Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

James Wild Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.

The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.

Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.

[Ben Lake]

I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s arguments against devolving the administration of the Crown Estate to Wales. The previous Government— his Government—devolved those same powers to Scotland. Can I ask him, very simply, why it works for Scotland, but is too complicated for Wales?

[James Wild]

We are dealing with the Bill in front of us today. To do so at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons set out in Committee, which could undermine the returns that would be made for taxpayers, whether in Wales or other parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire spoke to amendment 5, a version of which was moved in Committee on his behalf. We recognise that the amendment has been revised. However, as I said in Committee, we are cautious about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate than clause 3 already does; there is danger of the overreach that he spoke about. I am sure he will be listening to the Minister’s speech with some interest.

The kernel of the Bill is the expansion of the power of the Crown Estate to borrow, but there is a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment 4, which appears in my name, would limit borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulations. That would, I believe, be a proportionate check on this new borrowing power. When pushed in Committee, the Government again stated that limits on borrowing are best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding, but a memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen—a point the Minister did not address in Committee. Will he give an undertaking, at the very least, that any changes to a memorandum of understanding would be reported to Parliament?

Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing and that the Government agree there should be a limit, I struggle to see why the cap should not be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it. Borrowing more than 25% carries risk, which could ultimately affect the sustainability of the estate. That is why the Government themselves have accepted that there should be a limit. As this new power affects assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control. This would be a perfectly reasonable check, and I hope Members will back it.

New clause 5 would require the Crown Estate to seek Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of its total assets, and then to lay a report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of the discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both here and in the other place. Indeed, clause 5 was introduced after pressure to require Treasury consent before disposing of any of the Crown Estate’s rights or privileges in relation to the territorial seabed. That is a welcome safeguard, but can the Minister conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would approve of such a sale? Can he give a commitment that national security would be at the fore in any consideration of such a proposal? Would Ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal?

In Committee, the Minister stated that the current process dictates that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. How does he define nationally significant? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent for large disposals would undermine the flexibility that the Crown Estate needs to operate commercially, but the proposed new clause simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate will not suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset; it will go through its internal processes and business cases. A version of those papers could be provided to Ministers and, depending on the Ministers, there could be a very rapid approval process that does not compromise flexibility but ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation, and we should ensure some form of transparency and scrutiny.

New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. That is fundamental, as without being able to see details of the agreement, we do not know what has been agreed. There is a lack of clarity over how this new partnership will work. We are still concerned that it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The Opposition are sceptical about what the Government say about GB Energy, because during the election Labour claimed that GB Energy would cut energy bills by £300, but bills are going up. The chairman of GB Energy has refused to say when people can expect £300 off their energy bills. We know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, but will not generate any energy, be an energy supplier or save families £300.

We are concerned that at all stages the Government have resisted greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading and in Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said that while the partnership agreement itself will not be published since it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate is committed to publishing information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. However, the provisions to include that in an annual report could result in a considerable lag after such an agreement becomes operational and in only limited detail being published. Frankly, that is not good enough, which is why we have tabled new clause 6.

Transparency is important because we do not know how much the Crown Estate may invest in GB Energy’s projects. We do not know what level of funds from this borrowing power could be used for that purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate how it would decide between projects that GB Energy favours and others that may have a higher rate of return, I was told that there would be a business plan for the partnership. That shows a further lack of transparency, as I assume the Minister will not place that before the House. I also asked about decision making for the partnership, and the response was:

“The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

I note the use of “intention” and “compelled”.

There is a lingering concern that Ministers may pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s pet projects. Clearly, the chairman of GB Energy is very close to the Labour party, and nominating a Labour party donor as the chairman of the Crown Estate adds to this concern. Publishing the agreement could help allay concerns about the Government’s intentions.

If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is too commercially sensitive, will he consider making a redacted version available? As I said in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis? As a former member of that Committee, I know of a precedent for that: in January 2018, the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to Government—a very sensitive document—to that Committee, which provided assurance on behalf of the House. I remain concerned about political pressure being put on the Crown Estate and urge Members to support our new clause 6, which would simply require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament.

The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation of the Crown Estate. Our amendments and new clauses would ensure appropriate oversight and transparency as it delivers on its primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the return for taxpayers.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.

Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.

I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.

Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.

Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I thank hon. Members from across the House, and my noble Friends, who have worked hard to scrutinise this important legislation. I also thank the Exchequer Secretary for the constructive approach he has taken throughout these proceedings, as did the Financial Secretary, particularly on seabed protections, as well as the Public Bill Office, and everyone who has helped to scrutinise the Bill.

There is support across the House for the aims of the Bill, which will deliver the modernisation that the Crown Estate needs, and should generate greater returns for the Exchequer. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have resisted our proposals for greater transparency and appropriate parliamentary oversight, including on borrowing. Similarly, the Crown Estate is about to embark on a novel partnership with GB Energy, and the lack of clarity around that partnership—notwithstanding the limited transparency through the annual report—is a concern. It raises concerns about the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the partnership to persuade it to fund the Energy Secretary’s costly plans. Notwithstanding those concerns, we support the legislation. However, we will be watching carefully to ensure that the primary purpose of the Crown Estate—to maintain and enhance its assets for the benefit of the nation, as well as the income derived from it—is protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray]

Clause 5 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate on an ongoing basis. Where that assessment determines that a salmon farm is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, the Crown Estate would be required to revoke the relevant licence. The commissioners would be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms, and where they determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.

During the Bill’s passage in the other place, peers felt it necessary to amend the Bill to add clause 5. The Government understand the objectives behind the clause, but we are unable to support it, as it would duplicate existing protections. Fisheries policy is also largely devolved, and therefore responsibility for this issue in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rests with the relevant devolved Government. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, and the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is also a devolved matter.

For those reasons, the clause would have almost no impact in practice on farmed salmon in the UK. As it stands, it risks impeding an already thoroughly regulated industry, while having little to no positive impact, due to the territorial realities of the Bill. Therefore, I do not recommend clause 5 to the Committee.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again so soon, Mr Mundell. As the Minister noted, the clause was added in the other place, particularly following the efforts of my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. It was backed by peers from across the parties, and Labour peers may have supported it as well. The Minister says that it duplicates provisions that exist. Given that the Government said in the House of Lords that they support its objective, it is clearly disappointing to see them removing these provisions, with the message that that sends about the importance of protecting the future of wild Atlantic salmon.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 6

Commissioners with special responsibility

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

[James Murray]

Clause 6 amends the Crown Estate Act 1961 to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That responsibility would be in addition to the other responsibilities of a commissioner. For appointments relating to Wales and Northern Ireland, no recommendation may be made to His Majesty, unless Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland have been consulted.

The legislative changes brought about by clause 6 ensure that those on the board of commissioners of the Crown Estate continue working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland, alongside performing their existing duties as commissioners. The clause, which was added as an amendment, following Government support in the other place, will bring knowledge of the devolved nations even more directly to the board table and will supplement the expertise of the Crown Estate’s director for the devolved nations, who is based in its recently opened office in Cardiff. The clause will ensure that the board of commissioners of the Crown Estate continues working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[James Wild]

This is a pretty straightforward clause. It is one of those that were added to the Bill in the other place to improve it, and I hope the Minister might learn the lesson of those clauses as we come to consider the new clauses shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Extent, commencement and short title

[James Murray]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the House of Lords.

[James Murray]

These are very straightforward matters to debate. Government amendment 3 removes the privilege amendment inserted by the other place. Clause 7 sets out the Bill’s extent, commencement period and short title in the usual manner for such legislation. I commend Government amendment 3 and clause 7 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

Thank you for calling me to speak again, Mr Mundell—it is good to get the exercise. There is not much to add on this very straightforward clause and amendment, other than that the commencement date, which brings the legislation into force automatically within two years, could usefully be applied to other legislation from the last Parliament. Quite a lot of private Members’ Bills and other pieces of legislation were passed that have not been commenced. I could expand on that issue at length, Mr Mundell, but you would rightly say that it was not in scope. However, car parking regulations, for example, have not been brought into the code of practice or into effect. Having a clear date in legislation to say, “This will happen, as long as the Bill passes,” is a good thing to do.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Territorial seabed

“After section 3A of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—

‘3AA Restriction on permanently disposing of interest in seabed etc

(1) The Commissioners may not without the consent of the Treasury permanently dispose of—

(a) any part of the territorial seabed, or

(b) any interest, right or privilege over or in relation to the territorial seabed,

which forms part of the Crown Estate.

(2) Accordingly, without that consent, any purported disposal of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) is void.

(3) In subsection (1), “territorial seabed” means the seabed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom territorial waters.’”—(James Murray.)

This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[James Murray]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I will respond to Government new clause 2 and to new clause 3, which was tabled in my name. As we heard from the Minister, Government new clause 2 will require the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any of the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed. The Government moved this measure because of the extensive debate in the other place about the sale of certain assets, and particularly the seabed. We welcome the constructive approach taken by Ministers; Lord Livermore gave a commitment in the other place, and it has been honoured today, so we will support the new clause.

Although we welcome the new clause, we still have concerns about the disposal of other assets. My new clause 3 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to seek approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets. It would also require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of such a disposal by the commissioners.

As previously noted in Committee, the Crown Estate owns some of the nation’s most vital assets. It is somewhat surprising to find that there are few safeguards to prevent the Crown Estate commissioners from deciding to sell critical assets. That is why the debate in the other place, which exposed the issue of the seabed and brought about new clause 2, was so important. However, the Crown Estate has lots of other assets, which Members may wish to refer to and which they may think also deserve special attention.

In the original business case for modernisation of the Crown Estate, which is publicly available, it was noted that the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals, which—coincidentally enough—equates to nearly 10% of its portfolio. In the other place, my noble Friends suggested a disposal limit of anything greater than £10 million. The noble Lord Livermore responded:

“It is the Government’s view that imposing a statutory limit on disposals in this way would undermine the flexibility required by the Crown Estate to ensure that it can operate commercially and fulfil its core duties under the future Act.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1411.]

The Minister made a similar argument in his speech, but I am not sure that it is right. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, there should be some form of greater transparency if they are to be disposed of. Reporting to Parliament and seeking approval from the Treasury for disposals over a set percentage would provide such transparency.

The disposal of assets by the Crown Estate should be properly scrutinised, given its important role and statutory purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate about its planned disposals—the £1.4 billion referred to in document on the modernisation of the Crown Estate, which any Member may access—it said that it was unable to disclose its plans. Members might guess that the old “confidential, commercially sensitive” reason was given. That raises concerns about transparency. Will the Minister confirm whether he knows which assets were included in that figure and whether the Crown Estate plans further disposals? I asked the same question on Second Reading, and the Minister replied to most of my points, but that is one he did not reply to. Perhaps he will do so on this occasion.

Having reflected on the debates in the other place, we have changed our approach from a £10 million cap to a 10% cap, after which new clause 3 would require approval and a report to Parliament. That is a modest measure, which would not inhibit the commercial freedom of the Crown Estate to take such decisions if it wants to. It owns assets such as Great Windsor Park and others, and who knows which it may decide to sell at some point in the future? Such assets are held in right of the Crown, so this is not about the sovereign’s private income, but about the income generated for the taxpayer. Transparency is something that the Government should endorse.

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, but imposing a limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility needed to enable the Crown Estate to operate commercially and meet its core duties under the Crown Estate Act 1961. As I mentioned earlier, there may be instances where it makes commercial sense to dispose of high-value assets, particularly when the Crown Estate, by its nature, takes a longer-term view of the business and its strategy.

[James Wild]

The Minister talked about flexibility, but the Crown Estate would not suddenly decide tomorrow to sell some asset; it will have a business case and a process. That business case will go to the Chancellor, who will get advice rapidly—within a matter of hours or a day—either approve it or not, and report to the House. I do not see what the flexibility issue is.

[James Murray]

I point the shadow Minister to the way the system currently operates. The Crown Estate operates independently from Government, but there is a long-standing, constructive and transparent relationship between it and the Treasury. That ensures that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. That is underpinned by the Crown Estate’s framework document, which makes it clear that the Crown Estate should inform the Treasury

“of any matters concerning spending, income or finance that are novel, contentious or repercussive.”

That is an important point to highlight in terms of the way the system currently operates.

However, I return to my earlier point, which is that the Crown Estate is an independent commercial business, and it is not the Government’s intention to materially alter its independence in such a way that the Treasury is required to approve its business decisions. I reassure the shadow Minister and others on the Committee that the Crown Estate’s core duty, which is to maintain an estate in land and to enhance and maintain the value of the estate, is unchanged by the Bill.

Finally, to respond to the question about the £1.4 billion of disposals outlined in the business case, those published as part of the Lords stages relate to non-strategic assets.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Limit on the disposal of assets

“After section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—

‘3A Limit on the disposal of assets

(1) The Commissioners must inform the Treasury if the disposal of assets of the Crown Estate will be of a value totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets in a single year.

(2) The Treasury must approve of any disposal of assets above the threshold in subsection (1) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified by the Commissioners.’” —(James Wild.)

This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to notify and seek HM Treasury approval for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

Nobody is saying that this is easy, but it is possible, and it has happened with Scotland. As many Members have said to us, given that we have territorial devolution and powers over the land, why not the seabed as well? There are ways of managing this, so complexity should not get in the way of ensuring that we have fairness in the distribution of economic benefits.

This funding is desperately needed, particularly given the historical underfunding of Wales on issues such as infrastructure. The success of devolution in Scotland speaks for itself; since 2017, when Scotland gained control of the Crown Estate, it has generated more than £103 million for public finances, so let us think what could happen for Wales if it was able to retain the profits generated by the Crown Estate within their borders.

Wales is expected to generate at least £1 billion from offshore wind energy leases in the coming years alone. Keeping some of that money within Wales could add £50 million a year to the Welsh Government’s budget—funds that could be directly reinvested in public services and local communities.

But this is not just about the financial gain; as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, devolving the Crown Estate would open up opportunities for greater investment in renewable energy projects. That is particularly important for coastal communities, which have long suffered from the decline of traditional industries. When they see direct benefits from renewable projects, they are far more likely to support them. That would create jobs, opportunities and sustainable development, delivering long-term economic stability, especially for the coastal regions of Wales that need it most.

