James Murray MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 2 relates to the seabed, which is obviously an important asset held by the Crown Estate. Specifically, the clause will prevent the Crown Estate from selling the seabed without obtaining consent from the Treasury. During the Bill’s time in the other place, there was significant interest in the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of unique national assets such as the seabed. It will be no surprise to the Committee that the law on the ownership of the seabed is incredibly complex. As such, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury committed to explore the matter further and, if required, to bring forward a legislative provision to restrict the Crown Estate’s ability to sell the seabed. I am pleased to say that the clause delivers on the commitment made by the Financial Secretary by putting special protections in place for the seabed. It does that by requiring the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any part of, or the Crown Estate’s interests in or rights and privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a collective approach to projects such as those in the Celtic sea, which cross English and Welsh administrative boundaries, can increase a return for the UK Consolidated Fund, which benefits people in Cornwall, Wales and other parts of the UK. It ensures that we get the best return on our investment through Crown Estate activities. Our concern about the proposition in the new clauses is that it would undermine such revenue generation for all our public services, as well as disrupting the emerging market in offshore floating wind at a critical time, when what investors need is stability, certainty and confidence to invest in a growing sector, not organisational change that might undermine the investment they seek to make. To pick up further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, were Wales to benefit only from the income generated in Wales, it would likely receive zero or negligible benefits for several decades to come, because Welsh assets are relatively new and it will take them time to mature—in the order of 10 to 15 years. The Crown Estate has shown itself to be a trusted and successful organisation, with a proven track record in effective management and profit generation, which are valuable outcomes that we need to be careful not to undermine. As I set out earlier, the Government supported the inclusion of clause 6, which will require the appointment of a commissioner responsible for giving advice about Wales. I will not repeat what I have already set out, but it is important to underline that that will help to ensure that the board of commissioners for the Crown Estate continue to work in the best interests of Wales, alongside their existing duties as commissioners. That will certainly strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability and mission to deliver benefits for the whole UK. I am aware that hon. Members may not agree with the points I have made, but I hope that I have set out clearly why the Government believe the existing structure remains the best approach. I hope hon. Members feel able not to press their new clauses.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn for tabling new clause 6, which would require that the commissioners must transfer all net revenue profit generated from the Crown Estate’s activities in Wales to the Welsh Government on an annual basis. As The Crown Estate’s operations are not divided into business units for each nation, calculating the exact net profit figure attributable to Wales is not straightforward, because most of the associated costs cannot easily be disentangled from the Crown Estate’s overall costs and would, in places, require subjective judgment. Furthermore, as I set out earlier, given that the Crown Estate takes a long-term approach to investments, it is anticipated that its investments in Wales could take up to 10 to 15 years to see an appropriate return. Therefore, if net profits were transferred to the Welsh Government now, they are likely to be zero or negligible. I hope that explanation was helpful and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the new clause.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for that reminder about the timing, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on securing this debate, and Members on all sides of the House on their contributions, including the hon. Member for frozen asset—as she styled herself in her contribution—my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). I know Members have questions that they have raised about the implementation of specific tax transparency measures in the overseas territories, and our continuing collaboration with them. I will turn to those in a moment, but I will briefly set out the broader constitutional context of the overseas territories and their role in international tax. We continue to support the overseas territories to build vibrant and sustainable economies, including through encouraging greater links to the UK economy. The overseas territories are an integral part of the British family. The inhabited overseas territories are self-governing jurisdictions with democratically elected Governments and responsibility for fiscal matters. They have responsibility for setting their own policies, including determining their own tax rates in line with international standards. They are also committed to upholding international tax standards, and the UK Government are actively working with them to ensure they meet their commitments. Domestically, the UK has implemented a range of policies to prevent shifting of profits to low-tax jurisdictions, including controlled foreign corporation rules, anti-hybrid rules, and corporate interest restriction rules. All overseas territories with an international financial centre have joined the UK in becoming members of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting. That signals their ongoing commitment to implementing the BEPS minimum standards. All overseas territories with financial centres have also committed to the global forum’s exchange of information and request standard, and to implementing the OECD’s common reporting standard and cryptoasset reporting framework for the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes. Treasury officials regularly engage with counterparts in Crown dependencies and overseas territories to exchange best practice and technical expertise in adhering to international tax standards. Where overseas territories need more in-depth support, HMRC works with them to build capacity and to comply with international standards. Support from HMRC has in recent years helped Montserrat and Turks and Caicos to be found fully compliant with the EU’s code of conduct group. Of course, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the Government are also determined to close the tax gap in the UK public finances, and tackling offshore tax non-compliance is a key part of that. HMRC can access relevant information from overseas territories through the automatic exchange of information, and exchange on request, for tax investigations. At the autumn Budget, the Government announced a record package to close the tax gap. That included our commitment to growing HMRC’s compliance workforce by 5,000 people over the next five years. As part of that, we are expanding HMRC’s international compliance work, supported by a campaign of targeted external recruitment of senior tax experts. Before the end of this financial year, HMRC expects to have recruited more than 50 experienced international tax professionals through that exercise, which will more than double the number achieved in the previous year. Tackling illicit finance in the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies is a priority for the Government.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency · Hansard source

