James Wild MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  Would that we had the happy chance to be sitting in the Treasury making the policy decisions. It is the Chancellor who will bring forward another fiscal event, and who may have to take some action to deal with the impact of her Budget. This is about what the Government will do and the review that they conduct and bring forward. Business confidence is essential for investment, but it has been damaged by this Government, when they first came in, talking down the economy. We now hear a much more positive tone talking about our strengths, and the strong fundamentals of our economy, which were all points that the Opposition made throughout our period in office. We encouraged the Government to do the same when they came in, but they wanted to talk about a fantasy black hole and the worst economic inheritance, which has done a lot of damage to our economy. The latest Confederation of British Industry growth indicator shows that private sector firms expect a significant fall in activity over the next three months. The latest purchasing managers’ index flash shows that one in four businesses have cut jobs due to employment costs. The Office for National Statistics showed that retail sales in December fell by 43%. This is a worrying state of affairs and any Members who speak to businesses will have heard the deep concerns over the hiking costs of employing people, the cut in business rate support for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses, and other measures. The Budget put up taxes on entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and it is driving people who create wealth away from our country. The energy profits levy puts at risk 35,000 jobs in Scotland and the North sea. The family business tax, which was launched without any warning, has had a highly damaging impact on family farms and other family firms. That is why a review of business taxation is so necessary, with the objective of not only encouraging an increase in investment but providing certainty for firms. The Minister has spoken repeatedly about certainty, so I hope he will feel able to support the new clause.

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

  More

  The clause is about enabling HMRC to prepare for the introduction of a new excise duty on vaping products before it is formally provided for in law. Amendment 67 would require that, in doing so, HMRC must have regard to the desirability of requiring a digital tax stamp to be applied to e-cigarette liquids. A million people in England now vape despite never having been regular smokers—a sevenfold increase in just three years—and vaping rates are highest among 16 to 24-year-olds, hence the measures that are going through in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Like many of the measures we have discussed in Committee, this new duty was first announced by the previous Conservative Government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) announced the introduction of an excise duty on vaping products from October 2026. There is a strong case to take action on the affordability of vapes, while ensuring that there is a significant differential between the duty on vapes and the duty on other tobacco products. After the consultation that the previous Government launched, this Government have announced that they will apply a flat-rate duty on all vaping liquid from October 2026, set at £2.20 per 10 ml of vaping liquid. Clause 82 simply provides for HMRC to “prepare for the introduction of a new duty”; the main provisions will come in future legislation. When new taxes and levies are introduced, it is important to get the implementation right. After consultation, a single flat-rate duty will apply, which should reduce non-compliance and tax avoidance opportunities and be more proportionate both for industry and for HMRC to administer.

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

  More

  Will the Minister address directly the point about backdating and say whether it represents a change in approach to taxation policy by this Government? They have introduced a 27% increase from the date when the levy was frozen. As I said, if that approach had applied to fuel duty, it would result in a 64% increase. People will be concerned; will the Minister give reassurance about the Government’s approach to taxation?

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

  More

  What about fuel duty?

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

  More

  In the light of my failing voice I will not move the next new clause, so this will be the last time I will speak in the Committee. I thank you, Ms Vaz, and Mr Mundell, the Clerks and other officials, as well as Committee members. I also echo the thanks for the Chartered Institute of Taxation and others, and I thank Billy Falcon in my office, who has done sterling work in supporting me. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I am sure the rest of the Committee will be delighted that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave withdrawn .

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As we know, households currently face a number of challenges, and the measures in the Bill and the Budget will serve only to exacerbate them. At the time of the Budget, the OBR confirmed that real household disposal income will be “1¼ per cent lower by the start of 2029. The bulk of this difference (around 85 per cent) is explained by policies announced in this Budget.” It is because of the measures in the Bill and the Budget that growth is forecast to be lower over the forecast period than predicted in March last year. Higher borrowing means that interest rates are forecast to be higher for longer, which means that mortgage rates will be higher for longer. Borrowing costs have hit a 27-year high under this Chancellor—hardly the stability that is her watchword. The Government inherited inflation at target; since then inflation has increased, which means less money in people’s pockets. All those effects will be felt by the working families the Government said were their priority at the general election. As we discussed in Committee of the whole House, the Bill’s education tax will hit people who have chosen to prioritise providing for their children’s education in the place that they consider best suits their child’s needs. The Conservatives are for 100% of children, and we back parents’ freedom to choose; the Labour party is adopting a self-defeating ideological approach to our education system, including academies, that seeks to divide. The education tax will hit 100,000 children with special needs who are in independent schools but without education, health and care plans. We have already seen children withdrawn from schools and schools closing as a result. Measures such as increased alcohol duty, air passenger duty and vehicle duty will impact household finances directly, and borrowing costs have risen, meaning hard-working families will have to pay the costs— [ Interruption. ] Excuse me, my voice is going. Any impact that changes in the Bill will have on households should be closely monitored, which is what the new clause seeks to achieve.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 82, page 95, line 14, at end insert— “(2) In doing so His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must have regard to the desirability of requiring a digital tax stamp to be applied to e-cigarette liquids.” This amendment requires HMRC to have regard for requiring a digital tax stamp to be applied to e-cigarette liquids.

