds to new measures. What was published yesterday simply reiterates the OBR’s conclusions from the end of October.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, once again, the Conservative party has failed to agree with the tough decisions we have made and has no idea how to raise the revenue to finance the public services that benefit rural communities like mine in north Buckinghamshire?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The party opposite—in fact, the parties opposite—routinely support the Government’s spending and investment decisions but will not support any of the difficult decisions we have to take to fund them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The weight of public and business opinion is not with the Minister on this issue, and the body of expert opinion speaking out against this tax proposal is now overwhelming. The Minister is a kindly man, so I wonder if he will indulge me. What would he be saying if he were in opposition and that weight of opinion was being expressed against a Conservative Government’s Treasury policy?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is a kindly man, too. I value the conversations that he and I have had outside the Chamber. People looking at this policy, and all our policies in the Budget, will recognise that we had to take difficult decisions, and will understand the context: our inheritance from the previous Government. We recognise the toughness of those decisions—they were not easy to make—but we prioritise balancing the public finances and economic stability, because that is how we get investment in growth, which our country so badly needs.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
One of the witnesses before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee told us that the Government’s changes hit the people the Government say they are protecting, and protect the people the Government say they are hitting. It is difficult to improve on that analysis of what is proposed. It really does not have to be like that. There is a sensible debate to be had about reforming inheritance tax to stop the super-rich from sheltering their wealth while still protecting family farms. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has its technical consultation coming up. Why does the Minister not agree to broaden its terms, engage with the farming communities, and look for a way to protect family farms and get at those who are sheltering their wealth in land?
James Murray
The policy that we are implementing includes generous provisions to protect family farms—the £1 million entire relief from inheritance tax for agriculture and business property assets. That is in addition to the nil-rate bands that people can access as part of the general inheritance tax scheme. We think that strikes the right balance between making sure we raise money for the public finances and protecting family farms.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, have you noticed a pattern—that on a Thursday, a Treasury Minister will be asked to come to the Commons to answer an urgent question, and there will be barely a soul on the Labour Benches behind them when they do?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the measure will raise £500 million in revenue by 2029, which, in the context of tax revenues of over £1,150 billion, is a very small number. What value does the Minister put on food security for the United Kingdom?
James Murray
Obviously, the Government put the highest priority on food security. That is why our policies set out to support it, and the farming sector more widely. The policy is one of many difficult decisions that we had to take in the Budget to balance the public finances, support public services and provide the economic stability we need for investment and growth.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I have heard from many farming businesses across Glastonbury and Somerton over the last few months, but one farm in Hurcot near Somerton recently wrote to me to describe the anguish and stress that the changes to the APR and BPR have caused them. As in the case of many farming businesses, their succession planning has focused on the primary landowner retaining the farm until death. How will the Minister explain to them that according to the OBR, the potential loss of their family farm business is likely to have little impact on the public finances, and that the policy will hit the oldest farmers hardest?
James Murray
The OBR’s publication yesterday sets out the costings that were in the October Budget. There is no difference between the costings set out in October and what the OBR set out yesterday. It simply showed more of the background behind how they calculated those costings, for transparency and so that people are aware. Indeed, it says in the report that that is done in an effort to improve the public debate and ensure that people understand what is behind the data published at the time of the Budget.
As I said to several Opposition Members, clearly this was one of many tough decisions that we took in the Budget to balance the public finances, but we also made sure that there is greater protection from inheritance tax under our proposed reform scheme than is available more widely.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Labour Government’s family farm tax will be catastrophic to farmers in my constituency in the Borders. I will join many of them and their tractors in Kelso on Saturday, when the farming community comes together to show its displeasure and disapproval of this policy. Farmers will struggle to pay this tax, so what assessment have the Government made of the policy’s impact on vets, feed merchants, machinery suppliers, and all the other people who support the rural economy?
James Murray
Supporting the rural economy, public services and investment right across the country is part of Labour’s national mission to get the economy growing, but the prerequisite for that investment and economic growth is stable public finances. Without economic stability, we cannot proceed to the investment and growth that we all so desperately need. That is why the decision to target agricultural property relief and business property relief was taken, alongside all the other difficult decisions that we took in the Budget.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This measure is now revealed to be spectacularly ill-considered, leaving aside the fact that it is also a breathtaking betrayal of farmers, who were promised before the election that this would not happen. The measure groups intergenerational farmers with speculative millionaires seeking to dodge tax by getting involved in farming. It has put an immediate brake on investment in farming, which threatens to lower yields and drive up food prices. That then threatens to put inflationary pressures on the UK economy, which is already in a perilous state. This Government cannot just agree with the OBR when it suits them. They must agree with the OBR regardless of what it says. Will the Minister please respectfully pause the measure, take some time to think about this, and come up with something that will actually deliver for the Treasury but not push our family farming sector under.
James Murray
There still seems to be confusion among Opposition Members about what the OBR publication set out. It reiterates the costings that were published at the time of the Budget, on 30 October. It explains how those costings were arrived at, so that people can understand the calculations behind them, but the costings are the same as those published at the time of the Budget.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, if you look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, you will see a reference to my family farm in my constituency. Last Sunday, I drove one of our tractors to Fakenham racecourse to support the farmers’ protest against the APR and BPR. I talked to other farmers, and the key complaint was that there had been no consultation on the changes, and no time for older farmers to adjust their affairs. All those concerns have been rubbished by Ministers time and again, most recently today. Now that the OBR confirms that it is more difficult for older people to restructure their affairs quickly, will the Government finally listen, show some humility, and consult on how best to tackle the tax shelterers while still protecting our farmers?
James Murray
The comments in the OBR publication yesterday about older individuals reference a point that has been made since the Budget in debates in this place and elsewhere. We have pointed out that our reform of agricultural property relief and business property relief maintains generous exemptions from inheritance tax; £1 million is subject to relief, and there is the 50% relief beyond that, the existing nil-rate bands, and other exemptions in the system.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Unusually, in Scotland tenant farms can be passed down as inheritance. I have been asking the Treasury whether it has made an assessment of the impact on such farms, given that their farmers cannot sell land to meet the APR liability that they might face. So far, the answer appears to be that there is no assessment, so I ask the Minister for an answer from the Dispatch Box: is he aware of agricultural tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, and has he made an impact assessment?
James Murray
The way to calculate the impact of changes to inheritance tax policy is to look at the inheritance tax claims that have been made, and that is what we have used as the basis for our calculations. In fact, the OBR publication yesterday confirms that it used HMRC’s data on inheritance tax reliefs in the past and inheritance tax projected forward, and it is on the basis of that data that we designed our policy.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister has just confirmed that the Treasury’s modelling is based on agricultural property relief and joint agricultural and business property relief claims, yet tax experts have said in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that many family farms will wrap their agricultural land into a single business property relief claim, so the Treasury’s modelling does not take into account family farms that have used a BPR-only claim, tenant farmers who use BPR, and the many rural family businesses that will also use BPR. Will the Minister please take this opportunity to look at this again, before his Government wreck the countryside?
James Murray
As I set out earlier, the need to reform business property relief is as strong as the need to reform agricultural property relief, in order to have stable public finances and a fair and sustainable tax system. As I set out, 40% of APR goes to the top 7% of estates, and 50% of BPR goes to the top 4% of estates. Given the fiscal context that we inherited, that kind of unfairness is not sustainable. When balancing the books, we need to develop the tax system in a way that is sustainable and gives us the economic stability that we desperately need after the mess that the previous Government left us.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Farmers have made their inheritance tax plans in good faith, based on existing rules. In effect, the measure is a retrospective change to tax law, so will the Minister agree to at the very least delay its implementation until the effects are properly understood by both farmers and the Government?