  More

  I had a feeling the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask a question along those lines. I will answer it in a moment. I welcome the commitment made by the leaders of the overseas territories in November 2024, which has been referred to by hon. Members, to support the Foreign Secretary’s campaign against illicit finance. As part of that commitment, boosting corporate transparency through registers of beneficial ownership is a core aim in helping to tackle money laundering and tax and sanctions evasion and in helping to foster an open and trusted business environment. Fully public registers of beneficial ownership are already in place in the UK, Gibraltar and Montserrat. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater asked about the register of overseas entities and whether trust-owned property would be included on those registers. If an entity from an overseas territory owns property in the UK, they would fall under the requirements and would need to declare their beneficial owners. That includes beneficial owners associated with a trust. The register of overseas entities is also being updated this year to grant, on application, access to trust information that is currently restricted from the public. At the joint ministerial council in November 2024, the Government confirmed their expectation that fully public registers of beneficial ownership would be implemented by overseas territories. The Falkland Islands and St Helena committed to implement those by April 2025. Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands committed to implement registers of beneficial ownership accessible to those with a legitimate interest by June 2025 at the latest. This approach offers the maximum possible degree of access and transparency while retaining the necessary safeguards to protect the right to privacy in line with respective constitutions. Progress towards delivering on these commitments is under way. The UK Government have been clear to the elected leaders of the overseas territories that we expect registers to be delivered by the deadline and in line with the standard agreed at the joint ministerial council. UK Government officials continue to work in partnership with officials in the overseas territories to support the implementation of these registers, and last month they wrote with further clarifications on the minimum requirements for registers of beneficial ownership. The Government are continually reviewing this issue and will consider carefully what steps to take if registers are not delivered on time and to an acceptable standard. We are aware of the consultation document released by the British Virgin Islands and continue to engage with BVI to improve its proposal, in line with the agreement made at the joint ministerial council. The UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories stand united in condemning the Russian Government’s aggression. We have been working in lockstep to enforce UK sanctions, which hon. Members have mentioned, including by freezing assets across the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. That has helped to implement the UK Government’s sanctions regime, which, to date, has amounted to $9 billion-worth of assets. To support this, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has provided significant technical assistance to build capacity in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. As we have heard in this debate, the push for tax transparency in the overseas territories generates strong views. I recognise that there have been instances in which high net worth individuals and multinational entities have sought to hide their assets and profits in the overseas territories. The overseas territories are working to implement international tax transparency standards and work closely with us to identify tax abuse, to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and to enforce UK financial sanctions. We must continue to work towards greater tax transparency in the UK, the overseas territories and globally. That includes greater transparency regarding company ownership, as well as the ownership of assets such as cryptoassets and real estate, to ensure the public can see who the beneficial owners are. I thank you again, Mr Turner, I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in particular for securing this debate.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Regulations are made each year to set various national insurance thresholds, and to uprate child benefit and the guardian’s allowance. In opening the debate, I will give the House details of what the regulations set out to do. First, the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025 set the rates of certain national insurance contribution classes and the level of certain thresholds for the 2025-26 tax year. The lower earnings limit, the small profits threshold and the rates of class 2 and class 3 contributions will all be uprated by the September consumer prices index figure of 1.7%, while the other limits and thresholds covered by the regulations will remain fixed at their existing levels. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant—a transfer of wider Government funds—to be paid into the national insurance fund, if required, for the 2025-26 tax year. The regulations also, importantly, extend the veterans’ employer national insurance contributions relief until April 2026. The scope of the regulations under discussion is limited to the 2025-26 tax year. As hon. Members will know, national insurance contributions are social security contributions; people make contributions when they are in work to receive contributory benefits when they are not working—for example, after they have retired, or if they become unemployed. National insurance contribution receipts fund those contributory benefits, as well as helping to fund the NHS. The primary threshold and the lower profits limit are the points at which employees and the self-employed start to pay employee class 1 and self-employed class 4 national insurance contributions respectively. The primary threshold and lower profits limit were frozen by the previous Government at £12,570 until April 2028. However, the level of those thresholds does not affect