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

  More

  Sorry—it has been a long afternoon. We need to provide certainty, and the new clause was intended to be constructive. It would frame the next fiscal event so as to address all the issues that businesses have been talking to us about. There are issues with business confidence, and yesterday we saw more companies laying people off. This is a serious time, and we need the Government to listen to what is happening, so I intend to press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  After that intervention, I hope the hon. Member will support my amendment when I press it to a vote. The Government are moving in this direction, so let us get this in the legislation and get HMRC working at full throttle to make sure that it happens. I hope that he will feel able to support that. As with any new tax, there are risks associated with the duty. The illicit market could be boosted, increasing the enforcement burden on HMRC and other Departments. Juul, one of the largest operators, believes that the Government should give HMRC sufficient enforcement powers. At the very least, they should mirror those in relation to tobacco duty. What steps are the Government taking to boost compliance powers and protect against illicit activity in this market? Amendment 67 would require HMRC to have regard to the desirability of introducing a digital tax stamp. I am pleased that the Government intend to implement a vaping duty stamp scheme to help enforcement bodies and the industry to identify products that are non-duty paid. I note that in the Government’s further consultation on compliance measures to complement HMRC’s traditional compliance activity, the Government stated their intention, to which the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred, to incorporate a degree of digital tracing and authentication into the final stamp design. Digital stamps are harder to counterfeit. They are less prone to damage and less likely to fall off products, and they allow for more information to be held and tracked by both the industry and HMRC. Juul points out that its experience in Canada, where it is required to apply physical duty stamps, has led it to believe that digital versions are far better for business and tax authorities alike. Industry needs certainty. Given the Government’s digital by default approach to taxation, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment today that the Government intend to require a fully digital tax stamp. Under an earlier clause, we spoke about removing a physical stamp from alcohol and spirits, for example, so I do not see why the Government would not be able to support my amendment 67. We will not oppose clause 82, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to my specific points, and I intend to press my amendment to a vote.

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

  More

  That was a disappointing response from the Minister, if not predictable.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s response. However, the amendment would help set a clear direction. It is in line with the Government’s digital by default approach to taxation and reflects what was in the consultation document and what industry is calling for. It does not say that HMRC must introduce such a system; it simply says that HMRC “must have regard to the desirability of requiring a digital tax stamp”. I specifically worded the amendment to allow for precisely the point that the Minister has outlined. HMRC may decide that, contrary to the Government’s digital by default tax approach, a digital tax stamp is not necessary. In that case, all that has been required is for HMRC to have a proper look at introducing it. I will press amendment 67 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  As we heard from the Minister, clause 78 amends the Finance Act 2017 to uprate the soft drinks industry levy, to reflect the change in the CPI from April 2018 to April 2024. The uprating represents an increase of 27%. We support the soft drinks industry levy, but we have strong concerns about the backdating of the tax rate. As we all know, the consumption of too many high-sugar drinks can lead to weight gain and the risk of medical conditions. It also leads to tooth decay, which is a particular concern for younger people. As the Minister pointed out, this levy was introduced by a Conservative Government with cross-party support to tackle those issues, and it has been a successful, highly effective policy, delivering against the stated objective of encouraging reformulation. The British Soft Drinks Association has said that the levy “has achieved its intended goal of promoting significant sugar reduction and 89% of soft drinks are now non-SDIL liable. Reformulation has clearly not lost pace with the volume of soft drinks with less than 5g sugar per 100ml increasing by 17.5%> between April 2023 and March 2024.” Our main concern is about the unprecedented backdating of this tax increase. New clause 9 would require a review of its impact. The decision to backdate inflation over an extended period, creating a 27% retrospective increase, appears to have no parallel in recent tax policy. The backdating is a fundamental departure from the predictability that should be at the heart of tax policy. Given that the levy has been so effective, why do the Government see a need for such a large increase? As the British Soft Drinks Association points out, it appears that their rationale is primarily focused on revenue raising, rather than public health outcomes. The introduction of such retrospective elements requires close examination of both precedent and consequences, as demonstrated by examples of duty freezes and restarts in recent years. Comparative excise goods such as alcohol, fuel and tobacco are reviewed annually. Where rates have been frozen across several years, they have not subsequently been subject to those missing years’ inflation rates being applied in this way. Figures from the House of Commons Library calculate what impact a similar backdated increase would have on fuel duty. Following the approach used for the soft drinks levy, if inflation since 2011 was added to fuel duty, using the RPI measure, the duty on a litre of petrol or diesel would increase from 57.95p per litre to 95.18p per litre—a rise of 64%. I am not sure about the Minister’s constituents, but I am pretty sure that mine would be very alarmed at the potential for such a backdated increase to be applied. Are the Government establishing such backdated increases as a new norm within their tax policies? Companies making long-term investment choices need certainty—the Exchequer Secretary has used that word many times in Committee—to be able to plan and invest in the country. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will not pull off similar tax raids in other sectors, particularly with regard to fuel duty? We have also heard concerns about the impact assessment, which had limited engagement. The measure is expected to generate £95 million in revenue by 2029-30, yet the assessment does not model how established price elasticity in soft drinks will affect those projections. The assessment acknowledges that both reformulation and reduction in demand will occur, but provides no quantification of the effects. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that point. The assessment also does not examine how changes to tax policy without consultation could affect future investment decisions, nor does it explore the market distortions of applying different principles to soft drinks as opposed to other categories of drinks. Will the Minister confirm that these issues have been considered? If they have not, will they be?

