Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Wild and James Murray

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Even before Labour’s jobs tax comes into force, we can see the damage that it is doing. Three quarters of a million jobs in hospitality will be subject to employer national insurance for the first time, costing £1 billion. Given that major hospitality and retail businesses are warning that lower-paid and part-time workers will suffer most, will the Chancellor think again? Can the Minister at least commit that there will be no further increases during this Parliament?

[James Murray]

The businesses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, like businesses in all sectors of the economy, benefit from the stability that this Government have brought to the economy. He wants to talk about unemployment and the rate of jobs. We recognise that making changes to employer national insurance contributions was a tough decision that will have consequences, but the unemployment rate will fall to 4.1% next year and remain low until 2029. When taken together, the Budget measures mean that the employment level in this country will increase from 33.1 million in 2024 to 34.3 million in 2029.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Wild and James Murray

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The impacts of the changes to the alcohol duty and the energy profits levy have already been set out in the tax information and impact note that was published alongside the autumn Budget, so that information is already in the public domain. Information on the impact on households was also published alongside the autumn Budget in the “Impact on households” report, which demonstrated that households are on average better off in 2025-26 as a result of these decisions.

Finally, I will address the amendments tabled by the Opposition that deal with VAT on private school fees—several hon. Members have spoken about that matter. Amendments 67 to 69 would collectively remove clauses 47 to 49, which remove the VAT exemption for private schools and set out anti-forestalling provisions and the commencement date.

Ending the VAT tax break for private schools is a tough but necessary decision that will secure the additional funding needed to help deliver on our commitments, including those relating to education and young people. This policy took effect at the beginning of January, and I note that in his speech, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), did not say how his party would pay for its decision to reintroduce that tax break for private schools. The policy will raise £1.7 billion by the final year of this Parliament, so it is essential that the Opposition explain what they would cut from the schools budget, from education services, or from any other public services to pay for the reintroduction of that tax break. I will happily give way if the shadow Minister would like to make an intervention to place on record how he will pay for it. I do not see him leaping to his feet, so I will move on.

Finally in the debate we are having about VAT on private schools, the Government set out the expected impacts of this policy in the autumn Budget, so I do not believe that new clause 7—which would require the Government to make a regular statement on the impact of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities—is necessary. However, I take this opportunity to make clear that in developing this policy, the Government carefully considered the impact it would have, including on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. I am sure that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and her colleagues will welcome the extra £1 billion next year for high needs funding that we have been able to announce thanks to our decisions on tax policy, including on private schools.

I hope I have set out why the Opposition amendments are unnecessary, and indeed why reintroducing the VAT tax break for private schools not only runs counter to the manifesto on which the Government were elected, but represents an unfunded tax cut from the Opposition—have they learned nothing? I therefore urge the House to reject those amendments, and I commend our amendments to the House. Again, I extend my thanks to all Members who have contributed to this debate.

[James Wild]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Energy (oil and gas) profits levy: impact assessment of increase in rate

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of Sections 15 to 17 of this Act on—

(a) domestic energy production and investment;

(b) the UK’s energy security;

(c) energy prices, and;

(d) the UK economy.

(2) The assessment must examine the impact of provisions in this Act in comparison with what could have been expected had the energy (oil and gas) profits levy remained unchanged.”—(James Wild.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor to commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of changes to the energy (oil and gas) profits levy on domestic energy production, the UK’s energy security, energy prices and the UK economy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between James Wild and James Murray

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between James Wild and James Murray

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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between James Wild and James Murray

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[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)

Debate between James Wild and James Murray

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.