The devolution of the Crown Estate has widespread support across Wales, from the Liberal Democrats in this place and the Welsh Parliament to Plaid Cymru, a majority of local authorities in Wales and even to the Welsh Labour Government. There is clear and overwhelming backing. In addition, opinion polls consistently show that the majority of the Welsh public are in favour of seeing the Crown Estate devolved, and it is clear that the people of Wales want to see this change. We want to work together, and I urge the Government to support this new clause and allow Wales to benefit from the powers and financial resources that it so rightly deserves.

[James Wild]

I will not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the previous Conservative Government’s position, which has not changed today. The proposal would introduce an element of risk in spinning out assets and revenue streams. We heard about the particulars of the Celtic sea, so this is not the right proposal for this time.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn for tabling new clause 5, which would require that within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed a transfer of the responsibility of the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to make provision to ensure that the employment of any person in Crown employment is not adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.

I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for tabling new clause 12, which would require the Treasury to set out a scheme to transfer all existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales and rights in relation to the Welsh zone.

The Government believe there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form. Both new clauses would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales which, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables and disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-systems approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. Its reform aims to create a more efficient system and reduce the waiting times for generation projects to connect to the grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Do you wish to say anything, Mr Wild?

[James Wild]

Well—

[The Chair]

It is not compulsory.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I am up now. I will not detain the Committee long. We did not support new clause 5, so it follows that we do not support new clause 6, although it raises a thought in my mind. The east of England, which is home to the largest offshore wind sites in Europe, is perhaps not getting its fair dibs. That is probably something I need to reflect on for another time.

[The Chair]

Indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

May I take this moment to thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their attendance and their contributions? I also thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing the Committee. I thank the Treasury officials, the House of Commons officials and everyone else for making the Committee run so smoothly.

[James Wild]

I am grateful, Mr Mundell, for your chairing this afternoon, and I am grateful to Ms Furniss for chairing the first session this morning. I am grateful for the support, help and advice of the Clerks and for the contributions and responses provided by the Crown Estate during the passage of the Bill. I look forward to reconvening with Members for its remaining stages, which I understand will be on 24 February—they will be a pleasure. I am grateful to the Minister for getting on the record my strong opposition to the 100 miles of pylons coming from Grimsby to Walpole in my constituency and the need to look at underground options.

[The Chair]

As ever, it is a disappointment to me that I can take no further part in these proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail] or, alternatively, pass their written notes to them in the room.

The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called to speak first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak by bobbing which, as you all know, means standing up in your place.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment or new clause in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Finally, I remind Members about the code of conduct relating to registered interests. If any Members wish to declare an interest, they should do so now. As there are no interests, I will call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.

Ordered,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 6 February) meet at 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 February and 9.25 on Tuesday 11 February;

2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Tuesday 11 February.—(James Murray.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(James Murray.)

Clause 1

Power of Crown Estate Commissioners to borrow etc

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must limit borrowing by the Crown Estate under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument, and these regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) The first set of regulations made under subsection (3) must limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Treasury must by regulations limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations.

Clause stand part.

[James Wild]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to get the Committee started this morning. The clause amends the Crown Estate Act 1961 to remove certain statutory restrictions on the commissioners’ powers, and it clarifies and expands those powers in certain respects. Specifically, it broadens the Crown Estate’s investment powers and confers a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent.

As well as moving the amendment, I will speak to the clause. The Crown Estate Bill was conceived under the previous Government, and I am pleased that it has now progressed to this stage. We support the objective of the clause, which is to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it.

As the Committee knows, assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, and nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown—in other words, they are owned by the Crown as an institution, not personally by the monarch. The concept of the Crown encompasses the interests of both the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is important. The Estate has assets worth £15.5 billion and a portfolio of 185,000 acres, and it manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline. It is also the largest contiguous owner in the west end.

The Crown Estate returns all its net profits to the Treasury. In 2023-24, it recorded a net profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, which is a laudable record, but there is the potential to do more. The Crown Estate estimates that the changes in the clause will enable it to generate £100 million per annum in additional revenues to the Treasury by 2030. That is forecast in the original business case that led to this legislation. It is therefore right that we should help to modernise the Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation.

At present, the Crown Estate is limited to making investments in certain types of property and certain restricted types of security held on the Crown Estate’s behalf by the national debt commissioners. The Estate’s powers to borrow for the purposes of discharging or redeeming incumbrances affecting the Estate are very limited. The Bill will modernise the Estate by removing those limitations.

Although we support the borrowing power, we are concerned that there is a lack of parliamentary oversight over the borrowing levels. This is a new power. The Crown Estate should be prudent on the level of borrowing. The purpose must be supporting the Estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers. That is why we have tabled amendment 4, which would limit the amount the commissioners may borrow instruments. Specifically, the amendment would limit borrowing to a net debt-to asset value ratio of no more than 25% initially.

When pushed by Baroness Vere and other noble Friends in the other place, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing is better placed outside legislation and that controls would be set out in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury. On Second Reading, the Minister repeated that, saying:

“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.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 805.]

The target borrowing level in that MOU sets out that the loan-to-value ratio should not exceed 25%. Given that the Government agree that there should be a limit, we should introduce robust safeguards in statute to protect against unconstrained borrowing. An MOU between the Treasury and the Crown Estate is easily altered at the stroke of a pen. If Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction to allow the Crown Estate to borrow, I struggle to see the logic in why the Government think that the cap they have committed to should not initially be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it by secondary legislation, if necessary. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those concerns and confirm whether the Government have considered this proposal since Second Reading.

A limit must be subject to the affirmative procedure, which is a proportionate step that will ensure that the Crown Estate can access that borrowing to maintain and enhance the value of its land, property, and interests for the benefit of the nation. However, borrowing can be risky, and this is a new power, so it should be subject to some controls and we should be cautious. I contend that amendment 4 is a perfectly reasonable check on the borrowing power, and I hope we can get the Committee off to a positive start, with the Minister accepting it.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Amendment 7 is similar to amendment 4, and is supportive of its essence. It is about introducing a sensible borrowing limit for the Crown Estate commissioners by capping their net debt-to-asset value ratio at 25%, with any change to that limit requiring parliamentary approval.

As we have just heard, clause 1 as it stands grants the Crown Estate significant new powers to borrow and access financial assistance from the Treasury. Although investment in the Crown Estate’s portfolio—particularly in areas such as offshore wind—is welcome, it is vital that we ensure fiscal responsibility and protect the long-term value of these assets for the nation.

Amendment 7 is about introducing proper safeguards. The Crown Estate manages over £16 billion in assets, and its revenues contribute directly to the Treasury and public finances. Without a clear borrowing limit, we could risk unchecked debt accumulation, which could ultimately undermine the Estate’s financial sustainability and reduce the returns it provides to the Exchequer. A 25% debt-to-asset ratio is a reasonable cap and allows for investment and growth, but prevents excessive leveraging that could put the Estate’s finances at risk. Crucially, the amendment also ensures parliamentary oversight. Any changes to the limit must be debated and approved by both Houses, rather than left solely to the discretion of the Treasury.

This is not about preventing the Crown Estate from borrowing; it is about ensuring that borrowing is responsible, transparent and aligned with the long-term interests of the nation. Given the Crown Estate’s unique status and the importance of its revenues to the public purse, it is only right that Parliament retains a say over any significant increase in borrowing capacity. The amendment would only confirm assurances that were provided in the other House by Lord Livermore. In his work with Baroness Kramer, we were assured that there would be a cap on borrowing to 20% of the loan-to-value ratio in the updated framework agreement. Amendments 4 and 7 reflect those promises, and I urge the Government to support amendment 7 to safeguard the financial integrity of the Crown Estate and ensure that borrowing powers are used wisely and with proper oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said, clause 1 will provide the Crown Estate with the powers to borrow, subject to Treasury consent, and clarifies its investment powers. Together, these changes will modernise the Crown Estate, give it the tools it needs to compete more effectively in the commercial world and, as a result, increase the revenue it generates for the public purse. I therefore commend clause 1 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

I am disappointed to hear the Minister’s response. He did not quite address the point that an MoU —I appreciate that he has provided a draft to the Committee—can simply be changed if Ministers and the Crown Estate decide they want to change the level. Only in the last week or so, we have passed into law the charter for Budget responsibility, setting out the Government’s fiscal rules in statute, so I am not sure why there is an in-principle objection to setting out such borrowing in legislation. I think that that would be a prudent step, as we and the Crown Estate embark on a new period with this borrowing power. I will therefore push my amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Number of Crown Estate Commissioners and their salaries and expenses

[James Wild]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 11 at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioners must notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework governing remuneration of the Chief Executive set out in the Framework Document.

(5B) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any notification received under subsection (5A).”

This amendment requires Commissioners to notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any changes to the remuneration of the Chief Executive, who must lay that notification before Parliament.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[James Wild]

The clause amends schedule 1 to the Crown Estate Act 1961. Specifically, it will increase the number of commissioners from eight to 12 and require them to be paid out of the returns generated by the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, as is the case currently.

Clause 2 is intended to bring the Crown Estate’s operating practice in line with best practice for corporate governance. Subsection (2) seeks to provide the flexibility to allow the board to include a combination of executive and non-executive directors, to reflect its increasingly diverse activities. Subsection (2) also removes the requirement for the second Crown Estate commissioner—a post currently held by the chief executive—to be the deputy chairman. This measure seeks to satisfy best practice standards, whereby the roles of chairman and chief exec should not be exercised by the same person.

We are supportive of the changes, and I put on record again my thanks to Baroness Vere of Norbiton for pushing the Government to give assurances that the chair of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office’s pre-appointment scrutiny list. I understand that we are waiting for the Treasury Committee to set a date for the pre-appointment hearing for Ric Lewis. Subsection (3) requires the salaries and expenses of the commissioners to be paid out of the returns of the estate to reflect the Crown Estate’s commercial freedom and function, and to place the commissioners in a position that is more consistent with general commercial practice.

I turn now to amendment 5, which is tabled in my name. As I have set out, as well as modifying the governance, clause 2 alters the way in which the commissioners are paid. Parliament will no longer need to approve the salaries and expenses of the commissioners and their staff. However, I believe that some form of parliamentary oversight is needed. At present, the estimate details supply finance and is voted on by Parliament at the beginning of the financial year. Amendment 5 would simply require the commissioners to

“notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework governing remuneration of the Chief Executive set out in the Framework Document.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer would then be required to lay before Parliament any such notification.

Currently, the remuneration policy and framework for the Crown Estate’s staff is the responsibility of the board’s remuneration committee, and the framework document states:

“The Committee will share any planned changes to the remuneration framework with HM Treasury to seek their agreement.”

Given that Parliament will no longer be needed to approve the salaries, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to ensure that Parliament is at least notified of any changes to the remuneration policy that affect the chief executive?

At present, the framework document sets out that the

“maximum remuneration of the Chief Executive should be in line with or below that of the lower quartile of an appropriate benchmark group agreed with HM Treasury.”

It also states that

“the clear majority of the Chief Executive’s total reward package should be conditional upon performance, with a significant element of that conditional upon long term performance”,

given the Crown Estate’s primary duty. The Opposition support rewarding success and the delivery of targets, but any such changes to the policy should be considered by Parliament.

On Second Reading, the Minister said:

“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.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 805.]

We absolutely agree on that, but I struggle to see how ensuring that Parliament is simply notified of changes to the chief executive’s pay policy will restrict the Crown Estate’s ability to compete for top talent. It is about transparency, and it would simply provide much-needed scrutiny to a process for which there is currently parliamentary oversight, given the statutory purpose of the Crown Estate. I would welcome support for our amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[James Murray]

I will turn to amendment 5 in a moment, but I will begin by briefly setting out what clause 2 seeks to achieve. The clause makes changes to the Crown Estate’s governance to bring the Crown Estate’s constitution in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. The clause makes three changes, which I will deal with in turn.

First, the clause increases the maximum number of commissioners on the Crown Estate’s board from eight to 12. That will provide the Crown Estate with the flexibility it needs to satisfy best practice standards for modern corporate governance. For example, the change will allow the Crown Estate’s board to include a wider combination of executive and non-executive members, both to reflect its increasingly diverse and wide-ranging activities and to enable it to adopt appropriate committee structures.

However, I assure the Committee that although we are increasing the number of commissioners, we are not changing the way in which they are appointed to the role, except for the new commissioner roles introduced by clause 6. The exact number and the respective roles of the commissioners within that new maximum will remain subject to the public appointments process. As such, additional commissioners will be appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, as is usual practice. That also includes the new commissioners with special responsibility that we will consider in our debate on clause 6, for which there will also be a process of consultation with the relevant devolved Government. The chair will face additional pre-appointment scrutiny, as the Financial Secretary confirmed in the other place.

Secondly, the clause removes the requirement for the second Crown Estate commissioner, a post currently held by the chief executive, to be deputy chair. This change will align the Crown Estate with best practice standards that set out that the roles of chair and chief executive should not be exercised by a single individual.

Thirdly, the clause will require the salaries and expenses of the commissioners to be paid out of the return obtained from the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, which is the current position. Changing the source of funding for commissioner salaries is intended to demonstrate more clearly the relationship between the relevant expenditure and Crown Estate income, while also reflecting the Crown Estate’s commercial functions. However, the pay of the chair and other non-executive commissioners will continue to be set by Treasury Ministers. In line with the UK corporate governance code, that will not include any performance-related element.

[James Murray]

The hon. Member asks about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, to which I was just about to turn. If he will allow, I will address the amendment and that will answer at least some of the questions he raises in his intervention.

Amendment 5 would require the commissioners to notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework for the chief executive set out in the framework document and for such notification to be laid before Parliament by the Chancellor. I will set out the current arrangements on remuneration for the chief executive of the Crown Estate.

How the chief executive is paid is a matter for the Crown Estate’s board in the first instance. However, the pay is set with reference to the agreement between the Treasury and at a level that is at the lower end of the Crown Estate’s comparable peers, reflecting the national significance of the organisation. The framework document between the Crown Estate and the Treasury is clear that the Crown Estate

“will share any planned changes to the remuneration framework with HM Treasury to seek their agreement.”

I think that very much delivers on the spirit of the amendment.

The Crown Estate’s annual report and accounts already include as a matter of course a comprehensive report on remuneration and details of the chief executive’s pay. Taken together, those arrangements already deliver on the essence of the amendment and I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The primary intention of the Bill is to modernise the Crown Estate and ensure that it is best able to operate in a modern, commercial environment. These changes are central to that aim.