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

  More

  As we heard from the Minister, the clause will enable commissioners for HMRC to prepare for the introduction of the CBAM, which will be charged on specific emissions-intensive imports into the UK from 1 January 2027. We will not oppose the measure, but I do want to raise a couple of points. As the Minister said, the CBAM is a tax on emissions embodied in certain goods imported into the UK for which a carbon price has not been incurred overseas at a rate at least equivalent to the UK. While I appreciate that this is an enabling power, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which I do not think has yet had a mention today, as opposed to Tuesday—I will get that on the record—has expressed some surprise at how basic the detail of the clause is, as it simply grants authority to introduce a CBAM and to request information from the UK Emissions Trading Scheme Authority or other national authorities. Will she give us a bit more of a flavour of when more detail about the CBAM’s operation will be forthcoming? As well as queries about the CBAM’s implementation, I have heard concerns about the impact that it may have on businesses and consumers. The National Farmers Union has raised concerns about the impact that it may have on vital sectors. In particular, it may push up the cost of fertilisers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan said. That is a particular concern for the arable sector, where fertiliser makes up 12% of total farm costs. Higher costs could not come at a worse time when they also face the impact of the family farm tax. The NFU has also raised concerns that such a tax could create an unlevel playing field for British farmers and growers. Consequently, a bit like for the changes to inheritance tax, the NFU will be developing its own impact assessment to fully understand the impact of this tax policy on the industry. I hope that the Minister will keep this measure under close scrutiny in the coming months. We will not oppose the clause, but I look forward to her response.

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

  More

  The hon. Member has probably seen the same evidence produced by the industry as I have; I do not think that we should dismiss it out of hand. Representatives from the industry do, for example, go around football terraces, pick up the empty packets, see where they came from, and do sampling or take other measures. Of course the industry’s evidence should be challenged and tested, but my point is about whether HMRC has worked with the sector to see if its figures are wrong. If they are, and HMRC’s are perfectly right, we can follow the HMRC figures. I am raising a legitimate concern about the accuracy of the data to make sure that we are all operating from the same page because, as the OBR has pointed out, we may already have reached the peak point where the tax will be doing harm. The Minister referred to the success of enforcement over the last couple of decades. In March last year, the previous Government set out a new strategy to tackle illicit tobacco. With evidence of a substantial illegal market—and whichever set of figures we take, it is substantial—what steps are the Government taking? Are they taking the previous Government’s strategy forward or will they introduce their own strategy? The industry has specifically proposed that the Government provide trading standards with full access to the powers granted to HMRC under the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. At present, the legislation allows trading standards to refer cases to HMRC, which will then consider imposing on-the-spot penalties of up to £10,000 on those selling tobacco. The industry proposed that it would be far more effective for trading standards to apply the penalty at the point of enforcement rather than having to refer the case to HMRC. It also suggested allowing trading standards to keep the receipts from any such penalties to reinvest in its enforcement action—we are all familiar with the pressures that trading standards is facing. Will the Minister say whether the Government have considered those proposals and, if they have not, will he? I have tabled new clause 5 to ensure there is better understanding of the risk around the illicit market. The Minister respectfully dismissed the need for it, but it would require the Chancellor to, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by clause 65 of the Bill on the illicit tobacco market. As we have heard, increasing tobacco duty could alter the behaviour of consumers, and we could see greater illicit market share. Evidence from the industry—which may be contested—shows that non-UK duty paid sources are significant. There is clearly a risk that a further increase to tobacco duty could boost the illicit market, and HMRC needs to act to protect lawful revenues for the taxpayer. We would therefore welcome the Chancellor publishing an assessment of the impact of the changes. As I set out, we will not oppose clause 65, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to my points, particularly on the illicit market.