people’s ability to build up entitlement to contributory benefits such as the state pension. For employees, entitlement is determined by their earnings being above the lower earnings limit, which the regulations will uprate from £123 a week in 2024-25 to £125 a week in 2025-26. That is the equivalent of an uprating from £6,396 to £6,500 a year. Entitlement for self-employed people is determined by their earnings being above the small profits threshold, which the regulations will uprate from £6,725 in 2024-25 to £6,845 for 2025-26. Uprating the lower earnings limit and the small profits threshold is the usual process, and it maintains the real level of income at which people gain entitlement to contributory benefits. Wage growth is currently higher than inflation, which means that following the uprating by CPI, there will be a reduction in the number of hours that someone who has received a typical wage increase needs to work to gain entitlement compared with last year. The upper earnings limit, which is the point at which the main rate of employee national insurance contributions drops to 2%, and the upper profits limit, which is the point at which the main rate of self-employed national insurance contributions drops to 2%, are aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax at £50,270 a year. The previous Government also froze those thresholds until April 2028. I now turn to the thresholds for employer national insurance contribution reliefs. As hon. Members are aware, the Government have had to make difficult decisions to fix the public finances. One of the toughest decisions that we faced was the decision to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions and reduce the secondary threshold. Although those changes are the subject of a separate Bill, not these regulations, they are the context for why our decision to maintain other targeted national insurance contributions reliefs is so important. Those employer reliefs include those for under-21-year-olds, under-25 apprentices, veterans, and new employees in freeports and investment zones. The regulations that we are debating set these thresholds in line with other personal tax thresholds. The regulations also provide for the national insurance contributions relief for employers of veterans to be extended for a year until April 2026. This measure means that next year, businesses will continue to pay no employer national insurance contributions on salaries up to the veterans upper secondary threshold of £50,270 for the first year of a qualifying veteran’s employment in a civilian role.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the comments of hon. Members. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), set out the official Opposition’s response to the regulations and the order that are before us, but his speech related largely to the changes being made by a different piece of legislation—a Bill—so I will be careful not to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by veering into that legislation, and will remain strictly within the confines of the regulations and the order. Let me say briefly, however, that as the hon. Gentleman knows, we had to take difficult decisions in the Budget last October, and one of the toughest was the decision to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions and lower the secondary threshold. The reason we had to take those difficult decisions was the fiscal situation that we had inherited from the Government of which he was a member. I note that in his recollection of history, he referred to a double crisis; I think that it was, at the very least, a triple crisis, given Liz Truss’s premiership in the country and leadership of his party, so he may have omitted certain facts from the historical record, although I am sure that the wider British public will make no such mistake. The hon. Gentleman spoke about some of the impacts of the national insurance changes. Again, he was speaking about a Bill rather than the statutory instruments that we are discussing, and for that separate Bill a tax information and impact note has been published, as is standard practice. I welcomed his support for our extension of veterans relief for a year, until April 2026, to help more ex-service personnel into employment. As the scope of the regulations is limited to the 2025-26 tax year, they could extend it only by one year, but we think it important for that to be done. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about work being the best way out of poverty, and I entirely agree with him in that regard. When we are creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can invest and provide work opportunities for people throughout the country, it is important for those jobs to be decent jobs with decent pay, and our changes to the national living wage are of course important in that respect. Overall, in relation to all the measures in the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that the employment level will rise from 33.1 million to 34.3 million between 2024 and 2029. The spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), also spoke about a Bill rather than the regulations that we are debating. I want to reassure him by pointing to the comments that the Chancellor has made since taking office last July. Since her first few days in No. 11 Downing Street, she has been determined to boost growth by getting rid of the ban on onshore wind turbines, reforming the way in which pensions can invest, and ensuring that the planning and regulatory barriers get out of the way of the growth that we are determined to achieve for this country. The Chancellor’s growth speech last week was just the latest example of her leadership in taking those decisions, which are the right ones for our country, to boost investment and growth. We know that having a stable set of public finances is a prerequisite for that investment and growth. The difficult decisions that both Opposition spokespeople referred to are slightly off the topic of the regulations in front of us, but they none the less drew attention to the fact that those difficult decisions were precisely to restore the public finances, while supporting public services, therefore allowing investment to increase and seeking the growth that we are determined to deliver for this country. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved. Resolved, That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved. —(James Murray.) Business of the House (5 February) Ordered, That at the sitting on Wednesday 5 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on— (1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Yvette Cooper relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the start of proceedings on that Motion, and (2) the Motions in the name of Secretary Angela Rayner relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the start of proceedings on the first such Motion or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to Police Grant Report, whichever is the later; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.— (Lucy Powell.)