[James Wild]

I am grateful for the contributions on this point and for the Minister’s response. I have read the framework agreement closely. At the moment, the Crown Estate will notify the Treasury of changes and ultimately the Treasury will come to Parliament through the estimates process to approve the pay, based on that policy.

What is going to change is that the Crown Estate will be paying from within the income it generates. While the Treasury may still know that there has been a change, no one else will necessarily know. Although I take the point that the annual report will detail any changes, there will be a lag—the policy could have been in place for some time before that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

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

[James Wild]

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

[The Chair]

Order. Can I stop the shadow Minister? We are talking about only amendments 1, 6 and 8. The debate on clause 3 stand part will come later.

[James Wild]

Okay. Amendment 1 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to have regard to net zero targets, regional economic growth and ensuring resilience in various areas. Instinctively, I am a bit sceptical about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate, given that its primary purpose is to generate a return for the nation. As I mentioned in passing, clause 3 already applies a sustainable development duty. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes spoke pretty persuasively, so I look forward to the assurances that the Minister might give before we see whether the Committee divides on the amendment.

[James Murray]

With your permission, Ms Furniss, I will briefly add to the comments that I made in the previous debate, because the shadow Minister asked about the appointment of the chair. On 23 December, the Government announced Ric Lewis as our preferred candidate for chair of the Crown Estate. The Government also confirmed that the appointment would be subject to a parliamentary pre-appointment hearing. Under paragraph 9.2 of the governance code on public appointments, political donations should be publicly disclosed if the successful candidate has made a significant donation or loan to a party in the last five years. That will happen if the appointment is confirmed, following the Treasury Committee’s report, and a subsequent announcement is made. Thank you for your patience, Ms Furniss.

Amendment 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), and to which other hon. Members have spoken, would require the Crown Estate commissioners, in reviewing the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development, to have specific regard to the UK’s net zero targets, to regional economic growth and to ensuring resilience in respect of managing uncertainty, risk and national security interests. I was glad to meet my hon. Friend on Tuesday to discuss the amendment. The Government understand the motive behind it, but it is important first to set out the context for clause 3. I will be brief, as I realise that we will debate clause 3 stand part later.

The Government and the Crown Estate welcomed the addition of clause 3 on Report in the other place, as a clarified and enhanced accountability on the Crown Estate to deliver environmental, social and economic outcomes. The Crown Estate is already a trailblazer in its efforts on tackling climate change and supporting the environment, which I will address in more detail later. Clause 3 will require the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. It is important to note that the public framework document that governs the relationship between the Crown Estate and the Treasury will be updated in the light of clause 3 to include a definition of sustainable development and to confirm that the Crown Estate will continue to include specific information on its activities in its annual report.

The Crown Estate Act 1961 established the Crown Estate as a commercial business, independent from Government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace. It is analogous to a private sector commercial operator. The commissioners operate under a clear commercial objective, as set out in the Act, to “maintain and enhance” the value of the estate. At the same time, the Crown Estate can and does focus on activities that closely align with wider national interests, including on the environment, net zero, our nation’s energy needs and sustainable economic growth. As a public body, the Crown Estate seeks to work with the grain of prevailing Government policy.

In addition to its core commercial objective, the Crown Estate operates under a duty in the 1961 Act to have

“due regard to the requirements of good management.”

This obliges the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate responsibly. Good management practices include maintaining a strong governance structure, adhering to best practices in risk management, and fostering a culture of accountability and transparency.

It is important for the Bill to stand the test of time as new, relevant areas of concern on the environment, society and the economy emerge over the coming decades. These currently include net zero and regional economic growth, which are given regard by the Crown Estate and should be covered in its annual report. The general term “sustainable development” was chosen because it is broad and captures the widest range of relevant concerns across the environment, society and the economy, now and as priorities in those areas evolve over time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which we discussed in the Chamber. The crux of this amendment is that there is a mandate for the Marine Maritime Organisation, which is the body that mediates. The Crown Estate is being given new powers for borrowing and investing, and therefore has a vested interest in the prioritisation of activities that are allocated along the seabed and our coasts. That is good, given its amazing, award-winning geospatial mapping prowess.

We have just heard examples of how it is showing the Government scenarios for the economic income and gain that can be gathered from different uses. However, despite that prowess, the Crown Estate should not be the one to prioritise or make the final decision about which activities take place. Communities and other users must be fully consulted. The MMO is mandated to do that, and DEFRA has the marine spatial prioritisation framework, within which the Crown Estate should contribute and co-ordinate. That is the assurance we seek through this amendment.

[James Wild]

I rise briefly to speak to amendment 9, not least because I represent North West Norfolk, which is next door to North Norfolk where I grew up. It is sometimes quite difficult to get the local names correct, but Happisburgh is actually pronounced “Haysborough”, rather than “Happisberg”. I wanted to get that on the record, because people there feel quite strongly about it—it is a mistake that is inadvertently made quite a lot.

It is important to protect national assets such as those at Bacton from coastal erosion. I would expect the Crown Estate already to be taking account of such requirements, and the Government to be doing likewise through their wider planning and strategic approach to coastal erosion, so I look forward to the Minister’s response on how coastal erosion will be prevented.

[James Murray]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

The Minister might have pre-empted my speaking to the new clause. The new clause would ensure that local and coastal communities see real benefits from Crown Estate activities by requiring a proper assessment of community benefits before investment decisions are made and by mandating that at least 5% of net profits be transferred to impacted communities.

For too long, communities, particularly coastal communities, have borne the impact of large-scale offshore developments without seeing a fair share of the financial benefits; we heard that earlier today. The Crown Estate generates billions in revenue from offshore wind farms, marine industries and land developments, yet too often local people see little direct return. The new clause seeks to redress that imbalance and would ensure that those communities benefit from our journey towards net zero, taking people with us.

First, the new clause would ensure transparency and accountability by requiring that the Crown Estate formally assess community benefits before making investment decisions. That would mean that local communities would no longer be an afterthought. They must be considered from the outset in decisions affecting their livelihoods, identity, infrastructure and environment.

Secondly, the new clause would establish a concrete financial commitment by mandating that at least 5% of the profits generated by the Crown Estate’s activities must be reinvested in local communities impacted. That is a fair and proportionate measure, recognising that those communities are often on the frontline of change, whether it be from offshore energy projects, tourism pressures or rural land use shifts. The kickbacks could be revolutionary for towns and villages across the UK and would be a real testament to how clean energy can level up communities.

The new clause is about not just fairness, but economic regeneration. It would provide a direct funding stream to support local jobs, infrastructure, training and environmental projects, and ensure that prosperity generated from our shared natural resources is not centralised in Whitehall or in corporate boardrooms, but flows directly back to the people and places most affected.

If the Government are serious about levelling up and supporting coastal and rural communities and economies, they should have no issue backing the new clause. It is practical, and it would enable us to manage the different developments. It does not seek to block development; it would ensure that development happens fairly and sustainably, with proper co-ordination.

[James Wild]

I will briefly speak to new clause 11. On Second Reading, we heard a lot of debate and discussion about the role of community benefits. As I mentioned, I represent a coastal area where there are existing community benefit schemes through the operators of the offshore wind projects that operate on the East Anglian coast.

The Energy Secretary, who seems to be on a one- man mission to put solar farms on farmland and to put pylons across the countryside with no regard to the impact on communities or nature, has said that the Government will bring forward their own approach to community benefits. I am a strong supporter of community benefits, and I look forward to the Energy Secretary coming forward with that plan. It seems to be the best approach and context in which to address the important points raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Members for their comments. To reiterate, the Crown Estate already works with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demand and to emerging technologies. It is important that the Crown Estate retains this flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered, so that it can contribute to skills training in the best possible way and, importantly, as I have referred to several times, without conflicting with its statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. As we know, the Crown Estate already pays its net revenue surplus into the Consolidated Fund. That is a total of more than £4 billion in the last decade, and local communities already benefit from investment by the Crown Estate. I point hon. Members to the partnership between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate; they will work together to co-ordinate agencies and stakeholders to create jobs and ensure that communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy.

I repeat my encouragement of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire not to move her new clause, as I believe the Bill and the existing measures and statutory requirements achieve the outcomes that are best for this country.

Question put and agreed to.  

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

Clause 4

Annual reports

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Clause 4 requires the commissioners to include in their annual report a summary of their activities and of any effects or benefits resulting from their activities under any partnership between them and Great British Energy, which I referred to in our debate on the previous clause. This requirement will only apply in relation to a year in which such a partnership was in operation. Following productive debate in the other place on the new partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy announced last year, this clause was added by the Government. The Crown Estate is keen to ensure that details of this partnership are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and the Government agree it is sensible to require the Crown Estate to include the relevant detail in its existing annual report. That is the intention behind clause 4.

New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, partnership agreements are highly commercially sensitive. It is therefore right that any agreement is not made public or laid before Parliament, as to do so would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the Crown Estate or GB Energy and risk the aims of the partnership, which are to speed up the process of delivering clean energy and to invest in clean energy infrastructure. The Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero will set out further detail on GB Energy in due course. I hope the hon. Member feels able not to move his new clause as a result.

Clause 4 is a sensible change to the Bill that reflects the desire to ensure that relevant information related to the nationally significant partnership between GB Energy and the Crown Estate is made publicly available. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Wild]

As the Minister said, clause 4 was added on Report in the House of Lords to require the Crown Estate’s annual report to include activities under the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. I will also speak to new clause 4, which is in my name.

Clause 4 does introduce an important layer of transparency, as the Minister said, ensuring there is a specific report on the activities of the commissioners under that partnership during the year, and on any effects or benefits experienced during the year that are a result of those activities. This is a welcome step, and we support the clause. However, the reporting requirement would only apply in years when a partnership between the commissioners and GB Energy was in operation. This means we will not know what has been agreed until the partnership is operational. Parliament—I think not unreasonably—needs to see an agreement when it is finalised. That is why I have tabled new clause 4.

New clause 4 would simply require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. This new clause is of fundamental importance. Without being able to see the details of the partnership agreement, we do not know what has been agreed and the impact on the duties of the Crown Estate. On the day that the Bill was introduced, the Government, with a lot of fanfare, announced the partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. Indeed, Ministers claimed that the new GB Energy partnership would “turbocharge energy independence” and

“unleash billions of investment in clean power.”

However, currently there is a distinct lack of transparency over how this partnership will work and what difference it will make. I am concerned that this partnership may have been created for political, rather than economic, purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Member not welcome the potential proceeds of great British energy projects that could be unlocked by this new entity?

[James Wild]

My point about the new clause is trying to get some transparency about what those proceeds might be. I do not whether the hon. Member can enlighten me as to from where they might be coming and which projects will be invested in, or how many jobs will be created. He might apply for the job of the chairman of GB Energy, because the current one does not seem to know the answer to any of those very important questions. We are being asked to legislate to support a partnership between the new entity of GB Energy and the Crown Estate, so I make no apology for seeking greater transparency.

When pushed on Second Reading, the Minister confirmed:

“Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive”—

I think he said “very commercially sensitive” this afternoon, or “highly”—

“the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report.” —[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 806.]

But at all stages of the Bill’s passage and in the amendments that have been tabled, the Government have had to be pressured to be more transparent. Given that the Bill makes significant changes to the operation of the Crown Estate and reduces parliamentary oversight, I do not see why Parliament should not have sight of an agreement. It is simply not good enough to hide behind excuses of commercial confidentiality.

If the Minister is genuinely concerned about the conservative nature of this—[Laughter.] He probably is! I should have said: if the Minister is genuinely concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the agreement, perhaps a redacted version could be laid before Parliament, for example, or the full version could be provided to the Public Accounts Committee. I had the pleasure to serve on that Committee for over two years, and it was not uncommon for similar agreements to be provided in confidence to the Chair and the Committee to give assurance, on behalf of other Members of the House, that this was a bona fide commitment that did not need to be drawn more widely to public attention, noting the strictures there may be about commercial confidentiality.

I have spoken to the current Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), about this, and he would be very happy to receive a copy of the partnership agreement and continue to operate—as he has done over a decade or more as deputy Chair—by recognising and respecting confidentiality and the basis on which it is provided. It would provide assurance for all Members of the House that one of the pre-eminent Committees of the House has oversight of the agreement. If the Minister is not minded to agree to our new clause—I detect that he is not—perhaps he will look at the feasibility of a taking a redacted version of the agreement, or a similar approach, to the Public Accounts Committee.

In advance of this Bill Committee, I wrote to Dan Labbad, chief executive of the Crown Estate, to seek clarity on the partnership agreement. I am grateful that he took the time to respond. I asked whether the Crown Estate is planning to agree to invest a certain amount with GB Energy. His response was:

“Any arrangements the Crown Estate enter into with GBE will be expressly subsidiary to our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, but with due regard to the requirements of good management…We will ensure that the Crown Estate continues to deliver on our wider obligations”.

Can the Minister confirm that the Crown Estate’s statutory duty will always have primacy? Without the agreement being laid before Parliament, we will not have the transparency to see whether commitments have been given, and to judge and assess whether they meet the criteria.

I also asked Dan Labbad how the Crown Estate will decide between projects that GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return. I note the comments from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, but it may be that the Crown Estate could identify non-GB Energy projects that may generate a greater return for the taxpayer and our constituents. In that case, it should be investing in those, not a political project under the Energy Secretary. Dan Labbad said:

“The Crown Estate will have a clear business plan in relation to the partnership… The consideration of which projects fulfil that business plan will take into account our statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate…and the obligation upon the Crown Estate to secure the best consideration, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case at the time.”

“All the circumstances” is rather broad, and “take into account” could be seen as rather weak. Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen a copy of any such business plan? Would he expect to? I fear the answer will be no, but would he be prepared to lay a copy of it before the House so that Members can scrutinise it?

Finally, I asked Dan Labbad about the new division’s decision-making process, because the new clause is about trying to get underneath the bonnet of the agreement. He said:

“The Crown Estate’s agreement with GBE is such that activity undertaken through the partnership will not undermine the Crown Estate’s independence. The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

“Compelled” is a very strong word to use in that context.

On one level, the responses could be seen as reassuring, but I think back to the exuberant press release I referred to earlier and the excitement in the announcement of what the partnership could deliver and what the Government thought it could do. Can the Minister clarify how much he expects the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s personal investment fund? Can he rule out Ministers pressuring the Crown Estate, whether that be through GB Energy and the chairman they have appointed or the chairman of the Crown Estate, who will shortly be going before the Treasury Committee? Can he rule out pressuring any of those people to invest more than the Crown Estate considers to be prudent?