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

  More

  I will be very brief on this one. It is a perfectly sensible measure, and we will not be opposing it. Question put and agreed to . Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 72 Rates of air passenger duty until 1 April 2026 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I apologise for the confusion on our side, Ms Vaz. The Committee will be pleased to know that I have lots to say on this clause, so we can all settle in for a while. Clause 63 increases the headline rate of alcohol duty in line with the retail price index, provides a reduction to the rates for draught alcoholic products and cuts to the rates paid by eligible small producers. The Government have also chosen not to extend the temporary easement for certain wine products. I say at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition is a strong supporter of the broader alcohol sector, and we have some concerns about the impact that some of the provisions will have on important sectors. As well as speaking to clauses 63 and 64, I will speak to new clause 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne. In 2023, the previous Government introduced a progressive strength-based duty system following the alcohol duty review, which was the biggest review of alcohol duties for more than 140 years. The new and simplified alcohol duty rates system was based on the common-sense principle of taxing alcohol by strength, with the aim of modernising the existing duties, supporting businesses and meeting our public health objectives. That was the first time that public health objectives had been inserted into the alcohol duty system. The reforms also introduced two new reliefs: the draught relief to reduce the duty burden on draught products sold at on-trade venues, and small producer relief. At the autumn statement 2023, the previous Government froze alcohol duty rates until August 2024, and that was extended until February 2025 at the following Budget. According to the OBR, alcohol duty receipts are expected to raise £12.4 billion this year, falling by 0.6% compared with last year as the rates remain frozen, but receipts are then forecast to increase by 5% a year on average, to reach £15.9 billion by the end of the Parliament. Pubs make a huge contribution to our culture, economy and communities. When the Conservatives were in government, we recognised that and introduced a raft of supportive measures, including draught relief, small producer relief and the Brexit pubs guarantee, which I am sure all hon. Members remember and welcome. I therefore welcome the increased draught relief from February, from 9.2% to 13.9%, and the fact that the relative value of small producer relief will be maintained. Although we welcome the inclusion of both reliefs, the increase to draught relief will mean that beer duty on a 5% pint of beer is reduced from 54p to 53p—a 1p saving. I fear that drinkers will not be toasting the Exchequer Secretary over that. Turning to whisky—although it is a little early in the day for me—as the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire set out, Scotch whisky is one of our most iconic and successful industries. Some 43 bottles of scotch whisky are exported per second and the industry supports more than 66,000 jobs across the UK, many of which are in rural areas. The decision to uprate duty rates by RPI has been met with deep concern by the industry—indeed, the Scotch Whisky Association said that it represents a broken commitment, after the Prime Minister claimed last year that his Government’s trade strategy would “back Scotch producers to the hilt.” That sounds rather like the promise that he gave to farmers, which Labour’s family farm tax has broken. The managing director of Diageo said: “This betrayal will leave a bitter taste for drinkers and pubs, while jeopardising jobs and investment across Scotland.” I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those comments. Have the Government calculated the risk to jobs in the sector more widely? A similar picture is painted by the cider industry, which supports more than 11,500 jobs and attracts more than 1 million tourists each year. The National Association of Cider Makers has raised fears that raising the headline rate, alongside the national insurance increases and the family farm tax, could put elements of the UK cider industry at risk. Has the Minister calculated the cumulative impact that these tax rises will have on the sector? At this point, we should consider the wider context in which we are discussing these increases. Time and again we hear about the Budget placing a range of cost pressures on the hospitality industry, which is a key contributor to the UK economy. According to UKHospitality: “In the past six years, hospitality has increased its annual economic contribution by £20 billion to £93 billion.” The tax rises in the Budget, including the £25 billion a year jobs tax, will make it much harder for the industry to succeed. Just look at the impact of recent measures. Colliers, a professional property services company, reported that cutting the hospitality business rate relief from 75% to 40% means that restaurants will face a bill of, on average, over £13,000 a year, up from £5,500.