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.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Minister just mentioned balancing the public finances—those are the key words—through these measures. We have just had the debt figures for December, which are 20% higher than the OBR expected them to be just two months previously. At what point will the Minister and the Government recognise that they have got this badly wrong and change course?
James Murray
We recognise that when the Conservative party was in government, it got it badly wrong. The country decided to change course, which is why they elected us into government to fix the public finances, put our public services back on their feet, boost investment and get the economy growing.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
They say that one ought to build one’s enemy a golden bridge. I think the compromise and pause proposed by the National Farmers Union is an elegant solution. That golden bridge is now being signposted by Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, the Co-op, and all the major retailers the Minister claims to be engaging with. Why does he not just pause, go back, listen, and review the policy?
James Murray
As I set out in answer to a previous question, the Government are committed to delivering the reforms announced in the Budget. They were carefully calibrated to retain generous inheritance tax exemptions, while ensuring that we balance the public finances as fairly as possible.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Bence Builders Merchants in my constituency has been providing good local produce and good local jobs since the Earl of Aberdeen was in power. The owner, Paul Bence, fears that the combination of business property relief changes and changes to employer’s national insurance mean that there is a huge disincentive to invest further. Does the Minister share my constituent’s concern?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his constituent’s concern. I do not know the specifics of the case, but more broadly, investment decisions depend above all else on a stable economy and stable public finances. Without the hard work that we have done since taking office to fix the public finances and bring back economic stability, investment would be hampered, and our growth ambitions would not materialise in the way that we are determined to ensure happens.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
There will be a rally on Saturday, and the Minister appears to imagine that this indicates acclamation for his policy. We heard earlier in the week from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and today from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah)—both well-known rural areas—that this is all about the landed estates and wealthy people, but I can assure the Minister that the farmers I will speak with in Castle Douglas on Saturday are tenant farmers and family farmers, and they face being put off the land after generations. Is he really suggesting that I should tell them they have nothing to worry about?
James Murray
I am not going to tell the hon. Gentleman what he should say to his constituents, but what I can tell him about the Government’s policy is that we have reserved generous inheritance tax reliefs for people in the situations he describes. I encourage anyone who is concerned to seek advice, to understand exactly how the new rules might apply to them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Sometimes I am absolutely flummoxed—we probably all are—by the Chancellor’s intent to tax working family farms, which we all know will result in the loss of small farms, the sale of the land and a reduction in food security. Now it seems that the OBR agrees that it will not make savings. Will the Minister commit to meeting Cabinet colleagues urgently to remove the sword of Damocles that is hanging above small family farms and hurting the agrifood sector as a whole? I say to the Minister that there is a way forward: increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million, and family farms will be saved.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think it was based primary on the OBR publication yesterday. I reiterate the point I have made several times now: that OBR publication reiterated the costings and figures set out at the Budget, it reiterated the level of uncertainty associated with the measure, as published at the Budget, it provides more detail behind that, but the conclusion is the same as it was on 30 October.
Mr Carmichael
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before questioning the Minister, I should have reminded the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My failure to do so, for which I apologise, was inadvertent—I just got carried away with the excitement of the moment.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Murray Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The UK carbon border adjustment mechanism will be introduced in 2027. It will ensure that imports face a carbon price that is comparable with domestic products, giving UK industry the confidence to invest without its decarbonisation efforts being undermined. UK steel producers will continue to benefit from high levels of free allowances in the UK emissions trading system until at least the end of 2026, protecting them against carbon leakage via high-emission imports.
Antonia Bance
Newby Foundries and Alucast in my constituency of Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley have raised with me the impact of the UK CBAM coming into effect later than, and differing from, the EU CBAM. This could threaten domestic steel production and make the export of metal products to the EU more difficult. Can the Minister please support the UK’s steel and metal finishing industries by reassuring me that the UK CBAM will not be weaker than the EU CBAM, and will he meet me and other steel MPs to discuss this?
James Murray
As I have set out, the UK CBAM will mitigate the risk of carbon leakage by placing a carbon price on some of the most emissions-intensive industrial goods imported into the UK, including in the iron and steel sector. The UK CBAM is designed for the UK context, and in some areas, its emissions scope is wider than the EU CBAM—in respect of indirect emissions, for instance. The first CBAM industry working group was held earlier this week, and I understand that a representative of the UK steel sector attended. I will make sure that my officials continue to engage with the industry sectors most affected, and I am very happy to discuss this further with my hon. Friend.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Heavy industry, whether it is steel, ceramics or so many other areas, is totally dependent on low energy costs. The trajectory is that energy costs are rising, especially in industry, whether as a result of regulation or world markets. Many other countries are doing more to protect their heavy industries by making sure they can have low input costs for energy. What more can the Minister do to protect our heavy industry in the future?
James Murray
The No. 1 thing for industry and households is to bring down the cost of energy. That is why we are investing in renewable home-grown energy for the future, to make sure we have energy independence, energy security and, crucially, lower bills for those households and businesses.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government announced a range of measures at the autumn Budget to support SMEs, including in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. They include more than doubling the employment allowance, freezing the small business rates multiplier, extending RHL relief to 40%, maintaining the small profits rate and reducing the duty on qualifying draught products, which represent 60% of alcoholic drinks sold in pubs.
Bobby Dean
The Labour manifesto committed to replacing the business rates system. However, last week at the Treasury Committee, the Minister seemed to rule out the kind of comprehensive reform that the Liberal Democrats and others have been campaigning for, and indicated that there might only be a tinkering around the edges of rates and reliefs. Can the Minister confirm today whether the Government still intend to replace the business rates system, or will they just be tinkering around the edges of this broken system?
James Murray
I think that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which are the backbone of our high street, might object to the idea of permanently lower tax rates as “tinkering around the edges”. That is a fundamental change that we want to bring in from April 2026 to make sure they have stability, certainty and permanently lower rates. Alongside it are our wider ambitions in the “Transforming Business Rates” discussion paper, which I invited the hon. Gentleman to read and respond to at last week’s Treasury Committee.
Michael Wheeler
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the register of interests.
Retail is an important part of the economy in my constituency, which includes many wonderful independent businesses. Will, who runs the excellent Wandering Palate in Monton, wrote to me about the challenges he is facing. Will the Minister outline the measures the Government are taking to support small business owners like Will in my constituency and across the country to enable our high streets to thrive?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for referencing Wonderful Palate, the business in his constituency. I do not know the details of the rateable value of that property, but I point the owner to the fact that we are retaining small business rate relief, freezing the small business multiplier next year and extending the retail, hospitality and leisure relief in 2025-26. I also point the owner of that business and other businesses to our future plan, as I mentioned, to have permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with values of below £500,000, as well as to consider reforms to small business rate relief to better support businesses that want to expand into a second premises.
Steve Darling
What consideration have Ministers given to exempting the seasonal tourism industry from the national insurance hikes set to kick in this summer? That would benefit Paignton zoo and Splashdown in the Torbay constituency.
James Murray
We set out the details of our decision to increase the rate of national insurance contributions from employers and to reduce the threshold, and we have added the different benefit we will give, particularly to small businesses and charities, by more than doubling the employment allowance. The employer national insurance contribution changes were among the toughest we took in the Budget, but they were necessary to repair the public finances and deliver the economic stability that is so crucial for investment and growth.
