Finance Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I regret giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. I invite him to return to the Chamber next Tuesday for the Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, when I will also be speaking. We can have a full debate on national insurance then, which I am sure he and his colleagues are looking forward to. I hope they will support it in the Lobby because, no doubt, they support the extra investment in the NHS which that decision funds. I thank him in advance for signalling his good grace and support for our measures.

After we were elected, we said that we would take the difficult decisions necessary to fix the public finances. We said that we would close the tax gap, implement our manifesto pledges and protect working people. We said that we would deliver economic stability, fiscal responsibility and the certainty that businesses need to invest and grow. This Bill plays a central role in achieving those goals and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

I wish to reflect on the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. Looking at chart 4.5 in the OBR’s document, I can see a big rise in the tax to GDP ratio, but from the right hon. Gentleman’s indignant tone, one would think that there had never been a tax rise under the previous Government. What the chart shows is a significantly larger rise in the tax to GDP ratio, because of the decisions taken by the previous Government, so is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman’s tone does not reflect the facts of the decisions he took?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the shadow Minister responds, may I caution him against using the word “deceit” in the Chamber? No doubt he will now want to respond to the intervention.

[Mel Stride]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will of course be guided by you on that matter. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, there is no doubt that, as we went into the last general election, the analysis of the manifestos of the three major parties showed that Labour’s manifesto would have by far the greatest increase on the tax burden. What Labour has done is to break its manifesto and go still further to take us, as the OBR has said, to what will be the highest tax burden in the history of our country. It is as simple as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) has twice used the word “you” when heckling. I will not let him off in the future.

[Mel Stride]

I take it as a familiar mark of respect from the hon. Gentleman.

The fact of the matter is that the ONS’s figures for the third quarter of this year show growth of 0.1%. That is one seventh of what has been achieved in the United States. In September, the third month of the quarter, there was negative growth. The reason for that is very clear. When this Government came to office, the first thing that they did was talk down the economy, and talk about black holes and what a terrible mess everything was in, as cover for what they intended to do all along. That had an impact on purchasing managers’ index surveys. We can see the slump in business confidence in the data, and the Government are now reaping the whirlwind. We have now had a Budget that will do even more damage to growth.

What will happen to inflation? Let us go back to our friends at the OBR. In every single year of its forecast, inflation is higher than in every single year of the forecast based on our last Budget back in the spring—a fiscal splurge up front that will translate into higher prices and higher interest rates for longer, meaning higher mortgage rates. Before Labour Members start jumping up and down at the M-word, the Government now own mortgage interest rates, and they are being affected in the wrong direction as a result of their policies. What about living standards? They are down and flatlining. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that by October 2029 the average family will be £770 worse off in real terms than they are today.

Finance Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker.” When addressing the Chair, please use our name. “Madam Chair” or “Chair” will also suffice.

Clause 7

Main rates of CGT for gains other than carried interest gains

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

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Schedule 1.

Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.

Schedule 2.

Clauses 12 stand part.

New clause 1—Impact assessment: capital gains tax—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in clauses 7 to 12 and schedules 1 and 2 of this Act, on—

(a) long-term investment;

(b) disposable income across different income deciles, and

(c) tax revenue.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of changes to Capital Gains Tax made in this Act on investment and the disposable income of taxpayers across different income deciles.

New clause 4—Section 12: review—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in section 12 of this Act on—

(a) the timing of asset disposals or transactions;

(b) shifting between different assets;

(c) shifting between gains and income;

(d) tax planning;

(e) migration; and

(f) non-compliance by non-payment, misreporting or underreporting of chargeable assets, gains or income.”

New clause 5—Business asset disposal relief: review of increase in rate—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of the provisions of section 8 on the number of Business Asset Disposal Relief claims involving the sale of a business.

(2) The assessment must compare estimates for the number of claims involving the sale of a business in the tax year 2024-25 with the number of such claims in the tax year 2025-26.

(3) The assessment must compare the impact under the provisions of section 8 with what impact could have been expected had the rate remained unchanged”.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

Since 2010, the UK has experienced low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services. Public sector net debt is at its highest since the early 1960s, at 98.5% of GDP. Per capita, GDP remains lower that before the covid-19 pandemic.

In July this year, the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance, with a £22 billion in-year pressure in the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s review into March’s spending forecasts concluded that had the information that has since been shared by the Treasury been made available to it at the time of the March Budget, there would have been a materially higher departmental expenditure limits forecast for 2024 to 2025. This was the result of the previous Government not factoring in the impact of a series of new, challenging pressures on the public finances, not taking the difficult decisions needed to address these pressures, and instead making a series of commitments that they could not fund.

This Government are committed to fixing the foundations and delivering a decade of national renewal. To do so, we must turn the page and take a different approach. In the autumn Budget, the House will have heard the Chancellor set out the Government’s first steps to repair the public finances, by taking the tough decisions needed to address the £22 billion in-year pressures to avoid further damage to our public services, including securing £5.5 billion of savings.

We are also putting in place significant reforms to strengthen our fiscal and spending framework that will improve certainty, transparency and accountability, and ensure that the situation can never happen again. This Government are taking the tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare that are necessary to repair the public finances and restore economic and fiscal stability. Those choices are not easy, but they are transparent, they are responsible and, with such a difficult position, they will ensure that the Government can deliver on our commitments not to increase taxes on working people.

The changes to the main rates of capital gains tax in clauses 7 to 11 will help to address the gap in public finances while retaining the UK’s internationally competitive investment climate. The new rates are revenue-maximising in the current design of the tax system, generating an additional £8.9 billion over the forecast period. The UK’s headline CGT rates will remain lower than those of France, Germany and Italy, and the highest rate is still lower than it was between 2010 and 2016. The new rates will mostly affect people who earn income from selling financial assets. The Government are taking the difficult but responsible decision to ask that group to pay a little bit more tax in order to restore economic stability.

Clause 12 represents the first step in a package of reforms to the taxation of carried interest by increasing the applicable rates of capital gains tax to 32% for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025. The reforms will put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.