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

  More

  As we have heard from the Minister, clause 65 increases excise duty on all tobacco products and the minimum excise tax on cigarettes by the duty escalator RPI plus 2%. In addition, the excise duty rate for hand-rolling tobacco increases by an additional 10%. This is a one-off increase in addition to the restated policy of increasing rates in line with RPI plus two percentage points. We are broadly supportive of these measures but I have some questions around purchaser behaviour and its impact on the illicit market and enforcement. In addition to speaking to clause 65, I will also speak to new clause 5, which stands in my name. Tobacco receipts are expected to be £8.7 billion this year, down by 2.7% on last year. They are forecast to decline by 0.5% a year on average over the rest of the forecast period to £8.5 billion, as declining tobacco consumption offsets increasing duty rates. The tax information and impact note explains that over the four years from 2019 to 2023, the tobacco escalator coincided with a reduction in smoking prevalence from 14.1% to 11.9% of people aged over 18. That is clearly welcome. The Government are bringing forward the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which the Minister referred to and which includes lots of measures to make vapes less attractive to children and harder to get hold of. There is a lot to be said about that Bill, but fortunately, that is the job of another Committee. Increasing the price of tobacco clearly comes with the risk of boosting the illicit market. The tax information and impact note suggests that some consumers might engage in cross-border shopping and purchase from the illicit tobacco market. HMRC will monitor and respond to any potential shift. Indeed, the OBR has suggested that the duty rate is beyond the peak of the Laffer curve—the revenue-maximising rate of tax. Can the Minister confirm what measures will form HMRC’s response to any shift in illegal consumption? There are also questions around the figures. Although HMRC estimates that 10% of cigarettes and 35% of hand-rolling tobacco consumption is from illegal and other non-UK duty paid sources, evidence submitted by the industry believes that is a significant understatement. Its data shows that the consumption of tobacco from non-UK duty paid sources currently accounts for 30% of cigarettes and 54% of hand-rolling tobacco consumption. Has the Minister discussed with HMRC the difference between those figures and the basis on which they have been put together? The Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association said that the illegal market is not in decline but that, contrary to HMRC’s claims, it is expanding. As well as providing more accurate figures on the scale of the illegal market, it would be useful to know whether the Government have calculated the potential consequences for retailers and law enforcement of an expanding illegal market.

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

  More

  As we heard from the Minister, clause 66 provides for increasing certain rates of VED for light passenger and light goods vehicles in line with the RPI. There will also be changes to the first-year rates for zero emission vehicles and low emission vehicles. We broadly support the measures, but as well as discussing clause 66, I will consider new clause 6, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne. According to the OBR, VED receipts are expected to raise £8.2 billion in 2024-25, up by £0.5 billion compared with 2023-24. It expects an increase through the forecast period to £11.2 billion, driven by an increasing number of cars, more cars paying the expensive car supplement and the extension of VED to electric vehicles from 2025. It was the last Government who decided that EVs would no longer be exempt from VED and moved to make the system fairer. I will raise some points about the implications of that, and particularly the expensive car supplement for electric vehicles. New zero emission cars, registered after 1 April, will be liable for that charge, which currently applies to cars with a list price exceeding £40,000. That threshold has not changed since 2017, despite inflation and changing technologies. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has called on the Government to look at that. The current ECS threshold will add more than £2,000 to the cost of a zero emission vehicle in the first six years of ownership, and more than £3,000 including the standard rate VED that must also be paid. That will deter potential buyers from purchasing zero emission vehicles and will have an impact on residual values. According to figures quoted by the SMMT, the ECS is likely to capture more than half of the zero emission vehicle market from 2025. The Minister referred to the Government saying that they may look at the threshold in future, and I will come on to that when I discuss new clause 6. Can he confirm how much the ECS currently raises and how much it is forecast to raise as a result of the changes? Given that the Government are committed to a 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicle sales, what impact will the ECS have on the Government’s progress towards that goal? For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 6, which would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Bill being passed, to publish an assessment of the impact of the £40,000 expensive car supplement threshold in clause 66. The assessment must consider the effects of the threshold on the proportion of new car sales that are electric vehicles. As we have heard, the threshold has remained unchanged since 2017 and the Government are pushing ahead with the 2030 date. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) introduced some welcome common sense to the debate by moving the date for the ban on new petrol and diesel car sales back to 2035. That is the date that the major car manufacturing countries in Europe and the rest of the world have adopted, and one that we should have stuck to. The Government’s policy is odd because it makes people less likely to move to EVs—because it makes it more expensive to do so. Perhaps the Treasury is not quite as signed up to the Energy Secretary’s dogmatic approach as he is; perhaps it secretly agrees with Opposition Members who certainly think that he is the most expensive Cabinet member in many ways. Although I recognise that the Minister said that the Government have committed to look at the threshold, the new clause would make that binding and make sure that it happened within a specific timeframe. We therefore want the new clause to be taken forward. As I have set out, we will not oppose the clause, but I will press new clause 6 to a Division. Hybrid vehicles will start paying road tax at the standard rate, as well as paying the ECS where applicable. Those changes will hasten the departure from hybrids, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne said earlier. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an assessment of the decision to disincentivise hybrids and if he could say how many jobs in the UK are based on producing hybrid vehicles.