Mr Speaker
We have had the former Chair of the Treasury Committee, so let’s now have the current Chair.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary rightly said that small and medium-sized enterprises are a vital part of our high streets and our economy, and one of the biggest changes is, of course, the change to business rates. He was not tempted at the Select Committee last week to give more detail on the timeframe for that, but many businesses want certainty about business rates as they go forward. May I tempt him to give an indication of the Government’s thinking about how quickly this change might be introduced and whether the small business rate relief is likely to survive or to be subsumed into a new regime?
James Murray
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions. If she did not succeed in tempting me at the Select Committee, I doubt she will succeed today, but I can reassure her that the decisions we have set out about introducing the permanently lower business rate for RHL—retail, hospitality and leisure—properties below a £500,000 rateable value will be coming in from April 2026. Specifically in relation to small business rate relief, I can confirm that the Government are committed to retaining that. One of the options we are looking at in our “Transforming business rates” discussion paper is how to support businesses that want to expand into a second premises, thereby growing the business, because at the moment there is the cliff edge where they lose small business rate relief.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Confidence on Britain’s high streets is sliding faster than the Chancellor will be down the ski slopes of Davos later today. With retail sales down—rather than up, as expected in the run-up to Christmas—and with the British Retail Consortium saying that two thirds of stores will raise prices to cover her national insurance increases, when will the Minister accept that the Chancellor’s economic strategy of raising taxes and increasing regulations is not working?
James Murray
I am glad to know that the shadow Minister’s morning was well spent cooking up that line about the Davos ski slopes. What he will know, and what sectors across the economy will know, is that having a stable economy is a prerequisite for the investment we need to get the economy growing. That is why we had to take difficult decisions at the autumn Budget, including those to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions. Alongside that increase, however, we more than doubled the employment allowance and set out our plans to have permanently lower tax rates for high street RHL properties from April 2026.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
A number of small high street businesses will be hit hard by the Government’s jobs tax and the dramatic reduction in business rates relief, and House of Commons Library research that I commissioned shows that from April 2026 the Government’s reforms to business rates could leave small and independent businesses in effect subsidising the big chains. Will the Chancellor meet me and a delegation of small and independent businesses from St Albans so that we can make the case for fairer reforms and for wholesale reform of the broken business rates system?
James Murray
One of the problems with the Liberal Democrats is that they support all our spending plans, but they do not support any of the tax changes to fund them. This is a prime example. When we talk about increasing employer national insurance contributions, we acknowledge that that was one of the toughest decisions we took at the Budget, but it was necessary to fix the public finances and provide support for those public services, which I note the Liberal Democrats are very keen to support.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
During the passage of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, we set out clearly how the scheme would work to reimburse costs for public departments or local government. That measure is in line with what the previous Government attempted to do with the health and social care levy. Where third-party private contractors are engaged, those costs will be considered by local government or other public sector organisations in the round.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Lowe, topical questions are meant to be short and punchy. I am sure that you are very good at that normally.
James Murray
One of my key priorities as Exchequer Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for HMRC is to oversee a programme of transformation at HMRC to improve its customer service, to digitise the service, to close the tax gap and to ensure that we have the modern, reformed service that we need for the future.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
James Murray
As my hon. Friend set out, decisions on eligibility for covid-19 financial support were taken by the previous Government. The current Government have no plans to assess the financial compensation scheme, but the covid-19 inquiry has recently launched its module to investigate the economic response to the pandemic. The Government are committed to learning from its findings.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When I visited St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln recently, the chief executive told me that it was having to pay £350,000 extra every year to cover the national insurance increase. I do not expect an answer now, but as we all agree that palliative care is so important and we want to encourage it, and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill started its Committee stage today, will the Government keep that increase for hospices under review?
James Murray
We have been clear since the Budget that the decision to raise employer national insurance contributions was one of the toughest we have taken as a Government, and we recognise that it has consequences for businesses. However, we think all businesses will benefit in future from the economic stability that this decision will bring; it will drive investment and growth across the country.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
James Murray
What we accept is that the difficult decisions we took at the Budget enabled extra funding to be put into the NHS. GP surgeries have had a funding settlement that considers all the pressures on them in the round.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
My constituency has a proud industrial heritage, with manufacturing still worth £1 billion a year to the local economy from sectors that account for nearly 10% of the UK’s total economic output. What steps have the Government taken to promote the growth of the manufacturing sector and ensure that towns like Dudley continue to build on their industrial traditions?
Agricultural and Business Property Relief
James Murray Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. Likewise, he is always thoughtful in his contributions, so I am always glad to hear from him and indeed the interventions that he allowed during his speech.
I know hon. Members have raised questions about the reforms that we are making, and I will try to address as many of them as I can. However, let me start by briefly reminding hon. Members of the economic context in which the decisions were taken. At the autumn Budget, we took difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending
to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services, as a result of the situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We took those tough decisions in a way that will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable. The decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was not taken lightly. The reforms mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax, beyond what is available to others.
Richard Foord
I do not question the Minister’s difficult inheritance, but the Labour party adviser Dan Neidle suggests that the plan to slap inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million should be replaced with a much higher threshold with a clawback mechanism, perhaps for land over £20 million that is sold. That would tackle the Dysons of the world without affecting small family farms. What does the Minister think of that proposal?
James Murray
I am just about to come on to the details of the reforms that we have made to agricultural property relief and business property relief. If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will see some of the reasoning behind the decisions that we took.
The Government recognise the role that the reliefs play, particularly in supporting farms and small businesses, and under our reforms that will continue. The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full unlimited exemption, which was introduced in 1992, had become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets has become heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.
It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief.
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)).
Debt Advice Services
James Murray Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) on securing the debate. I very much recognise and have seen the work she has done over the years to raise the profile of responsible consumer credit practices and effective debt advice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for her contribution and specifically for raising the experience of her constituents.
Credit, when offered responsibly, can be an essential tool for people who have to manage unexpected costs or who need to smooth their cash flow. As a Government, we want to support consumers in having access to credit when they need it. But, at the same time, we are determined to ensure that access to credit comes with robust protections to ensure that lending is affordable and consumers are protected when things go wrong. That is why in October last year we published a consultation on a proposed regulatory regime for “buy now, pay later” products. The regime will introduce better protections for millions of consumers and will bring “buy now, pay later” firms into the regulatory perimeter of the FCA. That in turn will mean that firms offering “buy now, pay later” products will be required to pay specific annual FCA fees and levies. Among those is the financial guidance levy, the proceeds of which fund free debt advice services.
As I turn to the importance of debt advice, I pay tribute to the thousands of debt advisers across the country for the critical work they do to provide support for those in need.
Ms Creasy
We all value the debt advisers. As my hon. Friend has just said, “buy now, pay later” companies do not yet contribute to the levy that pays for those people, but the companies themselves have said that they would make voluntary contributions. Would the Treasury consider approaching them to get that money ahead of their being part of the regulatory landscape, so that we can have more of these brilliant debt advisers?
James Murray
I am sure that Treasury officials and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), will be in close contact with the sector about any proposals they have. It is important to emphasise that because of the regulations we are consulting on for the new regime, that will mean that “buy now, pay later” firms will be required to pay those specific fees and levies, which will help fund free debt advice services. We know that funding those services is important because intervention through debt advice services not only prevents financial difficulties from escalating, but protects people’s overall mental health and wellbeing. More widely, there are positive effects for families, communities and the economy at large.