I will begin with clauses 7 to 9, concerning the capital gains tax package. CGT is charged on individuals’ annual capital gains, net of losses and allowable costs. Less than 1% of adults pay CGT per year. There are lower rates available for reliefs, including business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. CGT has an annual exempt amount of £3,000 for individuals, which keeps people with lower levels of capital gains out of the system.

To repair the public finances and help raise the revenue required to increase funding for public services, the Government are increasing the main rates of CGT. The clauses will increase the lower main rate of CGT from 10% to 18% and increase the higher rate from 20% to 24%. Those changes affect disposables made on or after 30 October 2024. The clauses also increase the CGT rate at which business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief are charged in a phased way from 10% to 14%, effective from 6 April 2025, and from 14% to 18%, effective from 6 April 2026. Phasing in the rate increases for those CGT reliefs demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a predictable tax system.

The Government accept that for some entrepreneurs, a lower CGT rate will be factored into their plans for exiting the business, which can be a once-in-a-lifetime event. Although it is right to increase CGT rates to raise revenue, it is also fair to give business owners some time to adjust. The changes will raise £2.5 billion per year by the end of the forecast period, while ensuring the UK’s headline CGT rates remain below those of France, Germany and Italy.

Turning to clause 10, investors’ relief offers access to the lower rates of CGT on the disposal of qualifying unlisted shares. Its objective is to provide the financial incentive for individuals to invest in unlisted trading companies over the long term and help companies in accessing other forms of investment. The lifetime limit for investors’ relief was previously £10 million, compared with business asset disposable relief’s lifetime limit of £1 million. We feel that that disparity in lifetime limits is unfair towards entrepreneurs and could encourage harmful tax planning strategies. The changes made by clause 10 will reduce the lifetime limit for investors’ relief to match that of business asset disposal relief at £1 million of qualifying gains per person. Investors’ relief has received little take-up since its introduction in 2016, and so the Government expect that the measure will affect a very small number of individuals.

Turning to clause 11 and schedule 2, which introduce transitional arrangements and anti-forestalling rules, the transitional arrangements are consistent with similar rules put in place when CGT rates were charged in-year in 2010. The anti-forestalling rules draw on the approach taken when changes were made to business asset disposal relief in 2020. Transitional arrangements are needed for a small group of taxpayers in some specific circumstances. Those taxpayers will have capital gains that are ascribed to the 2024-25 tax year in general and not to any particular point in the year, and because clause 7 makes in-year changes, the Government have a legal responsibility to clarify the capital gains tax liabilities of those taxpayers. To avoid taxing those individuals retrospectively, the legislation puts in place transitional arrangements. The relevant capital gains are treated as arising in the earlier part of the year and are therefore subject to the previous rate schedule. From April 2025, there will be no need for those arrangements to remain.

I now turn to anti-forestalling rules. Some taxpayers will have tried to lock in the old rate by entering into various artificial arrangements and specific anti-forestalling rules are needed to prevent abuse. The anti-forestalling rules target disposals entered into before 30 October 2024 but completed after that date for the main rate change and the investors’ relief lifetime limit reduction. They also target disposals entered into on or after 30 October 2024 for the phased rate changes applying to business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. The provisions ensure that such people can still access the previous rates and the previous investors’ relief lifetime limit, but only where the disposal has not been artificially structured for the purpose of securing a tax advantage.

I now turn to clause 12, which concerns CGT on carried interest gains. Carried interest is a form of performance-related reward that is received by a small number of individuals who work as fund managers and, unlike other such rewards, carried interest can, where certain conditions are met, be subject to capital gains tax. Hon. Members will have heard the Chancellor announce at the Budget that the Government will reform the way carried interest is taxed, ensuring that that is fairer and in line with the economic characteristics of the reward. From 6 April 2026, a revised regime will tax all carried interest within the income tax framework with a 72.5% multiplier applied to the amount of qualifying carried interest that is brought into charge. The Government are also consulting on potential new conditions of access to the regime. Legislation to implement that revised regime will be included in a future finance Bill.

In advance of the implementation of the revised regime, the Government are acting now to increase the rates of capital gains tax that apply to carried interest. Clause 12 therefore increases the rates of capital gains tax for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025 from 18% and 28% to 32%, and from that date, the single CGT rate will apply to all relevant carried interest, subject to the same conditions as currently.

To conclude, the increases to the main rates of CGT to 18% and 24% represent a balanced and responsible approach to revenue raising, which will help the Government to improve the UK’s public finances and services while remaining competitive for investment. The clauses phase in the rate increase for business asset disposal relief over 18 months to mitigate impacts where the previous level of relief was factored into anyone’s plans to exit their business in the short term. That underlines the Government’s commitment to supporting entrepreneurs and recognising the vital role that small businesses play in our economy. In addition, the move to a single higher rate of CGT on carried interest at 32% demonstrates the Government’s commitment to decisive action now, while we rightly take the time to undertake technical consultation on the revised regime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Just before I call the shadow Minister, I remind Members that, in Committee, I am Madam Chair or Madam Chairman.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is always a pleasure to see you in Committee and to serve under your chairmanship.

On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor. Before I do so, let me set the scene for clauses 7 to 12.

When announcing these changes in her Budget, the Chancellor said:

“We need to drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 818.]

She said something similar to the BBC in 2023:

“We want Britain to be the best place to start and grow a business”

and that was why, she said

“I don’t have any plans to increase capital gains tax.”

This Bill corrects the record. Labour wants to increase capital gains tax, so clearly it does not have any plans for Britain to be the best place in which to start and grow a business. Is it any wonder that business confidence is now at the lowest level we have seen since the pandemic?

Clause 7 increases the main rates of capital gains tax from 10% and 20% to 18% and 24% respectively, with schedule 1 making consequential changes to reflect that these rates are now equal to those on residential property. The Office for Budget Responsibility rates the costings on this policy as “highly uncertain”. It says that

“these costings are among the most uncertain in the policy package, reflecting the range of potential behavioural responses.”

This Government are far too quick to ask others to explain how they would pay for Labour’s policies, when they are clearly failing to explain convincingly how their own policies would pay for themselves.