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

  More

  As we heard from the Minister, clause 72 sets the rates of air passenger duty for the year 2025-26—those rates were announced in the 2024 spring Budget, precisely to give the sector time to plan—and clause 73 sets the rates for 2026-27. The higher rates that apply to larger private jets will increase by an additional 50%, as the Minister said. We will not oppose these measures, but we want to raise some points and seek more detail about their impact. APD was first introduced on 1 November 1994. Initially, it was charged at a rate of £5 on flights within the UK and to other countries in the European Economic Area, and £10 on flights elsewhere. Since then, it has been reformed by successive Governments. Currently, it is chargeable per passenger flying from UK airports to domestic and international destinations, and rates vary by destination and class of travel. According to the OBR, APD receipts are expected to be £4.2 billion in 2024-25, and then they are forecast to increase by 9% a year, on average, to £6.5 billion in 2029-30, driven by increasing passenger numbers and the higher duty rates. The changes mean that a family of four flying economy to Florida, for example, will be taxed £408—a 16% increase on the current rates. I turn first to the changes in clause 73 that relate to the higher rate, which will increase by an additional 50% on business and private jets. There is some concern from the industry about the impact of the measure on economic growth—the Government’s driving, No. 1 mission, in which we support their efforts. In reality, most private jets are corporate aircraft that are used as capital assets. One industry commentator said: “They allow businesses to increase productivity and the amount of time they have in the day, which means they can make more money, employ more people and pay more in taxes. ” That is something I think we all support. Has the Minister calculated what impact the 50% increase will have on economic growth and developing our trade relationships? The Prime Minister rightly travels a lot around the world to make connections and promote trade in our economy. Can the Minister confirm whether the Royal Squadron is subject to the higher rates, or is it exempt? There has also been some concern about the impact on our constituents—people going on holiday or to see family and friends. The changes may limit flight options. Airlines UK has said that the rise will make it harder for British carriers to put on new routes. Does the Minister think the increase will impact the ability to consider new routes? It will certainly increase ticket prices; I woke up this morning to hear the boss of Ryanair on the radio saying that the increases in APD will mean that a third of an average £45 fare will now be tax. It is because of the impacts that the rate rises might have on consumers, industry and economic growth that we tabled new clause 8, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by clause 73 within 18 months of the Bill being passed. The assessment would have to consider the impact of the changes on the public finances, carbon emissions and household incomes. The industry has been clear in its warnings in this regard, and we need to take them seriously. The Minister said that the new clause is unnecessary and that a review has been covered anyway, but reviews should be an important part of the Treasury’s toolkit in understanding impact. We will not oppose these measures, but we will continue to raise industry’s concerns, particularly on behalf of our constituents and people who want to go on holiday.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I am sure the Minister will want to cover when he responds. The average bill for pubs will go from £4,000 to £9,642 a year. Any hon. Member who talks to hospitality businesses in their constituency will know the real-world challenges they are facing. As it happens, my favourite pub in my constituency closed its doors on Sunday, in part due to the increased costs and taxes the sector is facing. Have the Government considered the impact of the combination of these tax rises on pubs and the wider sector? Turning to wine, as part of our reforms we introduced a wine easement for 18 months until February 2025. The Minister will be aware of the concerns of some in the sector that because that easement is coming to an end, duty will increase by 98p in just over 18 months. While we support the transition to the new regime and the end of the easement, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what engagement he has had to understand how prepared the industry is for the new system. We have many incredible wineries here in the UK. In 2023, sales rose 10% to reach nearly 9 million bottles. Supporting domestic wine producers should be a priority. In my constituency, I am fortunate to have Burn Valley winery, Cobble Hill winery and others. They are producing great products, proving very popular and helping to improve the rural economy and employment. However, growers have higher production and establishment costs, which will be made more challenging by the tax rises in these clauses and the wider Budget. To support the industry, WineGB has proposed the introduction of a cellar door duty relief scheme modelled on the Australian scheme, to promote wine tourism, which a VisitBritain survey demonstrated could attract 16 million visitors. The Government have an ambitious target to increase annual visits to the UK to 50 million by 2030—up from 38 million last year. In the spirit of trying to help the Government lift their foot off the growth brake lever, perhaps the Minister will have a look at that idea and consider whether introducing it has any merit. It is because of the challenges facing producers and the hospitality sector that we have tabled new clause 4, which would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Bill being passed, to make a statement to Parliament about the impact on various sectors of the increases in alcohol duties. As we have heard, increases to duty rates place significant additional costs on hospitality, pubs, whisky, spirits, wine, cider and other sectors, and we are concerned that this could inhibit growth and business investment. The previous Government recognised the significant contribution made by those sectors and saw an increase in business investment in the hospitality sector. Given the headwinds facing alcohol producers and hospitality businesses, which support so many jobs, it is only right that the Government report back to Parliament on the impact of their choices. Clause 64 abolishes the duty stamps scheme for spirit drinks from 1 May 2025, fulfilling a commitment made by the Conservative Government in the spring Budget. We welcome this. The scheme was important when it was introduced, but it became an increasingly diminishing part of HMRC’s compliance response. Unnecessary regulation should of course be removed where possible, and I welcome this Government’s apparent commitment to deregulation, as set out in the Chancellor’s speech, though it would have more credibility if the Government were not also bringing forward the unemployment Bill that will add £4.5 billion to business costs. As I set out, we support this change to reduce administrative burdens. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the concerns I have raised on behalf of the sector and producers in relation to these clauses.