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we want employers to be aware of this important relief, and to encourage them to make use of it to employ veterans. This relief helps to support those who have already given so much to our country, and it also means that the skills and the huge potential of those people who have already given such service to our country can be used to make a further contribution to our country and our economy. We want all employers to know that this relief exists. We can all play a role as local MPs in making sure that all employers in our constituencies are aware of this important relief. I thank my hon. Friend for letting me make that point. The continuation of the veterans relief is evidence of the Government’s commitment to supporting our veterans. As I explained in response to my hon. Friend’s intervention, it is intended to incentivise employers to take advantage of the wide range of skills and experience that ex-military personnel offer. As I said, it is important that we support those who have given so much to our country by helping to make sure that our country benefits further from the skills and potential of our service leavers. Let me move on to the national insurance fund, into which the majority of national insurance contributions are paid, and which is used to pay the state pension and other contributory benefits. The Treasury has the ability to transfer funds from wider Government revenues into the national insurance fund. The regulations make provision for a transfer of this kind, known as a Treasury grant, of up to 5% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, in 2025-26. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund. The Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside these regulations forecasts that a Treasury grant will not be required in 2025-26, but as a precautionary measure, the Government consider it prudent to make provision at this stage for a Treasury grant. That is consistent with what has been done in previous years. I turn to the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025. As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for taxpayers while providing support to those who need it. The order will ensure that the benefits for which Treasury Ministers are responsible, and which His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs delivers, are uprated by inflation in April 2025. Child benefit and the guardian’s allowance will increase in line with the consumer prices index, which had inflation at 1.7% in the year to September 2024. Uprating by the preceding September’s CPI is the Government’s typical approach. Tax credit awards will end on 5 April 2025, so no changes to rates will be required from 2025-26 onwards. I hope all Members will support the regulations. Rejecting them would mean that HMRC-administered benefits would not rise at all next year, and so would lose value in real terms. The regulations fix most of the rates and thresholds for the national insurance contributions that they cover at the 2024-25 levels for the 2025-26 tax year, except for the lower earnings limit, the small profits threshold, and the rates of class 2 and class 3 contributions, which will all be updated by the September 2024 CPI rate of 1.7%. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant. They extend the veterans employer national insurance contributions relief, and increase the rates of child benefit and the guardian’s allowance in line with prices.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  The regulations contain a provision for us, in case it is needed. The expectation is that it will not be. As I mentioned, a Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside the regulations has forecast that the Treasury grant will not be required in 2025-26. The provision in the regulations is a precautionary measure, and is in line with what has happened in previous years. The Government consider it prudent to continue the practice of previous years, and to make provision for the grant in these regulations. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. The regulations enable an increase in child benefit and the guardian’s allowance in line with prices. Without these regulations, HMRC would be unable to collect national insurance contributions receipts, and child benefit and guardian’s allowance would be frozen at the 2024-25 levels. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As the shadow Minister set out, the new clause would require the Government to report on the likely impact of the tax measures on households across the income distribution. The Government already published that information alongside the autumn Budget in the “Impact on households” report, which illustrated the distributional impact of Government measures that have a direct impact on household incomes. Those measures come from welfare benefits, tax paid or benefits in kind received through public services by UK residents. The analysis shows that the Government decisions at the autumn Budget 2024 and spending review 2025 phase 1 are progressive. Increases to public service spending means that households are, on average, better off in 2025-26 as a result of those decisions. The impacts of Government decisions benefit households in the lowest-income deciles the most, on average, as a percentage of income in 2025-26. The increases in tax are concentrated on the highest-income households. Overall, on average, all but the richest 10% of households will benefit from policy decisions in 2025-26. Since the assessment of the impact of the Budget on households across the income distribution has already been published, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are making progress across a whole range of issues every day, and we will update the appropriate authorities in the appropriate way at the relevant time. Question put and agreed to. Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 78 Rates of soft drinks industry levy Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This highly controversial clause sets out the legal interpretation, in the usual manner, of abbreviations in the legislation.