I have raised my points briefly. I could go on for longer, though I am not sure the Committee would enjoy that. We are asking reasonable questions about this “groundbreaking partnership” agreement—I am looking at the exciting press release in front of me. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide some clarity and assurance on this—and I hope, having listened to the argument, accept that it is not unreasonable to place before Parliament a partnership agreement that can be redacted and before the Public Accounts Committee the full agreement. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will speak to this clause, Ms Vaz.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I apologise for the confusion on our side, Ms Vaz. The Committee will be pleased to know that I have lots to say on this clause, so we can all settle in for a while.

Clause 63 increases the headline rate of alcohol duty in line with the retail price index, provides a reduction to the rates for draught alcoholic products and cuts to the rates paid by eligible small producers. The Government have also chosen not to extend the temporary easement for certain wine products. I say at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition is a strong supporter of the broader alcohol sector, and we have some concerns about the impact that some of the provisions will have on important sectors. As well as speaking to clauses 63 and 64, I will speak to new clause 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne.

In 2023, the previous Government introduced a progressive strength-based duty system following the alcohol duty review, which was the biggest review of alcohol duties for more than 140 years. The new and simplified alcohol duty rates system was based on the common-sense principle of taxing alcohol by strength, with the aim of modernising the existing duties, supporting businesses and meeting our public health objectives. That was the first time that public health objectives had been inserted into the alcohol duty system. The reforms also introduced two new reliefs: the draught relief to reduce the duty burden on draught products sold at on-trade venues, and small producer relief.

At the autumn statement 2023, the previous Government froze alcohol duty rates until August 2024, and that was extended until February 2025 at the following Budget. According to the OBR, alcohol duty receipts are expected to raise £12.4 billion this year, falling by 0.6% compared with last year as the rates remain frozen, but receipts are then forecast to increase by 5% a year on average, to reach £15.9 billion by the end of the Parliament.

Pubs make a huge contribution to our culture, economy and communities. When the Conservatives were in government, we recognised that and introduced a raft of supportive measures, including draught relief, small producer relief and the Brexit pubs guarantee, which I am sure all hon. Members remember and welcome. I therefore welcome the increased draught relief from February, from 9.2% to 13.9%, and the fact that the relative value of small producer relief will be maintained. Although we welcome the inclusion of both reliefs, the increase to draught relief will mean that beer duty on a 5% pint of beer is reduced from 54p to 53p—a 1p saving. I fear that drinkers will not be toasting the Exchequer Secretary over that.

Turning to whisky—although it is a little early in the day for me—as the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire set out, Scotch whisky is one of our most iconic and successful industries. Some 43 bottles of scotch whisky are exported per second and the industry supports more than 66,000 jobs across the UK, many of which are in rural areas. The decision to uprate duty rates by RPI has been met with deep concern by the industry—indeed, the Scotch Whisky Association said that it represents a broken commitment, after the Prime Minister claimed last year that his Government’s trade strategy would

“back Scotch producers to the hilt.”

That sounds rather like the promise that he gave to farmers, which Labour’s family farm tax has broken. The managing director of Diageo said:

“This betrayal will leave a bitter taste for drinkers and pubs, while jeopardising jobs and investment across Scotland.”

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those comments. Have the Government calculated the risk to jobs in the sector more widely?

A similar picture is painted by the cider industry, which supports more than 11,500 jobs and attracts more than 1 million tourists each year. The National Association of Cider Makers has raised fears that raising the headline rate, alongside the national insurance increases and the family farm tax, could put elements of the UK cider industry at risk. Has the Minister calculated the cumulative impact that these tax rises will have on the sector?

At this point, we should consider the wider context in which we are discussing these increases. Time and again we hear about the Budget placing a range of cost pressures on the hospitality industry, which is a key contributor to the UK economy. According to UKHospitality:

“In the past six years, hospitality has increased its annual economic contribution by £20 billion to £93 billion.”

The tax rises in the Budget, including the £25 billion a year jobs tax, will make it much harder for the industry to succeed. Just look at the impact of recent measures. Colliers, a professional property services company, reported that cutting the hospitality business rate relief from 75% to 40% means that restaurants will face a bill of, on average, over £13,000 a year, up from £5,500.

[Mr MacDonald]

Will the Minister comment on whether, when the Government fix all these additional taxes, they take into account what happens in Scotland, where many in the hospitality industry do not get business rate relief? We are getting it twice on exactly the same issue.

[James Wild]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I am sure the Minister will want to cover when he responds.

The average bill for pubs will go from £4,000 to £9,642 a year. Any hon. Member who talks to hospitality businesses in their constituency will know the real-world challenges they are facing. As it happens, my favourite pub in my constituency closed its doors on Sunday, in part due to the increased costs and taxes the sector is facing. Have the Government considered the impact of the combination of these tax rises on pubs and the wider sector?

Turning to wine, as part of our reforms we introduced a wine easement for 18 months until February 2025. The Minister will be aware of the concerns of some in the sector that because that easement is coming to an end, duty will increase by 98p in just over 18 months. While we support the transition to the new regime and the end of the easement, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what engagement he has had to understand how prepared the industry is for the new system.

We have many incredible wineries here in the UK. In 2023, sales rose 10% to reach nearly 9 million bottles. Supporting domestic wine producers should be a priority. In my constituency, I am fortunate to have Burn Valley winery, Cobble Hill winery and others. They are producing great products, proving very popular and helping to improve the rural economy and employment. However, growers have higher production and establishment costs, which will be made more challenging by the tax rises in these clauses and the wider Budget.

To support the industry, WineGB has proposed the introduction of a cellar door duty relief scheme modelled on the Australian scheme, to promote wine tourism, which a VisitBritain survey demonstrated could attract 16 million visitors. The Government have an ambitious target to increase annual visits to the UK to 50 million by 2030—up from 38 million last year. In the spirit of trying to help the Government lift their foot off the growth brake lever, perhaps the Minister will have a look at that idea and consider whether introducing it has any merit.

It is because of the challenges facing producers and the hospitality sector that we have tabled new clause 4, which would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Bill being passed, to make a statement to Parliament about the impact on various sectors of the increases in alcohol duties. As we have heard, increases to duty rates place significant additional costs on hospitality, pubs, whisky, spirits, wine, cider and other sectors, and we are concerned that this could inhibit growth and business investment. The previous Government recognised the significant contribution made by those sectors and saw an increase in business investment in the hospitality sector. Given the headwinds facing alcohol producers and hospitality businesses, which support so many jobs, it is only right that the Government report back to Parliament on the impact of their choices.

Clause 64 abolishes the duty stamps scheme for spirit drinks from 1 May 2025, fulfilling a commitment made by the Conservative Government in the spring Budget. We welcome this. The scheme was important when it was introduced, but it became an increasingly diminishing part of HMRC’s compliance response. Unnecessary regulation should of course be removed where possible, and I welcome this Government’s apparent commitment to deregulation, as set out in the Chancellor’s speech, though it would have more credibility if the Government were not also bringing forward the unemployment Bill that will add £4.5 billion to business costs.

As I set out, we support this change to reduce administrative burdens. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the concerns I have raised on behalf of the sector and producers in relation to these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The clause implements changes announced at the autumn Budget 2024, concerning tobacco duty rates. The duty charged on all tobacco products will rise in line with the tobacco duty escalator, with an additional increase being made for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes. Smoking rates in the UK are falling but they are still too high; around 12% of adults are now smokers. Smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK, killing around 80,000 people a year and up to two thirds of all long-term users.

We have plans to reduce smoking rates further to achieve our ambition of a smoke-free UK. To realise that ambition, we announced our intention to phase out the sale of tobacco products for future generations, as part of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, along with powers to extend smoke-free legislation to some outdoor areas.

At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government will increase tobacco duty in line with the escalator. Clause 65 therefore specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2% above RPI inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolling tobacco increases by 12% above RPI inflation. These new tobacco duty rates will be treated as taking effect from 6 pm on the day that they were announced, 30 October last year.

Recognising the potential interactions between tobacco duty rates and the illicit market, HMRC and Border Force launched their refreshed illicit tobacco strategy in January 2024. The strategy is supported by £100 million of new funding, which will be used to scale up ongoing work and support new activities set out in the strategy, including enhanced detection and intelligence capabilities.

New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of increased tobacco rates on the illicit tobacco market within six months of the Bill being passed. The Government respectfully will not accept this new clause, as the potential impact on illicit markets is already one of several factors the Government take into account when a decision on tobacco rates is made. I also note that the approach used in the costings at the Budget, certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, accounts for behavioural responses to changing excise rates, including the impact of illicit markets. HMRC also publishes tobacco tax gaps annually, which allow for an analysis for the long-term trends in illicit trade.

Although the Government are rejecting new clause 5, I assure Committee members that the Government will continue to monitor illicit trade and to support the efforts of our enforcement agencies to counter it. HMRC and Border Force have had strategies in place to reduce the illicit trade in tobacco for over 20 years, which have helped to reduce the tobacco tax gap from 21.7% in 2005-06 to 14.5% in 2022-23. That happened during a prolonged period in which tobacco duties were consistently increased, as the attitude of all Administrations, including I believe the last one, has been that the threat of illicit tobacco needs to be addressed by reducing its availability, rather than allowing it to dictate our public health and tax policies.

On that matter, I hope that all Committee members, and I assure them that that will continue to be this Government’s approach. The clause will continue the tried and tested policy of using high duty rates on tobacco products to make tobacco less affordable. It will help to continue the reduction in smoking prevalence, supporting our ambition for a smoke-free UK, and will reduce the burden placed by smoking on our public services. I comment the clause to the Committee and urge it to reject new clause 5.

[James Wild]

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 65 increases excise duty on all tobacco products and the minimum excise tax on cigarettes by the duty escalator RPI plus 2%. In addition, the excise duty rate for hand-rolling tobacco increases by an additional 10%. This is a one-off increase in addition to the restated policy of increasing rates in line with RPI plus two percentage points. We are broadly supportive of these measures but I have some questions around purchaser behaviour and its impact on the illicit market and enforcement. In addition to speaking to clause 65, I will also speak to new clause 5, which stands in my name.

Tobacco receipts are expected to be £8.7 billion this year, down by 2.7% on last year. They are forecast to decline by 0.5% a year on average over the rest of the forecast period to £8.5 billion, as declining tobacco consumption offsets increasing duty rates. The tax information and impact note explains that over the four years from 2019 to 2023, the tobacco escalator coincided with a reduction in smoking prevalence from 14.1% to 11.9% of people aged over 18. That is clearly welcome. The Government are bringing forward the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which the Minister referred to and which includes lots of measures to make vapes less attractive to children and harder to get hold of. There is a lot to be said about that Bill, but fortunately, that is the job of another Committee.

Increasing the price of tobacco clearly comes with the risk of boosting the illicit market. The tax information and impact note suggests that some consumers might engage in cross-border shopping and purchase from the illicit tobacco market. HMRC will monitor and respond to any potential shift. Indeed, the OBR has suggested that the duty rate is beyond the peak of the Laffer curve—the revenue-maximising rate of tax. Can the Minister confirm what measures will form HMRC’s response to any shift in illegal consumption?

There are also questions around the figures. Although HMRC estimates that 10% of cigarettes and 35% of hand-rolling tobacco consumption is from illegal and other non-UK duty paid sources, evidence submitted by the industry believes that is a significant understatement. Its data shows that the consumption of tobacco from non-UK duty paid sources currently accounts for 30% of cigarettes and 54% of hand-rolling tobacco consumption. Has the Minister discussed with HMRC the difference between those figures and the basis on which they have been put together?

The Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association said that the illegal market is not in decline but that, contrary to HMRC’s claims, it is expanding. As well as providing more accurate figures on the scale of the illegal market, it would be useful to know whether the Government have calculated the potential consequences for retailers and law enforcement of an expanding illegal market.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the tobacco market’s estimates are not unbiased? It has form in exaggerating the scale of the illicit tobacco market in the UK.

[James Wild]

The hon. Member has probably seen the same evidence produced by the industry as I have; I do not think that we should dismiss it out of hand. Representatives from the industry do, for example, go around football terraces, pick up the empty packets, see where they came from, and do sampling or take other measures. Of course the industry’s evidence should be challenged and tested, but my point is about whether HMRC has worked with the sector to see if its figures are wrong. If they are, and HMRC’s are perfectly right, we can follow the HMRC figures. I am raising a legitimate concern about the accuracy of the data to make sure that we are all operating from the same page because, as the OBR has pointed out, we may already have reached the peak point where the tax will be doing harm.

The Minister referred to the success of enforcement over the last couple of decades. In March last year, the previous Government set out a new strategy to tackle illicit tobacco. With evidence of a substantial illegal market—and whichever set of figures we take, it is substantial—what steps are the Government taking? Are they taking the previous Government’s strategy forward or will they introduce their own strategy?

The industry has specifically proposed that the Government provide trading standards with full access to the powers granted to HMRC under the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. At present, the legislation allows trading standards to refer cases to HMRC, which will then consider imposing on-the-spot penalties of up to £10,000 on those selling tobacco.

The industry proposed that it would be far more effective for trading standards to apply the penalty at the point of enforcement rather than having to refer the case to HMRC. It also suggested allowing trading standards to keep the receipts from any such penalties to reinvest in its enforcement action—we are all familiar with the pressures that trading standards is facing. Will the Minister say whether the Government have considered those proposals and, if they have not, will he?

I have tabled new clause 5 to ensure there is better understanding of the risk around the illicit market. The Minister respectfully dismissed the need for it, but it would require the Chancellor to, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by clause 65 of the Bill on the illicit tobacco market. As we have heard, increasing tobacco duty could alter the behaviour of consumers, and we could see greater illicit market share.

Evidence from the industry—which may be contested—shows that non-UK duty paid sources are significant. There is clearly a risk that a further increase to tobacco duty could boost the illicit market, and HMRC needs to act to protect lawful revenues for the taxpayer. We would therefore welcome the Chancellor publishing an assessment of the impact of the changes. As I set out, we will not oppose clause 65, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to my points, particularly on the illicit market.