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

  More

  As the Minister says, clauses 67, 68 and 69 provide for changes to certain rates of VED, and clause 71 increases the rates for the HGV road user levy. We will not oppose the provisions, but we have some concerns and points to make about the timing of the changes and the lack of support for impacted industries, such as the logistics sector. As well as discussing those clauses, I will consider new clause 7, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne. Heavy goods vehicle VED is a complex picture, with more than 80 different rates. The characteristics of HGVs determine their rates, and the increases to HGV VED represent the first rise since 2014. Heavy goods vehicles may also be liable for the additional HGV road user levy, which was introduced in 2014 and is a charge for using the road network, ranging from £150 to £749 a year. The levy was suspended in August 2020, demonstrating the previous Government’s support for the haulage sector during the pandemic. A reformed levy was introduced in 2023 and was frozen at the autumn statement in 2023. The new levy divides qualifying HGVs into six levy bands rather than the previous 22, which is a welcome simplification.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. As we heard from the Minister, clause 36 confirms that statutory neonatal care pay is taxable as social security income. The measure will take effect from 6 April 2025, and we support it. It is important to understand the context in which we are discussing today’s changes; since at least 2014, there have been calls to extend parental leave and pay for parents who have premature babies and would seek neonatal care. I was pleased to stand on a manifesto in 2019 that committed to legislating to allow parents to take extended leave for neonatal care to support those new mothers and fathers who need it during the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives. In 2019, the previous Government launched the good work plan proposal to support families, which included proposals to do just that—introduce neonatal care leave and pay. The Government responded to that consultation, which led to the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill, introduced as a private Member’s Bill supported by the Government. That new right, confirmed from 6 April, is expected to benefit around 60,000 new parents. It is absolutely right that these measures address some of the difficulties parents face when their baby is in neonatal care. The impact assessment for that Bill notes that the estimated annual costs to the Exchequer of the care leave paid at statutory flat rate would be around £14 million a year on average. I wonder if the Minister has an update on whether those estimates are still correct. It also suggested that the one-off cost to businesses of familiarising themselves with the new legislation was around £4.7 million, with the resulting annual cost to business estimated at £22 million. Does the Minister have updated figures on the impact of introducing those measures? The measure we are discussing here is technical and confirm the tax treatment, but it is important—as the Minister said—that employers make clear the implications to their staff members. Can the Minister confirm what action the Government are taking to communicate proactively about the changes? As I have set out, we support this right to neonatal care and pay, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the specific questions.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister set out, clause 35 and schedule 7 make changes to the tax rules that apply to alternative finance. They ensure that, where an existing asset is used to raise finance using alternative finance, the tax outcome is broadly the same as it would be had conventional financing been used. The measure aims to level the playing field, and we will not oppose it. Currently, the refinancing of a residential or commercial property using alternative finance triggers a potential capital gains tax liability on any inherent gain. By contrast, no potential capital gains tax liability arises when a conventional mortgage is used. The policy objective of this measure is one that we support and acted on in government in other areas: to ensure a level playing field across conventional and alternative forms of finance. This issue affects properties that do not qualify for capital gains tax private residence relief, such as residential properties, and will apply to refinancing entered into on or after 30 October 2024. Once again, I echo the thanks given to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for its work and advice on scrutinising the Bill, as well as for the discussions I have had with it about the clause. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has suggested that the clause could be amended to exempt taxpayers from the liability on inherent gains that were raised on alternative finance transactions before 30 October 2024. They recognise that making such a retrospective change would be unusual. However, they suggest that a retrospective change in circumstances where there is an anomaly in the legislation that is both inconsistent with Government policy during the time the anomaly exists and adversely affects taxpayers, particularly those with protected characteristics, would meet the high bar. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether he has considered that point, and what approach HMRC will take to taxpayers who have already incurred a capital gains liability. Can the Minister confirm how many taxpayers using alternative financing will likely benefit from this change? I would also be grateful if he could set out what steps HMRC is taking to deal with any potential for fraud. As I say, we support this measure, and I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to my questions.