I wish to take this opportunity to highlight an issue raised with me by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. First, let me place on record my thanks to the organisation for its invaluable support. It has been informed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that it is too late to change the format of the relevant 2024-25 tax return pages to accommodate this in-year change. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister could provide the following assurances to HMRC: first, that it will be properly equipped to implement this measure; secondly, that the changes will be published as widely as possible; and, thirdly, that an appropriate level of understanding will be shown to taxpayers contending with these complications.

Clauses 8 and 9 increase the rates for gains that qualify for business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. From 6 April 2025, the 10% rate will increase to 14%. From 6 April 2026, it will rise again to 18%. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted, because the increase to the main rates of capital gains tax is effective immediately, this leaves a window where people selling their business can save up to 14% in capital gains tax until April 2025. In other words, the tax changes in this Bill do not cultivate a start-up Britain; they incentivise British business owners to sell up and sell up soon. This could have been avoided—along with the administrative complications that I have already outlined—had measures in clause 7 been implemented from the start of the new financial year.

Will the Minister explain why the timings of these provisions appear to be so untidy, and, for that matter, how exactly they drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation? I simply say that if hon. Members are not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, I encourage them to vote for new clause 5, which would require a proper assessment of the impact of this perverse incentive.

Clause 10 reduces the lifetime limit for investors’ relief from £10 million to £1 million, while clause 11 and schedule 2 bring in transitional rules and anti-forestalling provisions. On those anti-forestalling provisions, the Chartered Institute of Taxation notes that the anti-avoidance measures risk being “unfairly retrospective”, capturing those who entered into commercial contracts in good faith before the Budget, on the grounds that they do not satisfy the stringent requirement put down by the Treasury to be “wholly commercial”. Will the Minister tell the House why the wording is so tight? Widespread concern over being hit with “unfairly retrospective” taxation would have a chilling effect on parts of the economy. It would exacerbate uncertainty among those who already feel that they have been blindsided by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I will talk mostly about new clause 5 on capital gains tax, but, given the remarks by the shadow Minister, I will make a few points on the broader matter and on incentives to start a new business.

My constituency of Earley and Woodley in the Thames Valley is one of the hottest destinations for business investment and for new start-ups in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. I have met a number of those inspiring entrepreneurs to talk about their start of the business journey. As is widely known, when entrepreneurs start passionately with a project, they are thinking not about the disposal and taxation regime at the end of their journey, but about the infrastructure and the support that they will have around them that brings their idea to fruition. For the tech and pharmaceutical entrepreneurs in Earley and Woodley, that is about a transport infrastructure, a skills base, and schools, colleges and universities in the area that can produce the kinds of graduates who will then staff their company. It is about a regime that is welcoming to entrepreneurship and is welcoming for people to live in and to prosper in. For all those reasons, I very much support our Budget and the Budget that brings more investment to infrastructure across the UK.

First, I welcome the measures on capital gains tax introduced in new clause 5. Let me remind Conservative Members that it was Chancellor Nigel Lawson who, in a much more dramatic measure than that proposed today, equalised the rate of capital gains tax with income tax in 1988. That equalisation was proposed because of tax avoidance. To many people listening to the debate, capital gains tax will not be familiar because, like me, their main means of taxation will be income tax and they will not have come into contact with CGT.

For the purposes of understanding, let me illustrate what I mean by “tax avoidance”. The issue was raised with me by a retired consultant when I was canvassing in the summer in the north of my constituency. When I knocked on his door, he said, “What are you going to do about capital gains tax? I want you to ensure that this doesn’t happen any more.” He then proceeded to illustrate the means by which he had paid less income tax than he otherwise would have done through the capital gains tax system. It was a principled and honourable admission for him to make to his then parliamentary candidate on the doorstep.

Many of us pay income tax, and we are all familiar with the way that it is structured. Among those of us who do not receive income from payroll—that is, who do not work for a company—but have the ability to structure it as self-employed or consultancy income and funnel it into a business of our own creation, that is a channel by which many people avoid paying income tax on activities that are arguably income-like. That happens, as I said, for a minority of people in the UK. The vast majority do not have access to that route because they earn through working for other people through companies, and they are on the payroll and not able to structure their own companies. When those companies holding the—arguably—income revenues are disposed of, that is when capital gains tax comes into the picture. Of course, the rate of capital gains tax is much lower than the rate of income tax, and that is where the gap comes from that was illustrated by my retired constituent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that the tax system is efficient in raising revenues, which is what our Budget sets out. The tax system must also be principled in ensuring that the tax purposes to which we have allocated certain measures raise the right taxes and are targeted towards the kinds of activities that are meant to be taxed. All of us in the Committee would probably agree that we should pay tax through a progressive system that distinguishes between different forms of revenue-raising activities, but that allocates people fairly and proportionately to those right and relevant activities.

I am reminded of the announcements that came out during the last Government regarding the tax affairs of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who paid 23% in average tax on his £2.2 million in earnings. That was of course possible because of the relatively low rate of capital gains tax that he was paying on the vast majority of his earnings, which came through capital and not through earned income.

Again, to the vast majority of people listening to the debate, I am sure that that is a reality far outside their understanding. The vast majority of people in the UK earn income through going out to work and working hard every day. It is for those people—the working people of this country—that this Budget has been made, so that we can lift livelihoods across the country by properly funding our public services and by closing the significant in-year overspend that the previous Government made of £22 billion. Through those measures, and by ensuring the financial stability of our tax system and the economic stability of our country, we will start to raise living standards across the UK. For those reasons, I very much support the measures.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

As colleagues will notice, the Speaker’s Chair is vacant, so I remind Members that the Chair should be addressed as Madam Chair or Madam Chairman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I commend the Government for looking at capital gains tax as a potential source of revenue to get public services back on their feet, but we Liberal Democrats believe there was a better way of doing it. Right now, capital gains tax is unfair for everyone. Most people already pay too much capital gains tax when they sell a property or a few shares because the system does not account for inflation over the time they have owned them. At the same time, a tiny number of super-wealthy individuals—the top 0.1%—are able to exploit the capital gains system as effectively one giant loophole to avoid paying income tax like everyone else.