[James Murray]

I welcome the Opposition’s support for these measures. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in response to some of the queries he raised about specific figures. I will address the points that he made about the illicit tobacco market, because that is obviously something we all want to consider in some depth in connection with anything that we do around the tobacco duty.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, HMRC and Border Force launched their refreshed illicit tobacco strategy in January 2024. That is being implemented under this Government. It is supported by £100 million of new funding, which will be used to scale up the ongoing work and support the new activities outlined in the strategy, including enhanced detection and intelligence capabilities.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the impact of increasing tobacco duty on the demand for illicit products, and whether increasing duty rates might push some smokers towards illicit products. It will be helpful if I set out the context for this discussion. Under the assumptions that were used in the tobacco costings for the autumn Budget, which were of course certified by the OBR, the overall level of increase decided on by the Government raises revenue while continuing to reduce tobacco consumption.

The approach used in costings, certified by the OBR, takes into account a number of potential behavioural responses to changing excise duty rates, such as quitting or reducing smoking, substituting with vapes, and moving from UK duty paid consumption to the non-UK duty paid market, including the impact on illicit products. However, the threat from illicit tobacco needs to be addressed by reducing its availability, rather than allowing it to dictate our tax and public health policies.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether HMRC had worked with the sector to authenticate its figures. HMRC has analysed how external figures are calculated, but World Health Organisation rules prohibit extensive engagement with the industry on such issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Rates of vehicle excise duty for light passenger or light goods vehicles etc

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Clause 66 makes changes to the uprating of standard vehicle excise duty rates for cars, vans and motorcycles, excluding first-year rates for cars, in line with the retail prices index, from 1 April. The clause will also change the VED first-year rates for new cars registered on or after 1 April, to strengthen incentives to purchase zero emission and electric cars.

As announced at the autumn Budget, the clause will freeze the zero emission rate at £10 until 2029-30, while increasing the rates for higher-emitting hybrid, petrol and diesel cars from 2025-26.

Vehicle excise duty—VED—is a tax on vehicle ownership, with rates depending on the vehicle type and the date of first registration. Vehicle excise duty first-year rates were introduced as part of the wider changes to the VED system implemented in 2017, and they vary according to emissions. Vehicle excise duty first-year rates are paid in the first year of a car’s life cycle, at the point of registration. From the second year, cars move to the standard rate of VED. From 1 April, new zero emission vehicles registered on or after that date will also be liable for the VED first-year rates.

Vehicle excise duty first-year rates have been routinely uprated by the RPI since their introduction in 2017, and as announced by the previous Government at the autumn statement in 2022, from April 2025, electric cars, vans and motorcycles will begin to pay VED in a similar way to petrol and diesel vehicles.

The clause will set the VED rates for 2025-26, increasing the standard rates for cars, vans and motorcycles in line with the RPI. As part of this uprating, the standard rate of VED for cars registered since 1 April 2017 will increase by only £5. The expensive car supplement will also be increased by £15, from £410 to £425. The rates for vans will increase by no more than £15, and motorcyclists will see an increase in rates of no more than £4.

From 1 April 2025, the VED first-year rate for zero emission cars will be frozen at £10 until 2029-30. For 2025-26, first-year rates for cars emitting 1 to 50 grams per km of carbon dioxide will go from £10 to £110, and cars emitting 51 to 75 grams per km of CO₂ will go from £30 to £130. Rates for cars emitting 76 grams per km or more of CO₂ will double.

New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the £40,000 expensive car supplement threshold and consider its effects on the proportion of new cars sold that are electric vehicles. As set out at the autumn Budget, the Government have already committed to considering increasing the £40,000 threshold for EVs at a future fiscal event. The Government recognise that new electric vehicles can still often be more expensive to purchase than their petrol or diesel counterparts, and we acknowledge the need to ensure that EVs are affordable as part of our transition to net zero. In the light of that commitment, a separate review is unnecessary so I urge the Committee to reject new clause 6.

The changes to the VED first-year rates outlined in clause 66 will increase the incentives to buy new zero emission cars at the point of purchase and support the uptake of new electric vehicles. Revenue from that change will also help to support public services and infrastructure in the UK. An increase in VED standard rates for cars, vans and motorcycles by the RPI in 2025-26 will ensure that VED receipts are maintained in real terms. I commend clause 66 to the Committee.

[James Wild]

As we heard from the Minister, clause 66 provides for increasing certain rates of VED for light passenger and light goods vehicles in line with the RPI. There will also be changes to the first-year rates for zero emission vehicles and low emission vehicles. We broadly support the measures, but as well as discussing clause 66, I will consider new clause 6, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne.

According to the OBR, VED receipts are expected to raise £8.2 billion in 2024-25, up by £0.5 billion compared with 2023-24. It expects an increase through the forecast period to £11.2 billion, driven by an increasing number of cars, more cars paying the expensive car supplement and the extension of VED to electric vehicles from 2025. It was the last Government who decided that EVs would no longer be exempt from VED and moved to make the system fairer. I will raise some points about the implications of that, and particularly the expensive car supplement for electric vehicles. New zero emission cars, registered after 1 April, will be liable for that charge, which currently applies to cars with a list price exceeding £40,000. That threshold has not changed since 2017, despite inflation and changing technologies. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has called on the Government to look at that.

The current ECS threshold will add more than £2,000 to the cost of a zero emission vehicle in the first six years of ownership, and more than £3,000 including the standard rate VED that must also be paid. That will deter potential buyers from purchasing zero emission vehicles and will have an impact on residual values. According to figures quoted by the SMMT, the ECS is likely to capture more than half of the zero emission vehicle market from 2025.

The Minister referred to the Government saying that they may look at the threshold in future, and I will come on to that when I discuss new clause 6. Can he confirm how much the ECS currently raises and how much it is forecast to raise as a result of the changes? Given that the Government are committed to a 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicle sales, what impact will the ECS have on the Government’s progress towards that goal?

For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 6, which would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Bill being passed, to publish an assessment of the impact of the £40,000 expensive car supplement threshold in clause 66. The assessment must consider the effects of the threshold on the proportion of new car sales that are electric vehicles.

As we have heard, the threshold has remained unchanged since 2017 and the Government are pushing ahead with the 2030 date. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) introduced some welcome common sense to the debate by moving the date for the ban on new petrol and diesel car sales back to 2035. That is the date that the major car manufacturing countries in Europe and the rest of the world have adopted, and one that we should have stuck to.

The Government’s policy is odd because it makes people less likely to move to EVs—because it makes it more expensive to do so. Perhaps the Treasury is not quite as signed up to the Energy Secretary’s dogmatic approach as he is; perhaps it secretly agrees with Opposition Members who certainly think that he is the most expensive Cabinet member in many ways. Although I recognise that the Minister said that the Government have committed to look at the threshold, the new clause would make that binding and make sure that it happened within a specific timeframe. We therefore want the new clause to be taken forward. As I have set out, we will not oppose the clause, but I will press new clause 6 to a Division.

Hybrid vehicles will start paying road tax at the standard rate, as well as paying the ECS where applicable. Those changes will hasten the departure from hybrids, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne said earlier. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an assessment of the decision to disincentivise hybrids and if he could say how many jobs in the UK are based on producing hybrid vehicles.

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for indicating the Opposition’s support for the clause. I understand what the Opposition are doing by proposing new clause 6, and the points that they want to raise, and the Government have considered it. We consider our commitment, which was made at the autumn Budget in the public domain, to be a strong commitment from the Government: we will consider increasing the £40,000 threshold for EVs only at a future fiscal event.

We recognise that when electric vehicles are new, they can still often be more expensive to purchase than their petrol or diesel counterparts. There is a need to ensure that EVs are affordable as part of the transition. We also recognise that, as transport is currently the largest-emitting sector, decarbonising it is central to the wider delivery of the UK’s cross-economy climate targets.

As I said, it was announced at Budget ’24 that the Government will consider raising the threshold for zero emission cars only at a future fiscal event. The Government have no current plans to review the threshold for petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles, but we keep all taxes under review as part of the Budget process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Rates of vehicle excise duty for rigid goods vehicles without trailers etc

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

[James Murray]

Clauses 67, 68 and 69 make changes to upgrade VED rates for heavy goods vehicles in line with the retail prices index from 1 April. They also make changes to the VED rates for rigid goods vehicles without trailers, rigid goods vehicles with trailers and vehicles with exceptional loads. Clause 71 uprates the heavy goods vehicle levy in line with the RPI from 1 April.

The registered keeper of a vehicle is responsible for paying VED. The rates depend on the vehicle’s revenue weight, axle configuration and Euro emission status. Furthermore, the HGV levy, which was introduced in August 2023 and frozen at the autumn statement in 2023, is payable for both UK and foreign HGVs using UK roads. Similarly to VED, the levy rates depend on the vehicle’s weight and Euro emissions status. Clauses 67, 68 and 69 will set the VED rates for heavy goods vehicles for ’25-26, increasing them in line with the RPI. For example, the annual VED liability of the most popular HGV—tax class TC01, VED band E1—will increase by £18, from £560 to £578. Hauliers will not see a real-terms increase in VED costs, as rates have increased to keep pace with inflation only.

The changes made by clause 71 will increase the annual rates for domestic and foreign HGVs using UK roads and the associated daily, weekly, monthly and six-monthly rates in line with the RPI. For example, the annual rate for the most common type of UK HGV will increase by £21, from £576 to £597. As part of that uprating, the £9 and £10 caps on the daily rates paid by foreign HGVs, which are a consequence of retained EU law and are now obsolete, will be removed.

Government new clause 1 corrects an omission in the Bill of an uplift to the general haulage rate announced at the autumn Budget. We are inserting a new clause to ensure that the legislation operates as intended by updating the currently recorded rate for the general haulage tax class—tax class 55—from £350 to £365 in line with the RPI.

New clause 7 seeks to require the Chancellor to make a statement about the impact of increasing VED on HGVs. The new clause is not necessary, as the Government have already published the tax information and impact note that sets out all the expected impacts of the measure. It makes clear that hauliers will not see a real-terms increase in their VED or HGV levy liabilities, as rates are being increased in line with the RPI to keep pace with inflation only. The measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.

Increasing both VED rates for HGVs and the HGV levy by the RPI for ’25-26 will ensure that VED receipts are maintained in real terms and that hauliers continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances in the wider context of a Budget in which hauliers have benefited from a further freeze in fuel duty, worth nearly £1,100 a year to the average HGV. I therefore commend clauses 67, 68, 69 and 71 as well as Government new clause 1 to the Committee, and I urge the Committee to reject new clause 7.

[James Wild]

As the Minister says, clauses 67, 68 and 69 provide for changes to certain rates of VED, and clause 71 increases the rates for the HGV road user levy. We will not oppose the provisions, but we have some concerns and points to make about the timing of the changes and the lack of support for impacted industries, such as the logistics sector. As well as discussing those clauses, I will consider new clause 7, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne.

Heavy goods vehicle VED is a complex picture, with more than 80 different rates. The characteristics of HGVs determine their rates, and the increases to HGV VED represent the first rise since 2014. Heavy goods vehicles may also be liable for the additional HGV road user levy, which was introduced in 2014 and is a charge for using the road network, ranging from £150 to £749 a year. The levy was suspended in August 2020, demonstrating the previous Government’s support for the haulage sector during the pandemic. A reformed levy was introduced in 2023 and was frozen at the autumn statement in 2023. The new levy divides qualifying HGVs into six levy bands rather than the previous 22, which is a welcome simplification.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The clause makes minor amendments to ensure the legislation for the application of vehicle excise duty to zero emission vehicles operates as intended. In the 2022 autumn statement, the former Government announced that from April 2025, zero emission cars, vans and motorcycles would begin to pay VED in line with their petrol and diesel counterparts. The clause will ensure that the legislation governing the application of VED to zero emission vehicles operates as intended by making minor technical amendments to the legislation. The changes will clarify the current VED exemption for electric vehicles, clarify the interpretation of data entries on the certificate of conformity and ensure that all zero emission vans registered between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2008 pay VED, in line with their petrol or diesel counterparts, from 1 April 2025. The clause will ensure that the legislation for the application of VED to zero emission vehicles operates as intended.

[James Wild]

I will be very brief on this one. It is a perfectly sensible measure, and we will not be opposing it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

Rates of air passenger duty until 1 April 2026

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 73 stand part.

New clause 8—Review of bands and rates of air passenger duty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within eighteen months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes to air passenger duty introduced by section 73 of this Act on—

(a) the public finances;

(b) carbon emissions; and

(c) household finances.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1)(c) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by these changes.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to publish an assessment of this Act’s changes to air passenger duty on the public finances, carbon emissions, and on the finances of households at a range of different income levels.

[James Murray]

Clause 72 sets the rates of air passenger duty for 2025-26, as announced in the 2024 spring Budget, and they will take effect on 1 April 2025. Clause 73 sets the rates of APD for 2026-27, as announced in the 2024 autumn Budget, and they will take effect a year later, on 1 April 2026.

APD rates have fallen in real terms, because they are set more than a year in advance using forecast RPI, and inflation has subsequently been much higher than originally forecast. The former Government announced that in 2025-26, rates would be uprated by forecast RPI and non-economy rates would be adjusted to account partially for previous high inflation. For 2026-27, the current Government are making a broad-based adjustment to all rates to compensate in part for previous high inflation and are raising the higher rate on larger private jets by an additional 50%. These changes aim to ensure that the aviation industry continues to make a fair contribution to the public finances. As is standard practice, the Government have given the industry more than 12 months’ notice.

Let me go into some detail. The changes made by clause 72 will raise all APD rates by forecast RPI, rounded to the nearest pound, for 2025-26. Non-economy rates will be further adjusted to correct partially for previous high inflation. For domestic and short-haul international economy passengers, these changes mean that rates will stay at their current level in 2025-26. Rates for other economy-class passengers will rise by £2. For non-economy international passengers, rates will rise by between £2, for short-haul commercial passengers, and £66, for those travelling ultra-long haul in larger private jets that incur the higher rate.

The changes made by clause 73 will raise all APD rates in 2026-27 to account partially for previous high inflation, and increase the higher rate on larger private jets by an extra 50% above the increases to other rates. For economy-class passengers, this means that those flying domestically will face an increase of £1. Rates for short-haul economy passengers will increase by £2, and those for long-haul economy passengers will increase by £12. The increases for non-economy passengers and those travelling in private jets will be greater. Whereas the short-haul international rate for economy passengers is increasing by £2, that for non-economy passengers is rising by £4 and that for private jet passengers by £58.

Taken together, the corrections to non-economy rates announced at the spring and autumn Budgets do not raise rates by more than RPI over the period since 2021-22, based on the latest figures. From 2027-28, rates will be rounded to the nearest penny, to ensure that they track forecast inflation more closely.