As a new Government, we are committed to supporting national and community-based services through the Money and Pensions Service, or MAPS as it is commonly known. Those services provide advice to hundreds of thousands of individuals and families in need in England. In December, MAPS published its first debt advice impacts report, which showed that across 2023-24 people accessing debt advice through MAPS-funded services gained an estimated £48 million of extra income. That underlines the fact that for many people, advice not only allows them to deal with their debt problems, but helps them to find a way forward with more money in their pockets. Eighty-seven per cent of people who received MAPS-funded debt advice said they would recommend the service to someone in a similar situation.
Outside of England, the UK Government provide funding through the financial services levy to the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As debt advice is a devolved matter, the devolved Governments have responsibility for delivering those services within their nations and for tailoring provision to the needs of their local communities.
My hon. Friends spoke about the gap between those who need debt advice and those who are currently accessing it. The Government recognise that gap and the need to tackle it. Funding levels, which my hon. Friends mentioned, are regularly reviewed to reflect demand, inflation and evolving needs. The MAPS debt advice budget for the upcoming financial year will be communicated in the usual way in the spring, and I will ensure that my hon. Friends are informed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the MAPS consultation last year on the future of its debt advice commissioning strategy. MAPS published its response to that consultation in October, setting out its commitment to increasing debt adviser wellbeing, further building advisers’ skills and delivering digital transformation across the debt advice sector. As part of its efforts to address unmet demand for debt advice, MAPS has also launched its debt advice modernisation fund, a grant initiative designed to support projects aimed at enhancing and modernising debt advice services in the not-for-profit sector. Projects are currently under way and will be completed by the end of March.
My hon. Friends touched on the wider issue of financial inclusion. I assure them that the Government are taking further steps to ensure that individuals can access the financial services they need.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
In my constituency, the Whitmore Reans Welfare Centre, a voluntary organisation, signposts individuals to the debt advice that they need. In the past, the centre received funding for a part-time or full-time caseworker, but it is finding it increasingly difficult to provide the kind of one-to-one advice mentioned earlier, which is so useful for residents. Can the Minister give any advice on how to help organisations of that nature so that constituents can be signposted to, and given, one-to-one advice?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that constituency case and highlighting the important work that that organisation does for his constituents. I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on individual funding decisions, but he underlines the importance of tailoring to local need. Although there may be a national priority to ensure that people are provided with debt advice, individual local debt advice agencies will need to tailor their services to the needs of their communities. He is an excellent advocate for his constituents in that regard.
Alongside the debt advice services that the debate has focused on, it is important, as I was saying, that individuals can access the financial services that they need. That is why the Government announced in December our intention to develop a financial inclusion strategy that will aim to further tackle barriers to individual and household ability to access affordable and appropriate financial products and services. The strategy will be supported by a committee that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury convened for the first time in December, which will consider the problem of debt.
I will turn my attention briefly to the work that the Government are doing to support vulnerable individuals and businesses repaying debt to the public sector. The Government debt management function functional centre, based in the Treasury, convenes the debt fairness group—a collaboration with the debt advice sector that identifies opportunities to continuously improve public sector debt recovery processes. The functional centre’s work includes debt management toolkits to support public sector bodies dealing with those facing physical and mental health challenges, and to help them identify and support the 8.7 million adults in the UK who have experienced economic abuse.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow once again for raising this important matter. I have no doubt that she will continue to be a champion on the issues that we have discussed. The Government remain committed to providing accessible debt advice and promoting financial inclusion. We are committed to ensuring that everyone has the support they need to manage their finances effectively and build a more secure future for themselves and their family.
Question put and agreed to.
Crown Estate Bill [Lords]
James Murray ExcerptsTuesday 7th January 2025
(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Act 2025 View all Crown Estate Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Nov 2024)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on the Crown Estate. May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a happy new year?
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments today, as well as for the contributions of all my hon. Friends. I am particularly grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill in general, which they display by their absence this afternoon. I welcome the questions set out by the shadow Minister and I will go through some of those in my remarks.
As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury noted in his opening speech, the purpose of the Bill is to bring the legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century by making a targeted and measured enhancement to its powers and governance. Without the Bill, the Crown Estate would continue to be restricted in its ability to compete and invest and would therefore be limited in its ability to deliver returns to the public purse. The Bill therefore broadens the scope of the activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition that we know is so crucial. It empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively and, critically, the measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the contribution that the Crown Estate can make to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK.
I turn to some of the points raised in the debate. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s broad support for the Bill’s aim. On his specific question about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers, the Bill is clear that any borrowing undertaken by the Crown Estate can only be from the Treasury or otherwise with Treasury consent. The Treasury will, of course, ensure that any borrowing is consistent with our fiscal rules. There will, as has been noted, be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, and that will govern how borrowing powers will be exercised. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that that is consistent with managing public money principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.
The shadow Minister also asked specific questions about commissioners’ pre-appointment scrutiny. I want to set out for him how the appointment of other commissioners is likely to work. The Crown Estate commissioners who manage the Crown Estate are appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of Ministers. The appointment process is governed by the code for public appointments. The reforms in the Bill will not alter the fundamental statutory basis of the Crown Estate, which is as a commercial business that is independent of government, operates for profit, competes in the marketplace and needs to recruit the highest quality talent to its board of commissioners. Within that context, it would not be appropriate for either the Government or Parliament to place further requirements on the recruitment process.
The shadow Minister also asked about chief executive pay. The details of a chief executive’s remuneration are a matter for the Crown Estate board, which is operationally independent of government, as I set out. As the Crown Estate is statutorily an independent, commercial organisation, which returns hundreds of millions of pounds in profit to the Exchequer every year, continuing the success is crucial and it requires the organisation to have the freedom to compete for the top talent in the commercial world.
We know that cheap executive remuneration in this context is set at the lower end of the private sector peer group, which is agreed with the Treasury. The majority of the package is in fact conditional on performance, which ensures that the chief executive rewards are heavily dependent on delivering long-term value to the Exchequer. The shadow Minister also asked about governance when it comes to the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. I can set out to him the operational matters in regard to the partnership, but they will be determined in their final detail by the passing of the great British Energy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. Once it completes all its legislative stages, the partnership will be subject to an agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. This will include a report on the activities of the commissioners under that partnership and any effects or benefits resulting from the activities of the commissioners that entails.
The shadow Minister asked a specific question about the amendment on the seabed, which was debated in the other place by Lord Livermore. As hon. Members may know, on Report of the Crown Estate Bill in the Lords, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury committed to bring forward an amendment, if it were needed, to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed. That was in response to concerns from peers that the seabed, which is owned by the Crown Estate, is a unique asset and therefore special protections may be warranted. As the Financial Secretary noted at the time, the law on the ownership of the seabed is complex, so officials are working with the Crown Estate to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed. If it is established that further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed, we will look to bring forward an amendment at Committee stage.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned the measures on salmon that were inserted in the Bill in the other place. There is a fundamental question about whether the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for a debate about the rights of salmon and protecting animal rights in that context. In England, Wales and Northern England, to which the Bill applies, there is on Crown Estate-owned land only one relevant area—one relevant salmon farm. The issue really relates more widely to Scotland, which is governed by Crown Estate Scotland and not by the provisions in this Bill. We know that fisheries policy is the responsibility of devolved Government in Scotland. All fish farming in England is regulated with the intention to ensure that it is carried out in a responsible manner. Given that virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, the matter is really one for a different debate.