According to the latest HMRC statistics, 12,000 multimillionaires used the loophole to pay less than half the top rate of income tax on their combined £50 billion of income. Instead of raising capital gains tax across the board, we Liberal Democrats would have liked to see the Government properly reform CGT to make it much fairer. To provide a comparison, under the Labour Government’s proposals, the main rate of capital gains tax for basic rate taxpayers is being increased from 10% to 18% and, for higher and additional rate taxpayers, from 20% to 24%. According to the Government’s own statistics, the change will raise about £2.5 billion per year by 2029 to 2030. Under the Liberal Democrat proposal, we would have separated out capital gains tax from income, raised the tax-free allowance, provided a new allowance for inflation and had three different rates of capital gains tax. That would have raised £5.2 billion, more than twice the Government’s proposals.

As colleagues will hear, key to our proposal is the reintroduction of indexation—effectively, an allowance keeping people from paying tax on gains that are purely the result of inflation. That would be fair for ordinary people selling a family home or a few shares, but it would also incentivise long-term investment by ensuring that taxpayers are not penalised due to inflation if they hold their assets for a long period of time.

To summarise, the Liberal Democrat proposals for reforming capital gains tax would be fairer and would raise twice as much. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said our proposals would move CGT in a “sensible direction”. Our new clause 1 is incredibly simple. It would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of the changes to capital gains tax under the Bill on investment and on the disposable income of people in different income brackets. The objective behind the new clause is to illustrate to the Government that there is a fairer way to reform capital gains tax and to encourage the Government, in the spirit of constructive opposition, to look at our proposals in future years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

We in the SNP and the Scottish Government believe in progressive taxation. I think that is evident from the changes we have made to income tax since those matters were devolved. We would like a more progressive influence in the changes before us, rather than simply clawing at allowances and increasing the rate. Nothing in clauses 7 to 12 is designed to make matters better in Scotland, but at least the Labour party is consistent on that.

Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are increasingly out of step with modern activity in the UK economy. As the IPPR points out, since the 1980s, household wealth in the UK has risen from three times the national income to more than seven times, yet over the same timeframe wealth taxes have not risen at all as a share of that income. Taxing unearned wealth more fairly and efficiently is a legitimate long-term ambition in a state where the economy is on life support. Taxpayers are left wondering from this Budget whether more tax rises are on the way, after a substantial lack of clarity from the Chancellor, who said a week or so ago that the Government would not come back for more tax rises, or indeed more borrowing, but has since refused to echo those rather injudicious remarks. If she does not have the confidence to stand by her own statements, it is hard to imagine the effect on business and investor confidence across the UK.

The Chancellor should have worked with economic experts, such as those at the IFS, to create a fairer and more growth-friendly capital gains tax, but instead she has been captured by the same old Treasury dogma that has served the UK so badly over recent decades. Capital gains tax raises a growing amount of revenue—about £15 billion last year—partly reflecting the increased role of wealth accumulation in the UK, but it is still less than 2% of all tax take, and although CGT is paid by about 350,000 people each year, two thirds of receipts are from just 12,000 people with an average gain of £4 million.

CGT rates vary significantly across assets, and are almost always significantly lower than income tax rates. That rate differential is unfair and creates undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how long they choose to work. The IFS has criticised the Chancellor for choosing simply to increase CGT rates with no effort to carry out what it describes as much-needed reform. It also describes the whole design of CGT as “flawed”, adding:

“There are steps the government could and should take to make the tax fairer and less harmful to economic growth and well-being.”

Moreover, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation proposes further changes to CGT, including aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax to prevent individuals from dodging UK taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. It estimates that that package would generate £14 billion, but none of those measures is in the Bill.

The IFS says that if the Chancellor chose to raise CGT rates while leaving the flawed tax base unchanged, she would be choosing to raise some limited revenue at the expense of weakening savings and investment incentives, and of further distorting which assets people buy and how long they hold on to them. The IFS says that that would not be the decision of a Chancellor who is serious about growth. Well, what a portent that turned out to be. She did not reform CGT, and look what happened to growth: forecasts were down immediately after first contact with this inverse Midas-touch Chancellor. It is clear that, in preparing for the Budget, she could have done with a full hour or more with the IFS, but I doubt that she would have listened.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, and have saved the best until last. I call Bobby Dean.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Before I address capital gains tax directly, I will make a few short remarks about the state of the national conversation about tax more generally, which I think is highly relevant. I note that tax is always something to be “hit by” in politics—it is violent; we are “hammered” by it—so the debate ends up focusing on who is deserving or undeserving of such punishment. As a result, few organisations are viewed as legitimate targets for taxation. Very rarely do we in politics have the bravery to talk about the virtue of paying tax—what it pays for, how it benefits us all, and why collectively contributing to schools, hospitals and physical infrastructure is sensible investment that we should be proud to make.

That is where the political conversation falls slightly out of step with the mood of the public. Believe it or not, I have had conversations about tax on the doorstep, and I mostly meet people who are proud to make that contribution. Let me be clear: this is not some special plea to talk about tax in a warmer, fuzzier way in order to improve the civility of public discourse. Nor should it be confused for advocacy of a high-tax based economy. I raise that point because our distorted public conversation means that we end up with a dysfunctional tax system that is neither efficient nor equitable. Where we are with capital gains tax is a good example of that.

Decades of wrangling over whether capital gains tax stifles entrepreneurship or is merely a ruse for the rich often results in a pretty reductive focus on rates. It seems that that happened again in the Budget, and I fear that we have missed an opportunity to make that tax better. As others have explained in putting capital gains tax into context, it is paid by around 350,000 people and raises around 2% of total tax revenue, and 12,000 people account for two thirds of that revenue. That tax does not necessarily affect a broad section of society, but it does play an important role in investment in the economy and in the overall sense of fairness in our system.

Let me start with the economy. It makes no sense to me for the Government to make changes to capital gains tax without sorting out the tax base. If we do not index capital gains for inflation, we are not really taxing the thing that we say we are taxing. We should be focused on the real gains—otherwise, we risk taxing those who simply hold on to an asset for a long time, and ultimately we end up discouraging long-term investment.

Secondly, we ought to be targeting capital gains tax at those making the larger gains—if large gains are to be had, those investments will be made anyway. Smaller gains, however—the stuff at the margins—are where investment decisions could be at risk. Raising the CGT allowance a bit would go a long way towards addressing that, as would designing better-targeted reliefs that more precisely encourage investment.