New clause 8 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the APD changes on the public finances, carbon emissions and the finances of households at a range of income levels. At the autumn Budget, the Government published a TIIN that outlined the expected impacts of the APD changes, including the Exchequer, household and environmental impacts. New clause 8 is therefore unnecessary, and I urge the Committee to reject it.

These changes will help to maintain APD rates in real terms, following high inflation. I therefore commend clauses 72 and 73 to the Committee and urge it to reject new clause 8.

[James Wild]

As we heard from the Minister, clause 72 sets the rates of air passenger duty for the year 2025-26—those rates were announced in the 2024 spring Budget, precisely to give the sector time to plan—and clause 73 sets the rates for 2026-27. The higher rates that apply to larger private jets will increase by an additional 50%, as the Minister said. We will not oppose these measures, but we want to raise some points and seek more detail about their impact.

APD was first introduced on 1 November 1994. Initially, it was charged at a rate of £5 on flights within the UK and to other countries in the European Economic Area, and £10 on flights elsewhere. Since then, it has been reformed by successive Governments. Currently, it is chargeable per passenger flying from UK airports to domestic and international destinations, and rates vary by destination and class of travel. According to the OBR, APD receipts are expected to be £4.2 billion in 2024-25, and then they are forecast to increase by 9% a year, on average, to £6.5 billion in 2029-30, driven by increasing passenger numbers and the higher duty rates. The changes mean that a family of four flying economy to Florida, for example, will be taxed £408—a 16% increase on the current rates.

I turn first to the changes in clause 73 that relate to the higher rate, which will increase by an additional 50% on business and private jets. There is some concern from the industry about the impact of the measure on economic growth—the Government’s driving, No. 1 mission, in which we support their efforts. In reality, most private jets are corporate aircraft that are used as capital assets. One industry commentator said:

“They allow businesses to increase productivity and the amount of time they have in the day, which means they can make more money, employ more people and pay more in taxes. ”

That is something I think we all support. Has the Minister calculated what impact the 50% increase will have on economic growth and developing our trade relationships? The Prime Minister rightly travels a lot around the world to make connections and promote trade in our economy. Can the Minister confirm whether the Royal Squadron is subject to the higher rates, or is it exempt?

There has also been some concern about the impact on our constituents—people going on holiday or to see family and friends. The changes may limit flight options. Airlines UK has said that the rise will make it harder for British carriers to put on new routes. Does the Minister think the increase will impact the ability to consider new routes? It will certainly increase ticket prices; I woke up this morning to hear the boss of Ryanair on the radio saying that the increases in APD will mean that a third of an average £45 fare will now be tax.

It is because of the impacts that the rate rises might have on consumers, industry and economic growth that we tabled new clause 8, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by clause 73 within 18 months of the Bill being passed. The assessment would have to consider the impact of the changes on the public finances, carbon emissions and household incomes. The industry has been clear in its warnings in this regard, and we need to take them seriously. The Minister said that the new clause is unnecessary and that a review has been covered anyway, but reviews should be an important part of the Treasury’s toolkit in understanding impact.

We will not oppose these measures, but we will continue to raise industry’s concerns, particularly on behalf of our constituents and people who want to go on holiday.

[James Murray]

It might be worth my saying at the outset that our support for the aviation industry more broadly is very clear. I am sure the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Chancellor’s growth speech yesterday, in which she announced that we will no longer shy away from decisions about airport expansion, which can be delivered to support economic growth while meeting our climate obligations. People in the aviation industry can have no doubt about this Government’s desire and willingness, and concrete actions, to work with them to drive economic growth in this country.

In relation specifically to APD, which is the subject of these clauses, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the adjustment to the APD rates for ’26-27 is proportionate, because the rates have fallen significantly behind inflation in recent years. These changes will help to compensate for that fact. The short-haul international rate on economy passengers will increase by £2 on 1 April 2026. That rate has not increased since 2012. Even after 1 April 2026, for a family of four—two adults, two children—flying economy class to Spain, the total APD increase will be only £4, since under-16s travelling in economy class are exempt from APD.

By contrast, the increases for non-economy passengers and those travelling in private jets will be higher, to ensure that they make a fair contribution to the public finances. One other bit of context is that, unlike other sectors, no VAT applies to plane tickets and there is no tax on jet fuel. It is only fair that aviation pays its fair share through APD.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)

Finance Bill (First sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

In conclusion, clause 19 and schedule 4 introduce the important undertaxed profits rule backstop to pillar two and make technical amendments to existing legislation. I therefore commend them, and Government amendments 1 to 14 and 21 to 37, to the Committee.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Farming’s vital role in growing our rural economy, growing our food and protecting the countryside is threatened by Labour’s family farm tax. The self-proclaimed “iron Chancellor” is proving herself to be the tin-eared Chancellor, ignoring evidence from the National Farmers Union and others showing that the tax is based on flawed assumptions. Ahead of Saturday’s farming day of unity, rather than threatening family farms, will she speak to farmers, think again and withdraw those damaging proposals?

[Rachel Reeves]

The problem with the Conservatives is that they support increased spending in vital areas but they have not supported any of the tax increases necessary to pay for them, which, frankly, is why we are in the situation we are in today, having inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Budget we announced £5 billion for the farming budget over two years— including the largest funding directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in this country’s history—and £60 million to support farmers affected by flooding.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The work on reforming the Crown Estate was developed by the previous Government. I am pleased to be debating the Bill today, and I thank my noble Friends for the scrutiny they have already provided.

We support the objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it. Assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown, which encompasses the interests of the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate and its £15.5 billion in total assets is important. It has a rural portfolio of 185,000 acres, manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline, has one of the largest property portfolios in the west end and returns all its profits to the Treasury. Last year, there was a record profit of £1.1 billion, up more than £600 million largely due to fees from round 4, and it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances over the past decade. There is, however, the potential to do more. In the business case prepared under the last Government, the Crown Estate estimated that changes in the Bill would enable it to generate £100 million a year in additional revenues by 2030. It is right, therefore, that we help to modernise the Crown Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation.

Although we support the Bill’s aims, further scrutiny is obviously needed in some areas, including a limit on the level of borrowing, governance, the relationship with Great British Energy and safeguards in relation to the disposal of assets. I will come to each in turn.

As we have heard, the kernel of the Bill is clause 1, which confers on the Crown Estate a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. While I note the need for Treasury approval, a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels is a concern. When pushed by Baroness Vere of Norbiton and other noble Lords, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing

“is better placed outside of legislation”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1400.]

and instead should be placed in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury.

The MOU sets out that the Crown Estate can borrow up to 25% of the worth of its total assets, but an MOU is easily altered. Public borrowing levels should be transparent. If Parliament is being asked to remove restrictions on borrowing, why should there not be a cap in legislation with the ability to swiftly amend it through a statutory instrument, if necessary, to protect against unconstrained borrowing and the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised?

[Mark Pritchard]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Crown Estate and Treasury’s framework agreement was ineffective, or that at least it could have been strengthened. The memorandum of understanding is in a similar vein. I therefore support him.

Will he comment on this? I have concerns about the Bill. I agree with the general principle but there are potential fiscal and reputational hazards ahead for the Crown—not just the Crown Estate—if some of the investments go south. Also, at the moment there is a link between the Crown Estate and the sovereign grant. I think it is around 12%, as not all the income to the sovereign grant is derived from the Crown Estate. However, if the investments were to go wrong, who would be liable? If we have a weak MOU with no statutory oversight, it is more likely to go wrong.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the potential risk. There is no one-way bet in life, and there is no guarantee that the Crown Estate will successfully invest in projects that go well. I will come on to the point about the energy side of things later in my speech.

It is perfectly reasonable, as we proposed in the other place, to have that 25% cap in legislation, which could be amended. I am sure we will consider the issue further in Committee.

The Bill alters the governance of the Crown Estate and provides for the number of commissioners to be increased to 12. Given the extension of the powers and the decrease in parliamentary oversight, pre-appointment scrutiny is of great importance. Again, I thank Baroness Vere for seeking and securing assurances from the Government that the chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office pre-appointment scrutiny list. Just before Christmas, Ric Lewis was announced as the preferred candidate for the role and I am pleased that the appointment will now be considered by the Treasury Committee. Will the Minister confirm in his winding-up speech whether other commissioners will be subject to any pre-appointment scrutiny?

Turning to salaries, which I do not believe the Chief Secretary referred to, under clause 2, Parliament will no longer be responsible for approving them through the estimates. Instead, they will be paid out of the income of the Crown Estate. Currently, the framework document sets out that remuneration of the chief executive should be in line with or below that of an appropriate benchmark group approved by the Treasury and that a clear majority of the chief executive’s total reward should be conditional upon performance. We support rewarding success, but with the loss of parliamentary oversight, will the Minister confirm whether any changes are proposed to the remuneration framework and, specifically, for the chief executive? Will he undertake to report to the House on any such change in future?

Turning to Great British Energy, on the day the Bill was introduced, the Government announced a partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, which they claimed will

“unleash billions of investment in clean power.”

Indeed, the press release went on to say it

“will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”.

However, there is a lack of transparency over how the partnership will work, the difference it will make, and its impact on the Estate’s primary duties. Given the supposed significance, I would have expected to have seen a partnership agreement by now, as without one, we do not know what has been agreed. Will the Minister confirm if there is a partnership agreement yet? Will he commit to publishing it before the Committee stage? Has the Crown Estate agreed to invest a certain amount with GB Energy? What process is there to ensure the Crown Estate continues to deliver on its duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate? How will the Crown Estate decide between projects GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return?

The GB Energy founding statement adds to the confusion, adding that the Crown Estate

“will establish a new division ‘Great British Energy: The Crown Estate’.”

That raises several questions. Will new staff be required, or will it simply be a restructuring of the existing group? The statement also says it will sit

“under both Great British Energy and The Crown Estate, with strategy and investment agreed by Great British Energy.”

Will decisions be made jointly on investments, or will the Crown Estate retain its independence? Given the Government voted down our amendments to the Great British Energy Bill to introduce more accountability, it simply fuels some suspicion that the partnership has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The reporting requirements that were secured and added to the Bill in clause 4, which the Chief Secretary referred to, will at least help to bring some transparency to this, but there is a need for a lot more.

Under the previous Government, the UK became the first to more than halve emissions while growing the economy and became a leader in offshore wind. However, we must acknowledge that renewables are not cheap in all scenarios. There is clearly a risk that the Government will push up the cost of wind by rushing ahead to meet their political target and increase prices for consumers as a result. That is a far cry from the £300 cut in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election. As we scrutinise the Bill, Parliament has an important role to play to ensure the Government do not seek to use the Crown Estate to try and deliver the Energy Secretary’s damaging policies and undermine returns to the taxpayer.

As I set out earlier, the Crown Estate owns some vital assets, so it is surprising that there are so few safeguards to prevent commissioners from selling off such important assets. In the business case for the changes, the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals to fund investments, representing nearly 10% of its portfolio. When I asked Crown Estate representatives what that covered, they said they were unable to disclose plans for disposals because it is commercially sensitive information. Again, that raises concerns about transparency. In response to questions in the other place, the Government said they were working with legal experts

“to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed”

for example. On Report, Lord Livermore confirmed that if the Government establish that

“further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed,”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1412.]

they would bring forward an amendment.

I would be grateful if, in his winding up, the Minister could update the House on the process of those discussions and the need for such an amendment. The disposal of assets should be properly scrutinised. The Government rejected attempts in the other place to bring more scrutiny here and said that a statutory limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility of the Crown Estate to operate commercially. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, we should ensure some form of transparency if they are to be disposed of, whether that is reporting to Parliament, or seeking HMT approval for disposal of specific assets, or those over a set value.

Finally, let me turn to salmon. Clause 5 would require the commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards on salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If a salmon farm is causing damage or animal welfare issues, its licence would have to be refused. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for his tireless work on this matter and for highlighting that salmon farming can cause detrimental impacts in the event of escapes in terms of disease, breeding and other issues. Given that wild Atlantic salmon are now on the international union for conservation of nature’s red list, these are perfectly reasonable obligations which he said might influence how the Crown Estate of Scotland is to operate. The amendment was sponsored by Lord Forsyth, but also by Green and Labour party Members, so it is disappointing to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talking about reversing that measure, and we look forward to that debate in the Committee stage.

[Mr Carmichael]

Salmon farming is enormously important in my community and in many other communities around the highlands and islands. Those communities will not be affected by this apparently, although we might hear conformation on that at a later stage, but is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that this is the only way of regulating salmon farmers? Is he not aware that there is a massive amount of regulation affecting salmon farming already? Does he really think that the Crown Estate commissioners are the people to be doing this job?

[James Wild]

Like me, the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Hansard reports of the debates in the other place where this issue was covered at some great length, so I defer to the points made by Lord Forsyth there. Regulation is obviously in place, but this addition would simply raise awareness of the issues in the Bill. The Government said that they supported the objective of the amendment when it was discussed in the other House, but did not think it was necessary. They did not think that it would do any damage, so I suggest that it remains part of the Bill.

To conclude, the Crown Estate Bill will help deliver the modernisation that is needed, but the purpose must be supporting the estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers, rather than becoming an extension of GB Energy’s cheque book. We will be pursuing the concerns that I have raised about checks on borrowing governance, the relationship with GB Energy and the safeguards in response to the disposal of assets to ensure that that remains the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to respond briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. [Interruption.] I do not know whether there is a party going on to which I have not been invited, but I am personally very happy to be here to take part in the debate.

This has been a good debate, with more than 10 Members contributing, and not only from coastal areas such as my Norfolk constituency; we have also heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), which underlines the importance of the Crown Estate to all our constituencies.

The hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about the potential benefits of investment in their constituencies and their part of the world, including the funding of college courses, which are important, as well as investment in energy production.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) may want to get some tips from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about how to get on with the Crown Estate, how to get it to do what he actually wants it to do, and how to secure the benefits for his constituency. Perhaps he can have a reset with the Crown Estate.

A number of Members spoke about community benefits, which are very important to securing public support for new infrastructure, be that energy or other issues. Labour Members spoke quite a bit about cutting energy bills. I distinctly remember the pledge they all made during the election campaign to cut energy bills by £300, but energy bills are going up and there is no date for when they will come down. Voters and constituents will remember the pledge and, at the moment, all they can see is their costs going up. The concern is that the pace at which the Energy Secretary wants to drive forward will actually drive up costs for all of our constituents.