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As we heard from the Minister, clause 56 introduces a power enabling the Treasury to make stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax changes in connection with any exercise of the time-limited financial market infrastructure sandbox power. This power will be used to provide an exemption from stamp duty for PISCES transactions, and we warmly welcome these measures. Like many other aspects of the Bill that we have discussed today, the PISCES trading platform was the previous Government’s idea, as part of our commitment to trial new or developing technologies and practices to help companies to scale and grow. While in government, we introduced significant reforms to the UK listings regime, supporting public markets and companies choosing to list in the UK. That included implementing Lord Hill’s listing review reforms. The PISCES consultation noted: “A key challenge for private companies is that, at early stages in their growth, there are no standardised ways for shareholders to realise their gains…or to allow companies to rationalise their shareholder base by providing their early investors an exit route. Similarly, it is harder for investors to access companies that are not yet operating on public markets.” PISCES provides a regulatory framework for the intermittent trading of private company shares on a multilateral system. I welcome the Government’s support for PISCES, which will form an important part of the UK’s offer to companies seeking to grow and list in the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on the impact that PISCES is expected to have by incentivising current and potential investors to buy shares on the system, bringing greater transparency and efficiency. I note that PISCES will run for an initial period of five years. Will the Minister commit to regularly updating the House on progress? There will not be a public market-style market abuse regime; instead, the Financial Conduct Authority will be given rule-making powers over a disclosure regime. I am sure the answer will be yes, but can the Minister confirm that it is her expectation that the FCA will be properly focused on growth as it devises those rules, and that it will ensure that any new rules are proportionate to the objective that we are seeking to achieve? The provisions of clause 56 relate specifically to exempting PISCES share transfers from stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax, a measure that, in their response to the consultation, UK Finance and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe said “should be strongly considered by HMT in order to help incentivise use of the platform”. They added that it is important “to generally reduce frictions for companies and shareholders using the platform as far as…possible,” and the FCA rules are important in that respect. Stamp duty and SDRT both tax transactions that transfer securities between parties in exchange for payment. In 2023, the then Government held a consultation entitled “Stamp Taxes on Shares modernisation” and proposed a mandatory single tax on securities instead of separate taxes for electronic transfers and paper instruments. It was suggested that that approach would reduce complexity, and it was widely supported in the call for evidence responses and by the working group that was established. In considering the application of both taxes, I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on this Government’s view on the previous Government’s proposals, and whether she plans to bring forward any changes in the future. As I have set out, we support the measures, but I would be grateful for responses to the points I have raised.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard from the Minister, clause 32 reduces tax-free transfers from UK tax-relieved pensions by removing the exclusion from the overseas tax charge. The Government have also announced linked tax maintenance measures in the other clauses. Clause 33 makes changes to the conditions for overseas pension schemes and recognised overseas pension schemes established in the EEA, so that from 6 April this year, they must meet the same conditions as schemes established in the rest of the world. Clause 34 makes changes to the requirements for pension scheme administrators for registered pension schemes so that they must be UK resident. The OTC was introduced in 2017 to prevent individuals reducing the UK tax due on their pensions by transferring them overseas, particularly to low-tax income jurisdictions, while still benefiting from UK pension tax relief. The 25% charge applies on transfers overseas, unless there is an exclusion from that charge at the point of transfer. At the Budget in the autumn, the Government announced that they would remove the exclusion from OTC of transfers to qualified pension schemes established in the EEA and Gibraltar where the member is resident in the UK or an EEA state. Aligning the treatment to transfer made with those to the rest of the world will deal with the risk of a double tax-free benefit. The tax information and impact note states: “Aligning the treatment of transfers to QROPS established in the EEA and Gibraltar with that of transfers to QROPS established in the rest of the world... reduces the risk of around £1 billion of UK tax-relieved pension savings being transferred overseas across the scorecard.” Could the Minister confirm how many individuals use the current exclusion and at what cost? It would also be useful to know how much has been raised by the OTC since it was introduced in 2017. Clause 32 brings to an end the exclusion that can currently be used to transfer to schemes in the EEA. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, in doing so, individuals can benefit from a double tax-free allowance of more than £2 million. The tax note acknowledges: “There will be operational impacts on HMRC caused by removal of the exclusion… HMRC will need to make some changes to forms, guidance and processes to support this.” Would the Minister provide an update on how far HMRC has got in preparing for those updates and changes? As the Minister said, clause 34 provides that the scheme administrator must be resident in the UK. That means that, ahead of 6 April 2026, schemes will need to check whether their current scheme administrator will remain valid from this date. Again, the tax information and impact note confirms: “Changing the rules on who can be a scheme administrator for a registered pension scheme, could mean that some individuals might not be able to pay further funds into a scheme if the pension scheme does not appoint a UK resident pension scheme administrator and is deregistered.” How many individuals does the Minister estimate this will impact, and what guidance will HMRC provide to prevent individuals from falling foul of the rule change? Again, the Society of Pension Professionals has pointed out that it would be useful if the memorandum indicated how this could impact on schemes where all of its trustees act as the scheme administrator but some are EEA based and some are UK resident. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on that point. As I have set out, we support this change, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the technical questions I have raised.