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause increases the rate of aggregates levy from April 1 in line with the RPI as forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility when the rate was announced at autumn statement 2023. Aggregates levy is charged on the commercial exploitation of virgin aggregate, which includes rock, sand and gravel. The object of aggregates levy is to encourage the use of recycled rather than virgin aggregate in construction. The changes made by clause 76 will increase the aggregates levy from £2.03 per tonne to £2.08 per tonne. The clause increases the rate of aggregates levy in line with RPI from April 1 to ensure that the real-terms value of the price incentive to manage aggregate more sustainably does not fall in future.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause increases the lower and standard rates of landfill tax from 1 April this year. The rates will increase in line with RPI, adjusted to account for the high inflation in the period 2022 to 2024, and were first announced in the spring Budget 2024. Landfill tax is charged on material disposed of at a landfill site or unauthorised waste site in England and Northern Ireland. The objective of landfill tax is to divert waste away from landfill and support investment in more circular waste management options, such as recycling, composting and recovery. Since 2000, landfill tax has contributed to a 90% decrease in local authority waste to landfill in England. Increasing the lower and standard rates of landfill tax by RPI in recent years has helped to maintain a strong price incentive to divert waste away from landfill. The changes made by clause 70 would increase the lower rate of landfill tax from £3.30 a tonne to £4.05 a tonne from April 1 this year. They would also increase the standard rate of landfill tax from £103.70 a tonne to £126.15 from April 1. Landfill tax rates are rounded to the nearest 5p. The clause increases the rates of landfill tax in line with RPI adjusted for recent high inflation from April 1 2025, to maintain a strong price incentive to divert waste away from landfill.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause makes changes to increase the rate of the plastic packaging tax from April 1 in line with the consumer price index. The plastic packaging tax was introduced on 1 April 2022 as part of the previous Government’s resources and waste strategy. The tax provides a clear economic incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic in the manufacture of plastic packaging, thereby stimulating the collection and recycling of plastic waste and diverting it away from landfill or incineration. Increasing the rate of the tax in line with CPI maintains the real-terms value of the price incentive to use recycled plastic. The changes made by clause 77 will increase the rate of plastic packaging tax, as set out in section 45 of the Finance Act 2021, from £217.85 to £223.69 per tonne, with effect from 1 April 2025. The new rate will affect UK manufacturers and importers of plastic packaging containing less than 30% recycled plastic. In conclusion, this clause increases the rate of plastic packaging tax in line with CPI from 1 April to maintain the real-terms price incentive to include recycled plastic in plastic packaging. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I thank you and Mr Mundell for chairing for the Committee. I thank all the Clerks and officials who have looked after us so well this week, and officials in the Treasury who have helped me to prepare for the Bill. I also thank all hon. Members present—both my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. On a personal level, I have particularly enjoyed interacting with the lead Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, with our roles having been switched following events last July. Despite our political differences, he is someone with whom I enjoy debating important matters relating to Finance Bills. I thank all Members for their time, and I look forward to seeing them on Report.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Unpredictable, you mean.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 10 would make changes to require the Government to conduct a review of business taxes, and make recommendations on how to increase business certainty and investment, before the next Finance Bill is published. The Government do not support the new clause. The Government keep all taxes, including taxes paid by businesses, under ongoing review. At the autumn Budget, the Government published their corporate tax road map to provide certainty to businesses about the areas of the business tax system they intend to keep stable, and the areas they intend to review over the course of this Parliament. The Government have also committed to a review of the business rates system. At the autumn Budget, the Government published a discussion paper that set out the Government’s priority areas for reform of the business rates tax system. The Government have therefore already set out areas of the business rates system where they will provide stability. Given our existing processes and recent commitments, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 86—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank hon. Members for their wholehearted support for this important clause, which, in the usual manner, sets out the short title of the legislation.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting the clause. I fondly remember the questions I asked him about landfill tax when I was on the other side of this Committee Room, or a similar one on this corridor. I can reassure him that the current Government are considering the options for landfill tax reform, following the call for evidence that was undertaken in 2021. We will announce further steps in due course. The Government are considering options for landfill tax reform including opportunities to design out opportunities to commit waste crime, including landfill tax fraud. We will announce next steps in due course. Question put and agreed to. Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 76 Rate of aggregates levy Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.