As well as the comments from the shadow Minister, we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). Many points that she raised have been covered in what I have said so far, although she raised an additional point that aligned with comments by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about how the Crown Estate will balance the expansion of offshore renewables with the needs of the fishing industry, marine wildlife and so on. I wish to set out briefly the Government’s position on that matter. We know that the Crown Estate is committed to sustainable management of the seabed and, where appropriate, it collaborates with industry stakeholders, marine licence bodies and environmental non-governmental organisations to ensure that activities on the seabed are conducted responsibly.
As with any developer, the proposals of the Crown Estate go through a standard planning application process, which includes the relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering that aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates the recovery of, our marine environment. The Bill will not directly impact on how much commercial fishing takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) raised an important point around grid connections and grid connectivity, which are vital to ensuring that our plans to move towards clean energy are effective. His points were important as part of the connection between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, which we have been talking about during the debate. One benefit of the Crown Estate working with Great British Energy is that they can work together to speed up the process of developing clean energy projects, including co-ordinating planning requirements and grid connections, as well as leasing land to de-risk and speed up projects so that private developers can get on and build them. That will be crucial to unlocking the private investment and speeding up the deployment of clean energy infrastructure. As well as de-risking private sector investments, GB Energy and the Crown Estate will directly co-invest in clean energy infrastructure. That will include floating offshore wind and carbon capture projects.
Several of my hon. Friends made important points around local community benefits and supply chains. I thank in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). They all focused on the importance of community benefits, local supply chains and investment in jobs and skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made a helpful set of points around the importance of long-term community benefit—that is, people who are not just building infrastructure, making a one-off payment and then leaving, but actually making a long-term investment in the area and the people who live there. She referred to Projekt Renewable in her constituency, and it would be interesting to discuss that with her after the debate.
Looking more broadly at what the Crown Estate has been doing and intends to do on investing in local community benefit, it is committed to working with local communities and partners to enable employment and skills opportunities. For example, it has allocated £50 million through the supply chain accelerator to stimulate green jobs. It is also developing a green skills pipeline from a GCSE in engineering skills for offshore wind, seed-funded by the Crown Estate and developed with Cornwall college, to a post-16 destination renewables course with Pembrokeshire college. The Crown Estate is partnering with the employment charity Workwhile to create green construction apprenticeships.
On offshore wind specifically, the Crown Estate has worked on upskilling frontline Department for Work and Pensions work coaches to be well equipped to support job seekers in the offshore wind industry through the offshore wind learning programme and specifically in relation to offshore leasing round 5, which hon. Members have mentioned. The Crown Estate has designed the leasing process in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of new wind farms, including a requirement to provide an apprenticeships plan and a skills development plan.
The Crown Estate is also committed to working with communities to ensure that future generations can make the most of the opportunities that marine energy will bring. It is working closely with local educational institutions, such as Falmouth marine school, where it helped develop a pre-16 engineering programme to build skilled local workforces, alongside other initiatives, including the marine internship programme and a recent partnership with the Sea Ranger Service, which is based in Port Talbot.
We heard from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who asked questions about the devolution of the Crown Estate and its functions to Wales. Some of the points she raised were addressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important to recognise that the proposed powers in the Bill will be of huge benefit to Wales. Combined with its existing scale, expertise and track record, the Crown Estate is uniquely placed to help drive the activities required, such as de-risking and developing offshore renewable energy and other emerging offshore technologies to realise the potential of the Celtic sea. I would be concerned that further devolution of the Crown Estate in the manner suggested could fragment the renewable energy market and undermine the strong international investor confidence in the UK to the detriment of both Wales and the wider UK. It would risk creating further complexity and delay our drive for energy security and net zero at a time when simplicity and accelerated deployment are essential. That is why the Government believe that the existing provisions are the best way to ensure that the assets of the Crown Estate are managed most effectively to benefit people across Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) spoke of his concern about environmental impacts. Offshore wind is essential to meeting our net zero and energy security objectives, which I hope he supports, but to get the wider balance right, the habitat regulations assessment process ensures that we can deliver our offshore wind requirements while maintaining environmental protections. The Government are also consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework to increase support for renewable energy schemes in order to tackle climate change while safeguarding environmental resources.
I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) for their particularly impassioned support for the principles behind the Bill and what it sets out to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, it is crucial for investment, growth and modernising the Crown Estate for the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer focused on the power of the Bill’s measured reforms to modernise the Crown Estate and support growth in a fiscally responsible way while generating revenue that will benefit our constituents across the country.
I hope that I have managed to address hon. Members’ points. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have set out, the Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, thereby modernising it for the 21st century. It broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enables it to further invest in the energy transition, and empowers it to invest more effectively in capital-intensive projects. Critically, the measures in it will unlock more long-term investment and increase the contribution of the Crown Estate to generating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK. Growth is at the heart of our Government’s mission. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
CROWN ESTATE BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Crown Estate Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 11 February.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
CROWN ESTATE BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Estate Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Treasury under any other Act that is attributable to the Act;
(2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the fund under any other Act that is attributable to the Act.—(Christian Wakeford.)
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
James Murray ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
Iqbal Mohamed
Everyone in my constituency, and indeed in the whole country, knows that the last Tory Government decimated public services after 14 years of austerity, mismanagement, negligence and a sole focus on the rich, at the expense and neglect of the poor working class and the public sector. I sympathise with the new Government, and I will try to provide constructive support.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcements in the Budget of increased investment in education, the NHS, infrastructure projects and other public services, but, like many other people in the House and throughout the country, I do not agree with the approach taken to the funding of those investments. Members on both sides of the Committee have indicated today that failing to protect key sectors and services such as general practices, care homes, pharmacies, childcare providers and third sector providers may have been an oversight or a mistake on the Government’s part, but I am not so sure. On the basis of the Government’s other blanket policies on abolishing the winter fuel allowance, imposing VAT on all private schools including low-fee and charitable schools and removing business rates relief from all private schools and charities without any announcement of safeguarding or compensatory measures to protect these services and sectors, it appears to have been a deliberate, or negligent, decision.
It is clear that the Government inherited a dire state of affairs that requires huge investment, which must be paid for in a responsible way. I am sorry to say that the way that has been chosen by this new Labour Government is not the right one. Viable and progressive alternatives are available to the Government to raise finances for the necessary investment rather than inflicting the increase in national insurance contributions on the impacted bodies. Let me suggest a couple of easy measures that would support the Government’s investment. One possible solution is the imposition of a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise the amount predicted to be raised by national insurance contributions; another is the closing of corporation tax loopholes that allow corporations to save billions and to offshore profits.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I am conscious that I have only a few moments to speak. I will not go through the four clauses of the Bill, as I take it that everyone will have read it already. I will instead go directly to the amendments that have been tabled, ahead of potential votes in a few moments.
I will address the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). These amendments seek to exclude certain sectors, including healthcare providers, educational settings and charities, from the new rate and threshold for employer national insurance. As hon. Members know, the changes in the Bill before us represent one of the difficult but necessary decisions that the Government have had to take to fix the foundations of our economy and our public finances.
James Murray
I cannot give way. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman many times in recent weeks, but I have about four minutes in which to address everyone’s comments.
As hon. Members have set out, we recognise that the changes we are making today will have an impact on employers. Making these changes was a tough decision that we did not take lightly, but we are also clear that the revenue raised from the measures in this Bill and others in the Budget will play a critical role in both restoring economic stability and getting the NHS back on its feet. As a result of the measures in this Bill and the wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week.
The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers on additional employer national insurance costs, including central Government, public corporations and local government. Independent contractors, including primary care providers, social care providers, charities such as hospices and nurseries will not be supported with the costs. That is the same as was the case with the changes to employer national insurance rates under the previous Government’s plans for the health and social care levy.