Finally, we come to capital gains tax rates, whose alignment with income tax rates is often called for. The Government have of course moved a bit on that, but a focus on rates alone means that an inherent unfairness remains. There would still be the sense that there is one rule for small businesses and another for the giants. When he appeared before the Treasury Committee, Paul Johnson of the IFS remarked on another unfairness: someone can simply leave the country for a few years and dispose of an assets overseas—somewhere like Monaco—and they are then no longer responsible for capital gains tax. That is another inherent unfairness.

Ultimately, with the proposed changes only, the system will continue to disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest. It is for that reason that I cannot support the measure. If it passes, I hope the Government will consider carefully the impact of the change in isolation, and whether further reforms are necessary in future. Our tax system needs to ensure that everybody pays their fair share, and I do not think the Government have quite got this one right yet.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the Front-Bench wind-ups. Does the shadow Minister wish to speak?

[Gareth Davies]

indicated dissent.

[The Chairman]

I call the Minister.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I will take a few moments to respond to some of the points, and will then give the Government’s views on the proposed amendments. If there are questions that I do not answer, I will write to hon. Members.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for his important speech and agree with his points about much-needed reform to our tax system. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for her powerful speech and wholeheartedly agree with her constituent, who seems very principled and knowledgeable.

To respond to the points made by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), about the revenue impacts of the carried interest measure, the OBR-certified costings demonstrate that this measure raises revenue over the scorecard period. The Budget does deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on tax: estimated revenues for these policies have been adjusted for final policy decisions and to account for underlying changes in the OBR’s forecast, but overall, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the tax measures raise over £1 billion more than was in the manifesto.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about why the changes are being made in-year, the in-year rate changes were made to protect Exchequer revenues from the impacts of forestalling. It is common practice for tax changes to take effect from the date of the Budget. As for anti-forestalling, we would not expect the anti-forestalling provisions to apply to an ordinary commercial sale of an asset where the contract was entered into prior to 30 October. Those provisions target those who enter into artificial arrangements to lock in the pre-Budget tax treatments.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), talked about inflation indexation of CGT. Indexation previously existed when CGT rates were charged at income tax levels with a top rate of 40%. A rate schedule of 18% and 24% is significantly below those levels, so for the important reason of simplicity, indexation is not a part of the system.

New clause 1 would require the Government to present to Parliament a review of the capital gains tax package’s impacts on long-term investment, disposable income across the distribution, and tax revenue. In deciding on these changes to capital gains tax, the Government have already considered all three factors. On long-term investment, the OBR assessed the CGT package to have no measure-specific macroeconomic impact. On impacts across incomes, distributional analysis for all Budget measures combined is set out in the “Impact on households” publication. The Government do not normally publish the impacts of individual measures. Finally, the Government’s projection of the revenue raised by these CGT changes has been certified by the OBR and published in the Budget document. Every year, the Government publish the amount of CGT paid in the most recent tax year with available data, where table 3 breaks down gains by income. For those reasons, the proposed report is unnecessary, and I implore Members to reject the new clause.

New clause 4 would require the Government to publish a review within three months of the passing of this legislation covering various issues in connection with our reforms to the tax treatment of carried interest. As set out earlier, the CGT rates applicable to carried interest will increase to 32% from April 2025. This is a first step in advance of moving to a revised regime fully within the income tax framework from April 2026. The Government believe that their reforms will deliver increased fairness and place the tax rules on a more sustainable footing, while preserving our country’s position as a global fund management hub. We will also be undertaking extensive technical consultation ahead of legislating for the revised regime in a future finance Bill, which the House will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise. We therefore do not consider that new clause 4 is a necessary addition to the Bill that is before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 16 to 18 stand part.

Schedule 3.

New clause 2—Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.

New clause 3—Changes to energy (oil and gas) profits levy: review—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in sections 15 to 18 on—

(a) employment in the UK oil and gas industry;

(b) capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry;

(c) UK oil and gas production;

(d) UK oil and gas demand; and

(e) the Scottish economy and economic growth in Scotland.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

New research published in the last few days has found that fossil fuel companies reported profits of nearly $0.5 trillion during the 2022 energy crisis. By contrast, people struggled with fuel poverty and had to choose between heating and eating. One in seven households in my constituency is in fuel poverty. Does the Minister agree that the ability to extend and increase the energy profits levy is a key lever for addressing this imbalance and supporting households?

[The Chairman]

Order. That was neatly done, but interventions have to be very closely related to what we are debating here and now.

[James Murray]

I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from lower bills as a result of the investment that we are ensuring, by the public and private sectors, in the clean energy sources of the future.

We knew, when the Conservatives introduced the energy profits levy, that the extraordinary oil and gas profits were driven by global circumstances, including resurgent demand after covid-19, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Households in the UK, however, were particularly badly hit by higher oil and gas prices, as the Government at the time had failed to invest adequately in energy independence, or in measures such as home insulation. When the energy profits levy was introduced, an 80% investment allowance was also introduced, and this was later reduced to 29% when the levy rate increased from 25% to 35% in January 2023. An 80% decarbonisation investment allowance was later put in place for decarbonisation expenditure, which is money spent on the reduction of emissions from the production of oil and gas. The levy was initially set at 25%, but the previous Government increased it to 35% and extended it beyond 2025, first to 2028, and later to 2029.

As I mentioned, the Government recognise the continued role for oil and gas in the UK’s energy mix during the energy transition. We are committed to managing the transition in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries, recognising that our offshore workers have the vital skills to unlock the clean industries of the future. I put on record my thanks to the offshore workers I met in Aberdeen in August for giving me some of their time and their views when I was there for a meeting with Offshore Energies UK and representatives of the sector. As I mentioned, it is essential that we drive both public and private investment in the transition to clean energy. Clause 15 therefore increases the energy profits levy by three percentage point—from 35% to 38%—from 1 November 2024. The clause also sets out the rules for apportioning profits for accounting periods that straddle the start date. As I have made clear, the money raised by these changes will help to support the transition to clean energy, enhancing our energy security and providing sustainable jobs for the future.