I began my remarks by emphasising that the Crown Estate is neither the property of the Government nor part of the sovereign’s private estate. That is key. Its core purpose is to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. That is why greater transparency is needed about the partnership with GB Energy. The Minister will have heard and, I am sure, noted down all the questions from my opening speech, so I will not repeat them all, but I will repeat this: will he commit to publishing the partnership agreement before we head into the Committee stage?

I am afraid that some of the contributions we have heard have only fuelled my suspicions of the Government’s intention to use the Crown Estate as a vehicle for its energy policy and as a provisional part of the GB Energy body, whatever that may turn out to be. That raises issues about how investments will be determined and the returns that are generated for the taxpayer, as well as the risk surrounding investments, whether crowding in, as hon. Members have referred to, actually happens, whether investment in ports will drive a return, and why commercial providers are not seeking to make similar investments. That conflict and risk was one of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is sadly not in his place. I hope that the Treasury Committee will engage with that point when it examines the nominated new chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners.

That is also why it is important that Parliament has oversight of borrowing limits, rather than that just being in an MOU that can be changed at the Treasury’s whim. That is an important protection that we have in place, and I know that the Minister will also respond to that point in his remarks. Will he also get back to the specific point I raised about disposals and the seabed, and the commitment that Lord Livermore made on Report in the other place about protections and whether an amendment is needed and will be forthcoming?

To conclude, there is wide support for the Bill from across the House, but the short-term interests of the Government should not come at the long-term expense of the Crown Estate and the nation. I look forward to continuing the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister to wind up.

Finance Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition, and particularly to new clause 8. Let me start by briefly considering the context in which we are debating the Bill. It comes after a Budget in which the Chancellor said that we must have

“an economy that is growing, creating wealth and opportunity for all”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 811.]

But that is not what this Finance Bill delivers. Instead, the Budget is forecast to deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher inflation.

The Minister referred to choices, and the Government have indeed made choices. They have chosen to tax enterprise, to tax the wealth creators and to tax the farmers who are, again, outside Parliament protesting against the family farm tax—I wonder whether, on one of his rare jaunts to this country, the Prime Minister has gone out to speak to them. Rather than promote opportunity, it was the Government’s choice to bring in a new tax on aspiration.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend talks about choices, and one of the choices that independent schools are now going to have to make is how to use their own resources, such as their sports pitches, bursaries and scholarships. The kinds of things that benefited the wider local community may now have to be turned into fundraising and revenue-making machines to be able to deal with this change, which in turn means that other schools will not be able to use their community facilities, such as their football pitches. Those may all have to be charged more for, or indeed cut completely, as the independent schools have to make those difficult choices. That is not good for community cohesion at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Over our 14 years in government, one of the things that consecutive Education Secretaries did was to work with the independent sector precisely to open up those facilities, in recognition of the public good and benefit to their communities that they were delivering.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

Further to the excellent intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), that is exactly what happens with schools in my constituency. Haberdashers’ school partners with 1,400 state school pupils every single week. When the Minister talks about finding efficiencies, these are exactly the sorts of programmes that will suffer. There is no other place for those students to go if they leave private schools in my constituency, so on both counts everyone is worse off. That is one of the inequities of the policy.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which reflects the rash nature of the policy and the inadequacy of the impact assessment, which does not address those issues.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Minister speaks about a tax on aspiration, but what is his problem with having aspiration for all children in all our schools?

[James Wild]

We are about the 100% of pupils. We are not trying to divide and rule like the Labour party.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

rose—

[James Wild]

I will make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Sadly, this cruel tax, which is being imposed midway through the academic year, will damage the education of thousands of pupils. It is sadly typical of the ideological approach that we have seen the new Government take on education, where they are trashing the record of schools, pupils, teachers and governors over the past 14 years when we rose up the international league tables.

[Simon Hoare]

Given that there are many on the Government Benches who had almost as their life’s work the destruction of the private school system, is my hon. Friend as shocked as I am that for this flagship policy, which the red flag has so often demanded, the Government Benches are so underpopulated? I thought that they would be there to cheer the Minister on.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will have been here throughout many of the debates on the Finance Bill, the national insurance and jobs tax Bill, where very few Labour Members have made contributions to defend their first Budget for 14 years. I think we all know why.

Clause 47 removes the exemption for private school fees and spells out what Labour’s education tax will mean from 1 January. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said, doing that mid-year is a cruel measure.

[Graham Stuart]

Further to that point, I think one of the reasons there may be so few colleagues on the Labour Benches is because they stood on a manifesto that was all about economic growth, protecting farmers and holding down tax. That is what they stood on, but it turns out that they have a leftist Front Bench which has introduced this pernicious tax midway through the year, and we have an Education Secretary so filled with malice and spite that she cannot even bring herself to congratulate the state school that has been No. 1 in the country three years in a row.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes a typically salient point. I agree, in particular about the lack of congratulations. The Education Secretary was not prepared to congratulate the head of Michaela school, which is the best performing school in the country.

Putting VAT on independent schools will particularly hurt those parents on modest incomes who are saving to send their children to a school that they think will best serve their needs. None of those parents is getting a tax break. They are also contributing to funding places in the state system, whether or not their child takes one up. The clause excludes the teaching of English as a foreign language, education at nursery and higher education courses from the new tax, but the Government have already crossed the line. They are taxing education and learning for the first time. Will the Minister rule out widening the scope of the education tax to include university fees, for example?

The Opposition are deeply concerned about the impact the tax will have on pupils with special educational needs, small rural schools, faith schools and schools taking part in the music and dance scheme. We have consistently warned of the damage it will do to young people’s education, and we voted against the measures in the Budget resolutions. New clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the shadow Chancellor, would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Act being passed, to make a statement to Parliament on the impact of the changes on those groups in particular, as well as the music and dance scheme. That is needed because there is such a wide gap between what the Minister is telling us and what the limited impact assessment is saying, and what all hon. Members who are actually talking to schools and parents know will be the case.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

The shadow Minister talks about talking to schools. I have spoken to schools in my constituency for many years, and I am sure he has spoken to the schools in his. The “School Cuts” website tells us that North West Norfolk has seen a £2.2 million cut in its state schools since 2010. Perhaps he could point to the record where he spoke out against those cuts.

[James Wild]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he checks the record, he will see that the level of per pupil funding actually increased over the last 14 years. I congratulate the schools in my constituency that have just received good ratings from Ofsted—a number of them have done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

No, I won’t at this stage.

There are more than 100,000 pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in independent schools who do not have education, health and care plans, so they will be subject to this tax. That could make it unaffordable for the parents of those children to send them to the school that they think is best placed to look after them. There will be demand in places where there is not capacity as a result. A number of local authorities have pointed that out. That will just make the problems that councils face with their SEND budgets worse, despite the record amounts we have put into high needs.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this disastrous education tax risks having a severe impact on those children and pupils with SEND in independent schools? It will force children with SEND out of independent schools as fees become unaffordable for their parents and it risks overwhelming the state provision, as there is not sufficient state provision at the moment.

[James Wild]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point very well. The knock-on impact and the damage to those children’s education will be considerable.

More than 40% of independent schools are small schools. They are at the heart of their local communities. They do not have big endowments. They operate on wafer-thin margins and simply cannot absorb changes of this magnitude, so it is likely that those schools will cut bursary places that exist due to this new tax that puts their viability at risk.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

On SEND funding, the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest funded local authority for SEND per pupil. Children in the Prime Minister’s constituency get three times more funding than children in mine, which is a travesty in itself. This policy will put even more strain on my local authority and the children who desperately need support from it.

[James Wild]

Absolutely; I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government hide behind the cloak of saying, “If you have an EHCP, everything is okay,” but 100,000 children in schools across our country will be impacted.

The next area we are concerned about is faith schools, which tend to be smaller and charge lower fees. The Independent Schools Council has warned that

“Low-cost faith schools will be faced with deficit and closure, communities will lose vital assets”.

There are small religious groups that do not have any state sector provision that can meet their needs as a denomination. Religious groups are mounting legal challenges as a result, battling for the right to educate their children and battling for the right to choose, which we on the Conservative Benches certainly support.

New clause 8(3) refers to the music and dance scheme, which provides grants to talented young people who could not otherwise attend world-class institutions such as the Royal Ballet school. We welcome the Government’s decision, under pressure, to delay taxing schools in this scheme until September next year, but that exemption should be made permanent.

To return to one of the points that has been made, in the Budget statement the Chancellor said:

“94% of children in the UK attend state schools. To provide the highest-quality support and teaching that they deserve, we will introduce VAT on private school fees”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

That is a deliberately divisive approach. The Opposition support 100% of pupils. We care about all children. We simply believe that parents should be able to choose.

We have consistently raised the situation of military families, to which the Minister referred, and argued that they should be exempt from this tax. The Government did not agree to that, but in response to our campaign they said:

“We will uprate the continuity of education allowance to reflect the increase in school fees from January.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 3.]

Well, the new continuity of education allowances have been announced and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) pointed out, they fall short of protecting service families from the changes. That will have a direct impact on the retention and recruitment of our armed forces. There are 4,200 children who benefit. The allowance is in place to meet the needs of the armed forces when they have to move around the country or serve overseas and boarding schools or other provision is the only available option. Given the importance of this allowance for the retention of military personnel, why have the Government not met the commitment that they made to our armed forces?

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the veterans’ commissioner that will be introduced by the new Government will be perfectly primed to look at this kind of problem to ensure that both Departments—the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education—get the best? Is that not the purpose of the commissioner?

[James Wild]

I very much hope so. I know from my years as an adviser in the Ministry of Defence just how important the allowance is for retention. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have broken their promise.

I am grateful to the many organisations that have shared concerns about the implementation of these clauses, especially as the measure is rushed and is taking place in the middle of the school year. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has called for a delay, saying that it is

“concerned that neither HMRC nor the private schools will be ready to implement the change in VAT liability effectively”.

In order to meet the mid-term deadline, HMRC has to register the schools in just five working weeks—an issue that new clause 8 could address.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Let me start by saying how deeply and genuinely grateful I am to the Secretary of State for Education for providing the money to rebuild Tiverton high school following a 20-year campaign. I also want to disassociate myself from some of the comments made by Conservative colleagues. Some of them were personalised and vituperative, and I do not wish to be associated with them. That said—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour]

Blundell’s school is also in Tiverton. Would the hon. Member be surprised to hear that when canvassing in Tiverton, in areas that might be considered relatively poor, I met numerous grandparents who were saving money every month to help their children to pay for a better future for their own children at Blundell’s school, through bursaries?

[James Wild]

I entirely agree with that point. Families come together to help out, perhaps to fund a place for grandchildren to give them the best chance in life. We are not going to criticise people who make that choice, but unfortunately the Government are singling them out with their vindictive measure.

This change also represents a significant complication of the tax system. Even HMRC seems confused. The guidance on VAT registration for private schools has undergone seven technical updates since its publication, and there is confusion—as has been mentioned—about the meaning of “closely related supply”.

[Graham Stuart]

On the subject of confusion, my hon. Friend will have observed that the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) appears not to have noticed that VAT was removed from tampons on 1 January 2021 by the Conservative Government. Is my hon. Friend, like me, hopeful that the hon. Member—however ignorant he may be of changes in our tax law—may join us in the Lobby tonight to oppose this pernicious policy? That would be consistent with the views that he tried to espouse a little earlier.

[James Wild]

We can but hope that the hon. Member will join us in the Lobby tonight, and also that he will one day develop the attuned knowledge that my right hon. Friend has of the tax system and the changes that were introduced in the last Parliament.

Let me add that the Association of School and College Leaders has said that there is

“increased anxiety among school leaders”

who are having to deal with the change in the middle of the academic year.

This is the first time an education tax has been introduced, which is why we need to oppose it and review its impact. The Government’s very limited impact assessment estimates that 37,000 more pupils will come into the state sector, at a cost of £270 million a year. It also concedes that there will be a loss of places equivalent to the closure of 100 more independent schools over the next three years than would otherwise be predicted. That assessment is thin, and the Government’s consultation was flawed.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The Government’s impact assessment also assumes that the loss of places will be spread uniformly across the country, which will not be the case. In many constituencies, particularly those represented by Conservatives, a large number of students are at private schools, and the loss of those places will have a significant impact on local schools where there are not the places to absorb them.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend has his finger right on the pulse. The Government claim that there are plenty of places, but they are not in the areas where they will be needed. Members representing constituencies in Hertfordshire, Worcestershire and Buckinghamshire, for example, have already drawn attention to their concern about that.

The new education tax is damaging and unfair. We oppose it, and our new clause would ensure that the true consequences of this tax on aspiration become clear.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I will try to confine my remarks to the subject of state education, because the scope of the debate has gone somewhat beyond what I have either the expertise or the time to discuss.

In view of the critical and urgent relevance of state education funding to the parents, pupils and other people of Falkirk, I support the removal of the VAT exemption on private school fees. When Labour entered government in July, we inherited dire public finances and broken public services, which required necessary decisions to be taken to renew the foundations of the country. The guiding principle of the tax decisions taken in the Budget was clear: those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share so that we could invest in our public services.

A critical part of investing in the future is investing in state education. I speak from experience as a former local councillor. Through no fault of the brilliant teachers and education officers who deliver state education, local authorities such as SNP-controlled Falkirk council have sought to reduce teacher numbers, close school swimming pools, cut additional support and even reduce valuable initiatives such as music lessons. This broader trend of council underfunding in Scotland, and throughout the United Kingdom, has left schools underfunded, newly qualified teaching posts scarcer and resources overstretched, and has left councils with very little room for manoeuvre. Tomorrow, at a meeting of Falkirk council, there will be a proposal on the table to cut learning hours across the Falkirk district, depriving a child educated in Falkirk of a year of learning time across his or her primary and secondary schooling journey, and leading to the lowest number of school hours anywhere in school. The Falkirk Labour group oppose that proposal, as do I, and they will vote for it to be taken off the table tomorrow.

In stark contrast to this crisis in our state education system, spending per pupil in private schools is nearly 90% higher than in the state sector as of 2022-23, and the gap between private school and state school spending per pupil has more than doubled since 2010. For all the chat about this measure leading to an unworkable hike in fees, its opponents must match their rhetoric with the fact that fees have soared, on average, by 55% in real terms since 2003 for those who choose to pay for their kids’ education. Lifting the VAT exemption on private school fees will raise £1.8 billion annually by 2029-30—funds that will, and should, go directly into state education. This is an essential funding stream that will help to relieve the financial pressures on local authorities’ education budgets, and it is being delivered by this UK Labour Government.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to spend all the consequential funding that will flow from this UK Labour Government’s decision on education, and I also welcome the tepid and understated support of SNP colleagues. I note that, again, no SNP Members are in the Chamber. It is predictable but disappointing that the Opposition say this measure sacrifices aspiration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman.