Primary care providers—general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors that provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consults each sector about what services they provide, and about the money to which they are entitled in return under their contract. As in previous years, the issue we are debating today will be dealt with as part of that process in the round. The Department of Health and Social Care will confirm funding for general practice, dentistry and pharmacy for 2025-26 as part of the usual contract process later in the financial year, including through consultation with sectors.
I turn to adult social care. The Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of around 3.2% for 2025-26, including at least £680 million of new grant funding for social care. The funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector; again, they will be considered in the round.
Some hon. Members have tabled amendments to exclude charities from the new national insurance rate and threshold. However, it is important to recognise that charities can benefit from employment allowance, which this Bill has more than doubled from £5,000 to £10,500. That will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest. The Government also provide wider support for charities, including hospices, via a tax regime. This tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors that are worth just over £6 billion for the year to April 2024.
I recognise that some hon. Members have shown an interest in the impact of this Bill on childcare settings, as highlighted in the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans, for Grantham and Bourne, and for Lagan Valley, and in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). Early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible, which is why the Government committed in our manifesto to deliver the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents, and to open 3,000 new or expanded nurseries, by upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. Despite the very challenging circumstances that the Government inherited, the Chancellor announced in her Budget in October significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places. This means that the total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.
New clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, specifically refers to the eligibility criteria for employment allowance. I can assure her that they have not changed, except for the removal of the £100,000 threshold, which will mean that more organisations are able to access employment allowance. The eligibility of a particular organisation will depend on the make-up of an individual business’s work, which can be determined following detailed guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While every organisation will need to check its eligibility for the employment allowance, it is likely that many childcare providers will be able to access it.
Finally, I will turn to the amendments to exclude universities from the new rate and thresholds for employer national insurance. We greatly value UK higher education in creating opportunity, being an engine for growth in our economy and supporting local communities. The Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. The Secretary of State for Education has confirmed that the maximum fees in the academic year 2025-26 will rise, for the first time since 2017, from £9,250 to £9,535. This was a difficult decision, which demonstrates that the Government are serious about the need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing. I would like to continue, Madam Chair, but I should stop now—
James Murray
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill seeks to put into law one of the toughest decisions we made at the Budget in October. As I set out in earlier stages of the Bill, we recognise that there will be impacts on employers as a result of the changes, with employers facing difficult decisions. It will implement a difficult but necessary decision that, along with others, is critical to raising the revenue needed to fix the public finances, get public services back on their feet and restore economic stability.
The Bill before us has three measures: first, an increase to the main rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%; secondly, a decrease in the secondary threshold for employers from £9,100 to £5,000 per year from 6 April 2025; and thirdly, changes to the employment allowance to support small businesses. The measure will protect small businesses and charities by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 pounds a year from April 2025. In addition, the £100,000 eligibility threshold will be removed.
Through the measures in the Bill and others in the Budget, the Government are taking the difficult but necessary decisions to fix the foundations of our economy. If hon. Members in other parties choose to vote against the Bill, the British people will see that they are voting to ignore the fiscal mess that we inherited. They are voting to cut investment in the NHS and to increase borrowing for day-to-day spending.
Finally, I reiterate my thanks to hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I extend my thanks to all the officials for their support. I commend the Bill to the House.
LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme Payments: Income Tax Exemption
James Murray Excerpts(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Today, the Government have confirmed ex gratia payments made under the LGBT financial recognition scheme will be exempt from income tax. The scheme is designed to offer financial recognition to those who served under, and suffered from, the ban on LGBT personnel serving in HM armed forces between 1967 and 2000.
This decision to grant an income tax exemption ensures that applicants receive the full payment amount, marking an important step toward addressing the historic wrongs faced by LGBT personnel and veterans in the past.
The Government will legislate via secondary legislation to formalise this tax exemption in due course.
[HCWS305]
Finance Bill
James Murray ExcerptsWednesday 11th December 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2025 View all Finance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 December 2024 - (11 Dec 2024)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
This Government believe that all children should have the opportunity to succeed. That opportunity should not be limited by who they are, where they are from or how much their parents earn. We are determined that a young person’s background should not limit what they can achieve. That is why, despite the dire fiscal situation that we inherited and the numerous tough choices that it has entailed, the Chancellor prioritised investment in education at the Budget in October.
At that Budget, the Chancellor announced real-terms growth of 3.4% in education funding, including a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget in England for the next financial year. This funding supports the recruitment of 6,500 additional teachers, in line with the Government’s commitment, and includes £1 billion for the special educational needs and disabilities system, to help the 1 million pupils in the state system with special educational needs.
This Government will make sure that all children get the high-quality education that they deserve, as well as high-quality school buildings; funding has been announced for the school rebuilding programme, and for school maintenance, so that we can begin to tackle the maintenance backlog. These changes are crucial first steps to improving education for all children and meeting the aspirations of parents across the country.
Investment in education has to be paid for, so I turn to the focus of this debate: our decision to end the VAT exemption for private school fees. In July, the Chancellor announced that the Government will end tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools. These policies are expected to raise £1.5 billion in their first full year, rising to over £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Has the impact on the market of children being withdrawn from schools been greater than expected? In my time as a Minister, I always found that the Treasury rather underestimated the dynamic impact of policy change. I would be interested to hear his reflections.
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on the impact of the policies on children’s education. I will come to the details shortly, but to give him an overview of the forecast impacts, we estimate that ultimately there will be around 37,000 fewer pupils in the private sector. That is a combination of pupils who will never enter the private sector in the first place and those who will leave. They represent around 6% of private school pupils. We expect most of the moves to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school or at the beginning of exam courses.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
If the intention of the Government is that the moves should happen at natural transition points, why did they decide to impose the change from January? Whatever one’s views on the merits of the policy, that is not really fair on the parents affected. Indeed, one could say it is cruel.
James Murray
It is right that these changes be implemented as soon as possible to raise the funding that we need to deliver on our education priorities. As a result of the policies coming into effect in January, we will raise a forecast £460 million of additional revenue in 2024-25. We are ambitious for the state education system, and we want to get on with delivering the changes that we committed to in the manifesto.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I must declare that I, like many parents in Surrey, have chosen independent education for my children. A freedom of information request earlier this week regarding empty school places in Surrey showed that in the ’25-26 academic year, there are zero spare places in year 9, zero in year 10 and zero in year 11. The Minister will know that in independent schools, many children in those years take international GCSEs and baccalaureates. What is his message to those children, who have no place and will have their exam training disrupted because of his spiteful policy?
James Murray
Local authorities and schools already have processes in place to support pupils who move between schools at any point in the academic year. Analysis carried out by the Department for Education under the previous Government suggests that each year, almost 60,000 secondary school moves take place not at normal transition points or over the school holidays. We fully expect the majority of moves to take place at natural transition points or in the school holidays, rather than within the school year.
I have been clear that ending these tax breaks for private schools has been a difficult decision, but it is necessary to secure additional funding that will help us to fulfil the commitments we made to improving education for all.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister continually refers to tax breaks. They are not tax breaks. Why can he not just be honest with the House and admit that this is the first time that any Government in a civilised democracy has imposed a tax on learning and education?
James Murray
Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman how public finances work. Funding a tax relief or a tax break is equivalent to public spending, because it is money that cannot be spent on something else. The Conservatives have committed, through their new leadership, to repealing this policy if they win the next general election. That implies cutting state education—cutting the investment in education for all that we are prioritising.