Clause 16 concerns allowances in the levy. The clause removes the 29% core investment allowance for general expenditure incurred on or after 1 November 2024, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Government have been clear about our intention to end unjustifiably generous allowances, and that is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance. We are bringing the level of relief for investment in the sector broadly in line with the level of capital allowances available to other companies operating across the rest of the economy through full expensing, which we have committed to maintaining. The energy profit levy’s decarbonisation allowance will be retained to support the sector in reducing emissions.

Qualifying expenditure includes money spent on electrification of production, or on reducing venting and flaring. The retention of the decarbonisation allowance reflects the Government’s commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy. However, in the light of the increase to the levy, clause 16 also reduces the rate of the decarbonisation allowance to 66% in order to maintain the same cash value of the tax relief per £100 of investment.

Clause 17 extends the sunset of the levy by one year from 31 March 2029 to 31 March 2030. To provide the oil and gas industry with long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime, we are retaining the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, the Government are committed to protecting billpayers by securing our future home-grown energy supply. Our plans will put us on track to deliver at least 95% clean power by 2030 and help accelerate the UK to net zero. Taken together, the changes made in clauses 15 to 18 will raise an additional £2.3 billion over the scorecard period. That funding is crucial for the investment needed in our future energy supply and to support our efforts to deliver a world-class CCUS industry in the UK. They represent a crucial investment in the future of our country. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies]

I rise to speak on behalf of the official Opposition on new clause 3, which stands in the name of the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride).

Clauses 15 to 18 concern the taxation of the oil and gas industry, which meets 75% of the UK’s household and industrial energy needs, with 50% of that need being met by the North sea. The sector supports more than 200,000 high-skilled jobs in this country, and that talent, along with the rest of the supply chain, will be crucial to our domestic energy transition. These realities underscore the imperative of a smooth and efficient transition and a fiscal regime that facilitates that, not least because the timeline for investment in the oil and gas industry is so long. If the fiscal regime is not calibrated correctly, the damage may be irreversible and the costs will be significant.

To recap the measures in the Bill, clause 15 increases the rate of the energy profits levy from 35% to 38%, bringing the headline tax rate on the sector up to 78%. Clause 16 removes the 29% investment allowance and reduces the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66%, so that the cash value of that allowance remains the same. Clause 17 extends the energy profits levy to 2030, at which point the Government are committing to implementing a successor regime to respond to price shocks once the levy expires. Clause 18 and schedule 3 legislate for certain payments into decommissioning funds to be treated as decommissioning expenditure so that they can attract tax relief.

The question that many are asking is this: do these measures add up to a fiscal regime that facilitates a smooth and efficient energy transition? Not according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which concludes that on average over the forecast period, capital expenditure will be 26% lower, oil production 6.3% lower and gas production 9.2% lower compared with our March forecasts. Those are dramatic movements. The University of Aberdeen has warned:

“A rise in the EPL and loss of investment and capital allowances may have the unintended effect of accelerating decommissioning and decelerating the energy transition as companies face an additional cost burden.”

The Government have thankfully carried out a partial U-turn, retaining the decarbonisation allowance and the 100% first-year allowance introduced by the Conservative party, but if they were persuaded of the importance of those investment allowances and that removing them would do more harm than good, why persist with removing the main 29% investment allowance? What was it about that relief compared with the others that made them want to scrap it?

The Government talk about closing loopholes—we saw how well that went with carried interest—but these measures will contribute just 1% of the new revenue raised by the Budget across this Parliament. Does the Minister really think it is worth jeopardising some 50% of our domestic gas supply for that? The measures in the Budget essentially throw a massive spanner in the works for oil and gas, and it is unclear exactly what the Government’s rationale is for doing that.

When we brought in the levy, it was to tax extraordinary profits in extraordinary times. The revenue that we raised contributed to our efforts through policies such as the energy price guarantee and the energy bills support scheme to reduce energy bills for the British people. Today, as those extraordinary circumstances subside, Labour is ratcheting up the levy. That sends a mixed message to the industry ahead of the consultation on a successor regime. The terms of that regime will supposedly be set by the need to respond to price shocks, yet the Government’s justification for these measures has nothing to do with price shocks. Instead, they are all dressed up in language about the sector making a “fair contribution”, as the Minister said, to the Energy Secretary’s environmental ideological ambitions. What is the Government’s vision for the taxation of oil and gas in this United Kingdom—temporary windfall taxes or permanent climate levies? The Bill suggests the latter. I would be grateful for the Minister specifically commenting on that when he responds.

One way in which the Minister could give an indication and provide some long-term certainty would be to confirm further the future of the energy security investment mechanism, which he mentioned. As he kindly said, we introduced the ESIM so that when prices returned to normal levels, the energy profits levy would end; no more windfall profits would mean no more windfall tax. Will he confirm that the ESIM will remain in place up to 2030? I think he said so at the Dispatch Box, but I would be grateful for his reconfirming its end date. Will he go further and confirm that it will remain in the same condition as today? Will the price floor continue to be consumer prices index-adjusted?

The Treasury and the Minister have said that the ESIM will be retained, but the industry would like further confirmation, as I have set out. Will he also write to me with the Treasury’s latest modelling of future oil and gas prices to prove that the expected revenues are not at the expense of the ESIM? That modelling will be important for us to understand and get that reassurance and certainty on the ESIM. Having been in the Treasury, I know that that modelling is continually reviewed and produced; I would be grateful if he would write to me with that.

These are not purely academic questions. Our concern is for the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the UK oil and gas industry, for the UK’s energy security and for the efficient and smooth energy transition that we all care about. The Government should be not ideological but empirical in their approach, which is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require a review of the impact of these measures on employment, investment, production, demand and the whole Scottish economy. If the Government have already made detailed assessments on those specific areas, we would be grateful for the Minister publishing them.

On every measure, the Budget has not survived contact with reality. Growth has been downgraded, real incomes depressed and business investment reduced, with broken promises and credibility completely shattered. It is not so much that the Labour Government take a different view on economic matters; it is that they take the wrong view. Labour is the party of the tax rise that loses money. We are the party of the tax cut that raises revenue. That is why Labour Governments always leave office with more unemployment, larger debt and higher taxes. They always run out of other people’s money, and this Government are set to do so in record time.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson once again.