[James Wild]

We turn to the important issue of taxes on residential property, and another set of tax rises from this tax-raising Labour Government. I will speak to clauses 50 to 53, and new clauses 6 and 7. Over 14 years in government we delivered 2.5 million additional homes. Our manifesto pledge to build 1 million homes in the course of the last Parliament was met, and we delivered on our commitment to build the homes that people need for a more secure future. The Bill introduces measures that dampen the housing market, increase pressure on housing supply, and reduce labour mobility. The Government talk about helping renters, but experts warn that these measures could increase rents, and they do nothing for those who cannot afford to buy their own home.

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the prevalence of second homes is a crucial part of ensuring that people can afford to live and work in the communities they are from?

[James Wild]

Indeed, and representing an area with some of the most attractive coastline in the country, I certainly recognise and share those concerns. There has been warning that the measures could make that issue worse. People also need to be able to rent in those areas, and if local people who need to work where the jobs are have to move from long-term lets to short-term, that does nothing to help.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The point is valid. The Government are trying to get more properties for people to buy, but at the same time they are changing back the threshold for first-time buyers. Those first-time buyers will be stifled when they want to buy a house because they will have to pay more tax. Introducing both measures simultaneously seems to cause a rub. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[James Wild]

I do. This is just another example of the impact of the Bill. The impact assessments, such as they are, are incredibly thin and do not get into the detail of the measures and the complications that arise. They are, I would say, wholly inadequate. Under clauses 50 to 53, taxes on property purchases will, as the Minister said, go up by £310 million. Clauses 50 and 51 increase the rate for additional dwellings, such as buy-to-let and residential properties, from 3% to 5%. Nationwide estimates that that could bring extra costs of £4,000 on the purchase of a typical rental home. At least clause 52 ensures that if transactions have been substantially performed before the increases come in, no additional tax will be charged. Clause 53 amends the single rate on purchases by companies of dwellings for more than £500,000. Let us not forget that the Government have also chosen not to renew the nil-rate stamp duty threshold, which is currently £250,000 but will halve to £125,000—I do not think the Economic Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that.

As I said, experts have warned that the changes could have damaging effects on the rental market, making it less attractive to provide homes for private rent; rents could increase as a result of the limited supply. Every hon. Member will know from their constituency the huge demand for rental properties. According to Zoopla, on average around 21 people are chasing every property that is put up for rent. This tax will do nothing to encourage the supply of new, decent, rented housing.

[Kit Malthouse]

I hope that the shadow Minister shares my surprise at the Minister agreeing to pay the stamp duty retrospectively on her flat. Let us hope that the cheque makes its way to HMRC. When stamp duty reaches penal rates, it not only diverts people away from becoming landlords, but means they may operate differently. Is there not a strong possibility that we might see a large number of properties in places such as London owned by foreign corporations that are domiciled in other jurisdictions? Transfer of those properties could take place by transferring the corporation’s ownership in the Isle of Man or the Caymans or somewhere like that. That would mean that no stamp duty was payable at all on the transfer of the property. If that proliferated, we might find that large numbers of properties in the UK were owned by overseas entities, precisely because of the penal taxation here.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I bow to his knowledge of the situation in London, which is far greater than mine. Our new clauses are about reviewing the impact of the measure, partly so that if we saw such activity, which would go against the Government’s objectives and weaken the rental market, action could be taken. I hope that the Government will look at the evidence.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also criticised the change, stating:

“It again reduces transactions, increases again the bias in favour of owner occupation, and against renting, and at least part of the consequence will be to reduce the supply of rental housing and so increase rents.”

The National Residential Landlords Association has said that the tax changes in the Budget will make it less attractive to provide homes for private rent. It has warned that the measure will exacerbate the shortfall that Members will all be familiar with, and an assessment it commissioned a couple of years ago showed that increasing the rate to 5% could lead to the loss of more than 500,000 private rented homes over 10 years.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Norfolk county council, which covers the area that the shadow Minister represents, has a housing waiting list of 1,341 homes sought. That is up 400 since he was elected in 2019. If the new clauses are about reviewing the impact of actions, perhaps he could take a moment to review the impact of the last Government’s actions, which saw the housing waiting list increase in his constituency?

[James Wild]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s interest in my constituency. He intervened on me earlier to talk about education in North West Norfolk.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

The numbers are from the House of Commons Library.

[James Wild]

I do not doubt the figures. I simply note that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, which is the council for my constituency, has met the housing need target it was set. Thousands of homes are being built in and around King’s Lynn, which will be a mixture of tenures—to rent and to buy. One of the big blockers is that the Government have not yet approved schemes that the previous Government were committed to—schemes for the roads and infrastructure needed to bring that housing online. I hope that the Minister will take that up with her colleagues, because if the Government are to meet their target of building 1.5 million homes, they need councils to deliver. That means funding the infrastructure. I am grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to make that point.

We are concerned about the increased cost of private rent and a decreasing supply of rental properties due to this latest tax increase. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the increased stamp duty rates on the private rental sector within six months of the Bill passing into law.

[Dr Evans]

It is important to have transparency. It is not controversial to say that we need more houses—Members on both sides of the House agree—but take Leicester, where new housing targets have been reduced by 31%. We will now have an exodus of people offering rental residences. Will that not compound the problem acutely? We will not have the number of homes. The target has dropped in Leicester, but we will have more people needing to rent. The homelessness rate could go up, because people are leaving the market. The Government need to think carefully about that. The new clauses would give transparency on whether there is a problem.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend draws attention to the unintended consequences of the stamp duty measure. I wonder how much involvement the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department had in drawing it up, or whether it was drawn up in the Treasury just to get a line into the Red Book and fill out the Government’s spending plans.

New clause 7 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact that increased rates for additional dwellings are having on the housing market as a whole, and in particular on the demand for homes in England and Northern Ireland. Pegasus Insight has reported that nearly 20% of landlords across England and Wales sold homes in the last 12 months, significantly more than the 8% who purchased properties in that period. We see increased rents as a result. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show average UK private rents increasing by 8.7% in the 12 months to October. When the cost of living is high and rents are increasing, why are the Government taking steps that could make matters worse for our constituents?

On the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), clauses 50 to 53 may increase the chance of properties switching from long-term to short-term lets, which is a concern in my constituency. We need a balance of properties—some that people can rent and those that people can buy—so that people can live and work in the area where they grew up.

The Government’s stated policy objective for the stamp duty measures is to disincentivise the acquisition of buy-to-let properties and free up housing stock for main and first-time buyers, but nowhere in their impact note is the private rental sector mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked the Minister what impact she thought the changes could have, and what modelling had been done of the effect on the rental market; I am afraid that answer came there none. Hopefully she will have had some inspiration by the time she winds up the debate and can give some answers, because the impact note does not have any information on that point. I find that surprising. Once again, that is why it is essential that we review these measures to see what the real-world impact is on the rental market. Our new clauses would enable us to do just that.

Encouraging home ownership and helping first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder is the right thing to do. However, that should not come at the expense of the private rental sector. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), put it in the Budget debate, activity in the housing market will be dampened and people will be discouraged from downsizing, which will put pressure on housing supply and labour mobility.

I am proud that while in government, the Conservatives helped more people get on to the housing ladder through schemes such as First Homes, shared ownership, right to buy and the lifetime individual savings account, and doubled the threshold for stamp duty. However, with only one in eight renters able to afford to purchase a home in the area where they live, renting is the only viable option for many. What is the Minister’s response to those who say that increasing stamp duty will reduce the supply of rental housing, and that rents will increase as a result?

I must briefly address the structural tax issues that the clauses create. I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for the discussions that we have had. There is now a top residential rate of 19%, compared with a top rate of 5% for purchase of a non-residential or mixed property, so taxpayers may be incentivised to argue that the property that they are buying is non-residential or mixed-use—for example, it may have a paddock that they would use—to take advantage of the lower rate. A number of those cases have come to the first-tier tribunal and higher court. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the risk that she sees there, and told us what HMRC has advised her and whether increased compliance costs will arise as a result of the divergence.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about people who may wish to claim that they have a paddock at the back of their house. Does he have any numbers to back that up? If he does, I would be really interested to know them. I am racking my brains, thinking of how many homes in Stoke-on-Trent Central could claim that they had a paddock that allows mixed-use tenure. He may have that information to hand; I do not.

[James Wild]

I am sure that Stoke-on-Trent is a great place, but not everyone lives there. As I said, a number of such cases have gone to the first-tier tribunal, so the hon. Member can probably look that information up or ask the House of Commons Library. The point is that none of that information is in the impact note that the Government have provided on a measure that they are bringing forward. The onus is on the Government to give the information to Parliament, and they have failed to do so in this case.

We share the concerns of experts about the impact that the increases will have on the private rental sector and the wider housing market. The Government have ambitious plans for house building, which we have mentioned, but debates on their proposed changes to the planning system to enable that are for another day. This afternoon, our focus is on whether people looking to rent will find that harder to do as a result of the measures that the Government are introducing, with reduced supply and higher costs. Our new clauses would make the Government publish an assessment so that we can tell.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I declare that I am a landlord, and I happily paid the 3% stamp duty that I was required to pay, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.

For too long the dream of homeownership has been unachievable for young people in my constituency. Properties are snapped up by landlords, and that is even more acutely felt in our coastal towns, where so many properties are locked up for large parts of the year and used as holiday homes, sometimes for only a few weeks.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I recognise that many Members have not been able to speak because of the level of concern in the earlier debate about Labour’s family farm tax.

In this debate, we have heard talk of difficult decisions, but Labour Members seem to be in denial about the real-world impact of those decisions on the organisations in their constituencies that have to make difficult decisions about wages or jobs. Today, Labour Members have an opportunity to stand with their constituents.

This debate is fundamentally about trust and the promises made by the Labour party. At the election, Labour’s manifesto promised:

“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”.

It was clear to everyone what that meant. The IFS said that this measure would be a “straightforward breach” of the Labour manifesto, but Labour then chose to break its promise by introducing this £25 billion a year jobs tax.

Once again, we have heard the tired claims blaming a fantasy £22 billion black hole—claims debunked by the independent OBR, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who pointed out that the Government’s £1 billion pay deals for their union paymasters created a lot of that hole. The voters are not fooled, and they know what Labour said and did: it broke its promise to the British people.

What has been the impact of this £25 billion jobs tax? Business confidence is plummeting, and output has already reduced for the first time in over a year. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Labour Members have again claimed that the impact of this measure is limited, but even in the very limited impact assessment he referred to, HMRC estimates that 940,000 businesses will lose out in net terms, with an average annual tax increase of £800 per employee. The average employer losing out will see its liabilities increase by £26,000 a year, and it is working people who will pay the price with lower wages, higher prices and fewer jobs.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the impact on charities and organisations in their constituencies. My thrill-seeking hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who I am glad is still in one piece, spoke about the hit to hospices that provide vital care, which will see higher costs amounting to tens of millions of pounds. Charities will face a bill that is £1.4 billion higher. Marie Curie alone will have a £3 million hit to its costs. The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the extra costs could force surgeries to make redundancies or close altogether. Adult social care providers will see a £2.8 billion hit in the next financial year.

Despite the warnings from hospices, care homes, dentists, nurseries, pharmacies and others, there has been cold comfort from the Minister. There has been no clarity on whether support will be provided—no clarity on when support might come, how much it might amount to or if it will come at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) said, given the impacts on these groups, the Government should rethink their proposals.

Although 800 jobs a day were created under the Conservatives from 2010, Labour’s jobs tax is expected to see jobs lost and fewer jobs created. Bloomberg estimates that as many as 130,000 jobs could be lost, but perhaps most concerning is the impact on the lowest paid. The OBR estimates that 80% of the cost of these measures will be paid by reducing wages. Lowering the level at which employer NICs are levied, from £9,100 a year to £5,000 a year, will hurt part-time, female and younger workers in particular. The OBR expects this measure to raise £17.7 billion a year on average. No wonder the CBI has warned that two thirds of its members are reducing their plans to take on staff. The British Retail Consortium has also warned of a £2.3 billion hit, meaning that job losses are inevitable. Of course, this tax will also push up inflation. Tesco, Lidl and all the major retailers have said so—a more expensive weekly shop is the price of this measure.

We have heard today about the need for investment in public services, on which all Opposition Members agree. I am happy to highlight our record of record investment in the NHS and climbing up the international education league tables. That progress is now under threat from the Government’s proposals.

We would have made different choices from this tax-raising Budget. Our plans would have grown the economy faster—the OBR downgraded growth after the Budget. Our plans would have delivered £12 billion of welfare savings, but those plans were put in the deep freeze by the Labour party. We would have improved productivity in the public sector by getting back to pre-covid levels, saving £20 billion a year. Labour Members asked for our ideas, so there they are.

Some 4 million jobs were created under Conservative Governments from 2010 on. Youth unemployment was cut by 40%, 1 million more disabled people got into work and we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. By contrast, Labour is breaking promises made only a few months ago and choosing to put up taxes, despite the damage to the economy and to working people. The Chancellor’s pledge not to raise further taxes has dropped like a stone; we have seen this movie—they will be back for more. I urge hon. Members to support our motion.

Draft Scottish Rates of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and her brevity in setting out what the draft order does.

The new rates introduced by the Scottish Parliament mean that the higher income tax band is 42% and the Scottish advanced income tax rate is 45%. The order will avoid disparity, and we will not seek to divide the Committee—although that was tempting before the reinforcements turned up on the Government Benches. It is worth highlighting that the Scottish Parliament’s changes have made their tax system more complex; there are now six rates compared with three across the rest of the UK.

I will ask the Minister some questions, as we have all gathered here. What is the impact of deficiency relief payments on Exchequer revenues? How many taxpayers in Scotland will benefit—she referred to a small number—and what will the impact be on revenue? Given that the measures relate to changes from the beginning of this tax year in April, will she confirm that she will seek to bring in such provisions in response to changes more rapidly than the six months that this has taken?

In conclusion, although this order is needed due to the increased complexity of the Scottish Government, thankfully, these provisions actually simplify the effect in legislation.