James Murray
I will not give way because I am making a clear point. We have to make choices in politics about what to prioritise. We have said that the VAT tax break for private school fees is not something that we want to prioritise. We want to spend that money instead on improving state education for all children.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I am so grateful for the public finance lesson. Surely he has to accept that as no tax is placed on learning in any sector in the educational landscape across the United Kingdom, this measure is not a tax break. It is not that there is a tax break for one sector while others have a tax imposed. This is an imposition of a new tax in the educational sphere. It is not a tax break because no educational establishment pays VAT.
James Murray
Given the record of the Conservatives over the past 14 years, I do not think it is ridiculous to assume that they might need some education on how public finances work, with the mess that we inherited and the desperate need for us to restore fiscal responsibility to public finances. Restoring that fiscal responsibility requires us to take decisions that are difficult but necessary to raise the finances to fund our priorities. We have taken the decision that we will not support a VAT exemption for private school fees and that we will invest the money that we raise in state education to ensure that the aspirations of every parent across this country can be fulfilled. That is a decision I will defend every time I am in this Chamber.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
My constituents would be surprised that there is no tax exemption on tampons, which are used by close to 50% of society, yet there is a tax exemption for VAT on private schools, which are used by less than 5% of the country. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is a mark of the priorities of Conservative Members that they are so quiet about the former but not the latter?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point out that decisions on VAT reliefs are political choices. Indeed, the Opposition are showing which side of that choice they land on when it comes to education; through their new leadership, they are choosing to prioritise a tax break for private school fees over investment in state education. That is a political choice. I am very happy to stand behind where we are on that side of the debate.
I will turn to some of the clauses in detail. The changes made by clause 47 will remove the VAT exemption from which private schools currently benefit on the education, vocational training and boarding they provide. Let me be clear: this policy does not mean that schools must increase fees by 20%, and the Government expect schools to take steps to minimise the increases for parents. Schools can reclaim VAT paid on inputs and make efficiency savings to minimise the extent to which they need to increase fees. Many schools have already committed publicly to capping fee increases at 5% or absorbing the full VAT costs themselves.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One of the schools in my area has posed a question on VAT. It has combined fees, within which things like meals are included. It is not clear from Treasury guidance whether the school would have to separate those fees out, creating another accounting problem—in order to have separate VAT and travel, for example, as part of the fees—when currently it is all one unit. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? When I met the Schools Minister, he was unable to give me an answer, and was going to go away and speak to the Treasury about what that looks like. This will have real impacts for this school, which will have to decide how to set out its accounting, and whether it has to include the fees or separate them out into several different blocks.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his specific question. Let me just be clear that I am not giving tax advice for that particular school in my response, because I would always assume that any school would get its own tax advice. In general, the VAT treatment of a particular supply is determined by the predominant supply, so there are options available to schools. I am happy to pick the matter up with him outside the Chamber and to make sure he has the details in writing. As I said, I would not want to give specific advice to that school, but it is worth the school getting advice on the VAT treatment of the fees it charges based on the predominant supply.
I will return to the impact of the policy we are proposing and the changes in clause 47. Government analysis suggests that the impact of the VAT policy on private and state school sectors is likely to be very small—ultimately leading, as I was saying a few moments ago, to 37,000 fewer pupils in the private sector, which includes both pupils who will never enter the private sector and those who will move.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
A particular subset of pupils affected by this policy are those in receipt of the continuity of education allowance. The revised figures for the CEA, released recently, do not fully protect those pupils from the uplift on VAT on school fees. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this policy on retention and recruitment into our armed forces and our diplomatic service?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the continuity of education allowance, because the Government greatly value the contribution of our diplomatic staff and serving personnel. The continuity of education allowance is therefore provided to ensure that the need for frequent mobility does not interfere with the education of their children. As he may know, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have increased the funding allocated to the continuity of education allowance, to account for the impact of any private school fee increases on the proportion of fees covered by the CEA, in line with how the allowance normally operates.
The Government have carefully considered the impacts of the policies set out in clause 47 and received a wide range of representations covering topics that have already been raised in the debate today. The Government received more than 17,000 consultation responses, and my officials and I have met those representing schools, local authorities and devolved Governments. As a result of these representations, the Government have made several changes to the legislation, including to clarify the treatment of nurseries. In deciding on the final design of the policy, we have made sure that schools are treated fairly and consistently.
A number of hon. Members have raised with me concerns about the impact of this measure on particular types of schools and on different pupils, so I am glad to have this chance to address some of those points. First, to protect pupils with special educational needs that can be met only in a private school, the local authorities and devolved Governments that fund these places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees. Secondly, as I just mentioned in response to the intervention on military and diplomatic families, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office have agreed to increase the funding allocated to the continuity of education allowance to account for the impact of private school fee increases.
The Government are aware that while many schools have always offered schemes enabling the prepayment of fees, there were concerning reports of some parents using such schemes in an attempt to avoid these fees being subject to VAT. The Government believe that allowing fees paid from the date of the July statement to the date this policy comes into force to be paid without charging VAT on them would be unfair on the vast majority of families who will be unable to pay years-worth of fees in advance. The changes made by clause 48 will therefore introduce anti-forestalling provisions that will apply to all prepayments of private school fees and boarding services on or after 29 July 2024 and before 30 October 2024. Finally, clause 49 sets out the commencement date for these changes, which will apply to any fees paid on or after 29 July 2024 relating to the term starting in January 2025.
To conclude, the reason the Government are raising funding from the changes we are debating today is to increase investment in the state education system. Every parent aspires for high-quality education for their children. The removal of the VAT exemption for private schools will help to support the Government’s investment in schools and ensure that every child has a chance to thrive. We are determined to be a Government who enable the aspirations of all parents to be met and who ensure that all children have the opportunity to succeed. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the Opposition spokesperson.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the hon. Member. If he just waits for the next part of my speech, he may get the answer to his intervention.
The Government’s plan will put all that at risk. Notably, Haileybury is planning to absorb as much of the financial hit as it can, rather than place the extra burden on parents. To do so, it must look at reducing expenditure and therefore its ability to offer financial support to Haileybury Turnford, painfully contradicting the Government’s argument that their policy will result in more spending on state school pupils. It is not just about money; greater financial pressures on Haileybury will inevitably lead to staff having less time and resources available to share with Turnford, and fewer opportunities for state school students at Haileybury Turnford as a result.
Ministers think that their policy will impact only the rich, but for nearly a decade a genuinely working-class community in my constituency has benefited from a state school and an independent school working together, which is exactly the kind of partnership that we should be encouraging. We should not be encouraging the politics of envy. Sadly, the changes that the Government are introducing through the Bill will bring all that to an end.
James Murray
Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. I will take a few moments to respond to some of the points raised and then to set out the Government’s view on the proposed new clauses.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), addressed new clause 8, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). I will come to the new clause in a moment, but for the avoidance of doubt let me reassure the shadow Minister that higher education and teaching English as a foreign language are both exempt from and not affected by this policy. I also reassure him that HMRC stands ready to support schools. It has already published bespoke guidance for schools, run webinars, updated registration systems and put additional resources in place to process applications.
Damian Hinds
In principle, what is the distinction between full-time private schooling and private tuition, from the point of view of what it is right to tax? Will he guarantee that no tax will be put on private tuition?
James Murray
If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the comments I just made in response to the shadow Minister’s remarks, teaching English as a foreign language and higher education are exempt from the provisions of the Bill.
Damian Hinds
No, I mean families who send their child once or twice a week for an hour for academic study or something extra-curricular. Why should that be tax exempt, when if it is done for all the hours in the school week, it is not?