[Daisy Cooper]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[Dave Doogan]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Indeed. I could not agree more and I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the figures. That is why something needed to change and something needed to give. I repeat that I hope Government Members can support our new clause 2, because it matters. It will lay open what has been squandered and what difference we could make if we close the loophole.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

I call Yuan Yang.

[Yuan Yang]

Thank you, Ms Ghani. I apologise for my inconsistent bobbing. I am still learning when to stand up, but what has gone up and stayed up are the record profits of the oil and gas majors. I will start my speech on that topic, and will go on to speak about where those profits have come from and, finally, what the proceeds of our EPL will go to fund.

First, on those record profits, I think all Members of the Committee agree that the record profits in the oil and gas industry in 2022 were excessive. In 2023, however, the profits for Shell, the largest oil and gas major in Europe, barely decreased from the previous year. In fact, if we take its profits from the first half of this year, Shell looks likely to eclipse even those of last year. In the first half of this year, Shell has had profits of $14 billion. Half of that went to share buybacks, which do nothing to fund the decarbonisation that is so necessary to secure the future of energy production here in the UK and around the world. Those record profits, much of which have been handed back to shareholders, are going in the opposite direction of what ordinary families and working people need. Rather than reinvest in the transitions of the future, I would argue that the Conservative party is looking at the industries of the past and clinging on to a past that is quickly fading from reality.

Secondly, let us look at where those profits have come from. The House of Commons Library states that generally lower wholesale prices in the last year led suppliers to start offering fixed tariffs, as of summer 2023. However, they have been far more cautious in pricing those tariffs, with prices close to the level of the energy cap. Any return to competition in the market is expected to be slow. That reflects the state of affairs we face today. The wholesale prices of oil and gas—as an example, look at the price of Brent crude in the market today—are back below the levels they were pre the Russian invasion of Ukraine, yet the retail prices facing ordinary working families in the UK are still far above those levels. What happens in the middle? The profits are being taken by the oil and gas companies. Largely, they are not being reinvested in the productive sectors of the future, but being paid back to shareholders.

In any market where the return of competition is expected to be slow, there is a role for the Government to regulate the fair share of proceeds—who gets the surplus from that market. Here I pause and say that when we look across the Committee to who is arguing for the interests of working people and who is arguing for the interests of the oil and gas profit-making giants, the political divisions are clear. There are schools in my constituency that are fundraising to insulate themselves. The Maiden Erlegh school where I live is asking its parent association to provide better wooden frames for its windows, because they leak in winter. That is the public estate that our Government have been elected to fix and repair. We will set about doing so with the profits from the levies set out in the Bill we are discussing today.

Finance Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

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

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 47

Removal of exemption for private school fees

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

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 48 and 49 stand part.

New clause 8—Statements on charging VAT on private school fees—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to Parliament about the removal of the exemption for private school fees introduced by section 47 of this Act, and other changes to private school fees introduced by sections 48 and 49 of this Act.

(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) pupils with special educational needs and disabilities,

(b) small rural schools, and

(c) faith schools.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of this Act being passed, make a statement about the impact of the removal of the exemption on schools that take part in the music and dance scheme.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make a statement about the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.

New clause 9—Pupils with SEND without an Education Health and Care Plan: review of VAT provisions—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every six months thereafter, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in sections 47 to 49 of this Act on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.

(2) The review must consider in particular the impact of those measures on—

(a) children with special needs who do not have an education health and care plan (EHCP); and

(b) the number of children whose families have applied for an EHCP.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in the Act on pupils who have special educational needs but do not have an Education Health and Care Plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I am surprised that our SNP colleagues are not here, but, again, I welcome their eventual and tepid support for this measure during the general election campaign—something that they have tried to distance themselves from.

I was proudly educated at two Falkirk state schools: Ladeside primary and Larbert high. Neither I nor the 94% of young people in the UK who are educated at state schools should ever feel like our parents or our teachers lacked aspiration for us. From my conversations with parents, pupils and teachers in Falkirk about their concerns about our state education system, I know that their overwhelming opinion is that we must now invest in our state education system as a priority.

If today’s decision is between billions of pounds going into state education annually and having £1.5 billion to £1.8 billion less for state education by maintaining a tax exemption for fee-paying institutions, I know what the people of Falkirk’s preference is. Falkirk does not need tax breaks for institutions that largely serve the wealthiest. Falkirk does need well-funded state schools.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chairman]

No doubt the whole House will join me in congratulating the next speaker on his engagement. How lucky you are. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the entire House for its well wishes.

I rise to speak of how our reforms will raise tax revenues from the wealthiest and use that money to build prosperity for all, because that is at the heart of our governing spirit.

Building prosperity for all means creating prosperity for those who cannot afford a decent life, no matter how hard they work, including non-graduates who cannot earn enough to live and the young who cannot earn enough to afford the homes they need. Today, we are proudly raising money from those who can best afford it to create good jobs and build homes across our nation, to create an affordable life for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

May I also extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend on this wonderful day for him and his family? He is making an excellent speech. On the specific point about housing, can my hon. Friend say a little more about his vision? [Interruption.] He was coming on to housing. Can he speak, in particular, about the needs of young families? In many medium-sized towns and cities across the country, such as Reading, which I represent, there is a need for more affordable housing, both to buy and to rent.

[The Chairman]

Order. Can we ensure that the interventions are clearly related to the debate in hand? I have no doubt that the answer will be.

[Dr Sandher]

By building the houses we need, we get the revenue from the tax changes we see today. Indeed, that is the entire point of our programme, in addition to the planning reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) referred to. From the tax revenue we raise from the measure we are debating and others, we will build a nation where every person has a stake in our society and a nation where working hard makes a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[The Chairman]

I assume that this is an appropriate point of order.

[Graham Stuart]

Is this what we are supposed to be discussing this afternoon? I obviously fail to follow its relevance to VAT on private schools, which is what I thought we were discussing, but I may be mistaken.

[The Chairman]

We are discussing private schools and VAT. I do not think that is an appropriate point of order, but, Dr Sandher, there is no doubt that you will bring your contribution very close to VAT and schools. I look forward to hearing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I trust that that means the Liberal Democrats can look to the right hon. Gentleman to support our new clause today, because the inevitable result of the legislation, if unamended, will be thousands of children with SEND forced into the state sector all at once, which will be enormously disruptive, and not just for them but for pupils already in the state sector. It will be potentially traumatic for those children, as well as being immensely difficult for the state schools to manage. New clause 9 would protect both the children and the schools affected by the impact of these measures—the children who have special educational needs but do not yet have an EHCP, as well as the children of families who have applied for one.

However, it is not just children with SEND who will be affected. The parents of many thousands of other children across the country will find that they can no longer afford to keep them in their current school, and those children will experience enormous disruption to their education as they are forced to change schools. Many will face the upheaval of being separated from their friends and a familiar environment. The Government should reflect carefully on whether the benefits of this policy that they are intent on pursuing are worth the damage caused to these children’s education and wellbeing.

The influx will not be evenly distributed. In my constituency of Richmond Park, more than 45% of children attend a fee-paying private school. In common with other parts of London, demand for state primary places is down, so younger children will be easily accommodated, but secondary schools are experiencing great pressure for places and a rise in requests for in-year admissions will be difficult to meet. There may only be a small proportion of children whose parents are no longer able to meet the fees, but a drop in headcount at private schools could see them closing because they become unviable. That means that the effect of children needing to transfer out of independent schools and into the state sector could be much greater than is currently forecast.

I want to reflect on what the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and others have said about the music and dance scheme. The Royal Ballet school at White Lodge in the middle of Richmond park in my constituency is a world-leading ballet school, and it has expressed great reservations to me about the effect of this policy, and I would very much like the Government to reflect on that.

If the survey done by The Times of private school parents earlier this year is accurate, and 25% of parents have to withdraw their children from private education due to the Government’s proposals, that could have a huge impact on children in communities such as mine across the country. The Government propose that their new tax treatment should be applied only to the provision of private schooling, but taxing some forms of education and not others will almost inevitably create loopholes.

Creative accountants will find ways of delivering education services that fall outside the VAT legislation while other education providers that the Government did not intend to tax will unwittingly find themselves caught up in it. The risks of these distortions increase if legislation is hastily framed with insufficient time for scrutiny. Between parents who cannot afford to pay their children’s fees and schools that cannot keep their doors open, the state will need to find space and resources for an influx of new students.

The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the Government’s plans to impose VAT on private school fees because we believe it is wrong to tax education. Imposing this increase in fees will have a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, which will create not just hardship for those children and their parents but enormous difficulties for the local authorities and state schools that will be required to provide alternative schooling. That is why I join the calls of my colleagues to urge the Government to back new clause 9.

[The Chairman]

We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, no doubt saving the best till last.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am a Hertfordshire county councillor, and it is that authority that will have to pick up the pieces if parents cannot afford the VAT on private schools or if private schools close. A bit like in the farming debate, I have a specific example from my constituency that tears down the Government’s argument on adding VAT to private school fees.

Turnford was a secondary school in my constituency in decline. Academic standards and behaviour were poor and the quality of teaching was inconsistent, leading to students becoming demotivated and achieving less than the national expectations. Staff suffered from low morale and there were significant recruitment challenges. The school buildings, on a poorly laid-out site, were dilapidated. But thanks to a unique partnership with Haileybury, an independent school in my constituency, the tide began to turn. In 2015 the school was relaunched as Haileybury Turnford academy, with Haileybury as the sole sponsor. A generous annual improvement grant was established worth £200,000 a year; that has gone on for about five years, so more than £1 million has gone directly into that state school in my constituency. That has enabled Turnford to recruit much-needed staff and retain high-quality specialist teachers.

Haileybury also gives additional financial support for Turnford’s SEN students and provides opportunities for a wide breadth of academic and extracurricular activities, such as supporting programmes for gifted and talented pupils. Because of that partnership between state and private schools, academic standards have been transformed. We have had new classrooms constructed, and in 2022 Haileybury Turnford was judged by Ofsted to be “good” for the first time in the school’s history.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clauses 51 to 53 stand part.

New clause 6—Sections 50 and 51: impact on private rental sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the cost of private rent in each region within England and in Northern Ireland,

(b) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the supply of private rental properties in each region within England and Northern Ireland,

(c) any other implications of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact increased rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings are having on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.

New clause 7—Review of effects of sections 50 and 51 on housing market—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act, on the housing market in England and Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the demand for houses in each region within England and Northern Ireland, and

(b) the implications for the housing market of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact increased rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings are having on the housing market in England and Northern Ireland.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

This is a Budget to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change by protecting working people, fixing the NHS and rebuilding Britain. The Government are achieving this by taking difficult decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair the public finances and increase investment in public services and the economy, to rebuild Britain and unlock long-term growth. This Finance Bill delivers on a number of the Government’s priorities for tax reform, prioritising stability for businesses making investment decisions and ensuring fairness and sustainability in the long term. We will discuss the full range of manifesto commitments delivered in this Bill throughout its passage, but today, I will talk about an area in which the Government have decided to go further than our manifesto commitment.

The clauses we are debating increase the higher rates of stamp duty land tax on purchases of additional dwellings by individuals and of dwellings by companies from three percentage points above the main residential rates of SDLT to five percentage points. These clauses also increase the single rate of SDLT payable by companies and other non-natural persons when purchasing dwellings worth more than £500,000 from 15% to 17%. They will support home ownership by ensuring that those looking to move house or purchase their first property have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords and companies purchasing dwellings. These changes will raise £310 million per year by 2029-30, which will be used to support the Government’s first steps and other priorities.

One of our manifesto commitments was to increase the non-resident SDLT surcharge by one percentage point. The Government have decided to go further than that commitment and increase the higher rates of SDLT, known as higher rates for additional dwellings. This will raise more money than the manifesto policy, helping to restore economic stability and address the £22 billion-worth of unfunded pressures, as well as supporting delivery of the Government’s first steps. Increasing the higher rates for additional dwellings will also go further to rebalance the housing market in favour of first-time buyers and those moving house.