James Murray
In designing the Bill and making sure that it is clear, we decided to focus on those schools that provide full-time education. Following feedback during the consultation on the Bill, we decided to clarify some of the treatments, such as for nurseries, which I mentioned earlier, to ensure that they are treated appropriately. If they are fully stand-alone nurseries, they are not covered. In the original drafting of the legislation, we referred to nurseries that wholly comprise children below the compulsory school age. We changed that to wholly or almost wholly to ensure that having, for example, one pupil over compulsory school age would not trip a nursery into being covered.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress, because I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment, and I want to mention the points made by other hon. Members in the debate.
We heard from the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Yet again from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, we see a party that is happy to support our extra investment in education for all children, but that cannot bring itself to support the measures that we put in place to help pay for that investment in education.
Sarah Olney
We have heard this point time and again from the Labour Benches. I want to say, one more time, that the Liberal Democrats put forward a fully costed programme in our 2024 general election manifesto, which had a range of tax-raising measures that would have paid for the changes we proposed and did not include VAT on school fees, for all the reasons the Minister has heard today.
James Murray
The reason why the Liberal Democrats hear this time and again from the Government Benches is that, time and again, they want all the benefits of investment without having to pay for it. That is a pattern that we see again and again in this Chamber.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for their comments. I feel that I am duty bound to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend for Loughborough on his engagement.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is not in his place—sorry, he is at the Bar. Perhaps he could come and take a seat on the Benches. He asked an important question to try to get some clarity about the VAT treatment of combined fees that cover school meals, transport and other services. I hope that my earlier answer gave him some reassurance on that.
I reiterate that I cannot provide advice for individual schools, but it is worth emphasising that the general principle is that if a school supplies a package of education for a single fee, that will normally be a single supply for VAT. That package could include a number of other elements such as transport or meals, alongside the main element of education. If it is a single supply, it is a single VAT liability. However, where a school supplies education and also supplies other elements for a separate fee, that will normally be treated as a separate supply. For example, if a school offers school meals alongside the education for a separate charge, those will normally be two different supplies, and they may have different VAT liabilities. Although the education would be subject to the standard rate of VAT, the school meals may be exempt, if they meet the conditions.
Dr Luke Evans
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification on that point; I think he is hitting towards it. The school itself has everything grouped into one fee, which includes the transport, schooling and food. Its contention, therefore, is that it will have to break that all out, which means it will have to deal with all the accounting issues on top of this. It is just another burden to think about. I wonder whether the Treasury has thought about that and whether there will be further guidance—there is literally just one line in a piece of written guidance put out by the Treasury. Is there anywhere the school can raise this issue to work through the exact advice it needs? I appreciate that the Minister cannot give that advice directly to the school from the Dispatch Box.
James Murray
The way that we treat private school fees and the other charges that private schools may levy has to be consistent with the VAT principles more broadly, which is why I have tried to explain how the supply of education and the supply of other elements would interact with the VAT system more widely. I will hold back from giving specific advice about that individual school, but I would encourage it to contact HMRC to get advice about its specific registration. If the school staff read what I have just said in Hansard, I hope they will see some information that will help them to understand how to approach this issue.
Graham Stuart
As ever, the Minister is being very gracious in giving way. If someone were to establish a new educational establishment providing entirely modular educational elements that people could choose between, would that be subject to VAT, individually or collectively, or not?
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman is tempting me into hypotheticals and into trying to give advice to a school that does not yet exist—I will hold back from that, because I think the principles of our Bill are very clear on what VAT at the standard rate is applied to and what can be made exempt, in line with the existing rules on VAT.
We heard several times from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I assure him that the Government costing has, of course, been fully scrutinised and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. He also spoke about capital funding. Obviously, pupil numbers fluctuate for a number of reasons. The Government have already announced more than £700 million to support local authorities over this academic year and the next to provide places in new schools and expand existing schools. I did note, however, that in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), the right hon. Gentleman seemed implicitly to admit to his Government’s failure to improve high-needs education in the state sector, which is precisely why our measures today are so important.
Damian Hinds
First, the Minister knows I said no such thing. I spoke about the additional investment that had gone into the high-needs budget under the previous Government, particularly since 2019, and said that there was more to do.
Since I am on my feet, can I ask him to expand on what he just said about capital? What he has just spoken about is capital for places that are already planned, but what if a lot more children present in some places? Has he budgeted for that capital? Does he guarantee that whatever capital goes to the DFE will be on top of the existing capital budget?
James Murray
As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the Department for Education, and indeed the devolved Governments, already work with local authorities to identify pressures and take action where necessary. As I said in my earlier remarks to him, the Government already provide capital funding through the basic need grant to support local authorities in England to provide school places, and the Government have already announced £700 million over this academic year and the next, which can be used to provide places in new schools and to expand existing places.
Finally, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised the motivation behind our policy, which other Opposition Members also spoke to. Let me be clear on this: our decision to fix the public finances to fund public services, including education, means that difficult decisions have to be taken. Our choice to end the VAT exemption for private school fees has been a difficult but necessary decision that will secure additional funding, which will help to deliver on our commitments to improve education for all.
Dr Mullan
I did not talk about motivation in my speech; I spoke about how the Minister has framed it. Does he accept that with a general taxation pot, where all the money goes into one amount that is doled out as the Government see fit, there is absolutely no basis for saying that children in the state sector have less because of the exemption of VAT for private schools? The two things are totally unconnected in the Budget and the financing of the Government.
James Murray
What is connected is that if we want to fund public services and fix the public finances, we have to take difficult decisions. This is one of those difficult decisions we are taking today: a difficult but necessary decision to restore fiscal responsibility after the mess we inherited from the Conservative party and to fund our public services. It is necessary to take those decisions, so that we can get that funding into education for all. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to take that decision, he is, in effect, denying the choices that we are making about funding public services.
I will now make some progress to address the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front Benchers. New clause 8, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon, would require the Government to make a statement to Parliament about the impact of removing the VAT exemption for private school fees within six months of the Act being passed. It states that it
“must include details of the impact on…pupils with special educational needs and disabilities…small rural schools, and…faith schools.”
It would require the Government to
“make a statement about the impact of the removal of the exemption on schools that take part in the music and dance scheme”
within 18 months of the Act being passed.
I want to make it clear that in developing this policy, the Government carefully considered the impact it would have, including the impact it would have on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, rural and urban schools, faith schools, and schools that take part in the music and dance scheme. As I said before, the Government considered a wide range of representations, including over 17,000 consultation responses, before finalising the policy design. The Government set out the expected impact of the measure in a tax information and impact note published at autumn Budget 2024 in the usual way.
I set out earlier today how the Government will ensure that those children with an EHCP, or its equivalent in other nations, will not be subject to VAT on any private school fees. I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause, when it refers to “pupils with special educational needs and disabilities”
refers to only those in the private sector, or whether he intends the new clause to consider also the 1 million or more pupils with SEND in the state system. If it is the latter, I am sure he will welcome the extra £1 billion for high-needs funding next year that we have been able to announce thanks to our decisions on tax policy, including that which we are debating today. In addition, based on the evidence provided, it is not apparent that small faith schools will be more affected by this policy than other schools.
The hon. Member for Twickenham, the Front Bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, tabled new clause 9. I think I have addressed most of those points already in my remarks today.
To conclude, I hope I have been able to reassure Members that the new clauses are not necessary, for the reasons I have set out. I therefore urge the Committee to reject new clauses 8 and 9.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.