PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Finance Bill - 10 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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

Clause 7

Main rates of CGT for gains other than carried interest gains

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

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Schedule 1.

Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.

Schedule 2.

Clauses 12 stand part.

New clause 1—Impact assessment: capital gains tax—

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

(a) long-term investment;

(b) disposable income across different income deciles, and

(c) tax revenue.”

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

New clause 4—Section 12: review—

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

(a) the timing of asset disposals or transactions;

(b) shifting between different assets;

(c) shifting between gains and income;

(d) tax planning;

(e) migration; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said something similar to the BBC in 2023:

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

and that was why, she said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in Committee of the whole House on a crucial Bill that underpins the new Government’s aim of fixing a tax system that has become less fair and less sustainable over 14 years of Conservative government. We will ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share, and we will increase funding for public services. I will not detain hon. Members long as we have debated the measures at length already, but I want to make a few brief comments on the portions of the Bill that relate to capital gains tax.

As other Members have pointed out, we need to remind ourselves of our starting point. As the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Paul Johnson, said in his response to the Budget:

“It does bear repeating that the fiscal inheritance”

—that this Government face—

“is truly dire.”

It is in that context that the Bill and the wider measures announced at the Budget should be seen. As the IFS has set out, and Members have mentioned, capital gains tax is paid by less than 1% of the adult population—about 350,000 people. If we break that down further, around 12,000 people—0.2% of the adult population—realise gains of more than £1 million, which account for two thirds of capital gains tax. That is 12,000 people—the main contributors to capital gains tax—paying a little bit more.

Clause 7 raises the headline rates of capital gains tax to 18% for gains within the basic income band for basic rate taxpayers and to 24% for those who pay higher rate income tax. Those levels have risen to match the unchanging residential property rates. The changes are welcome and perhaps not as substantial as was widely speculated in advance. It is important that we look at comparators with neighbouring countries. Those rates, even after the changes, compare well with our European neighbours. In France, as the Minister already said, capital gains tax sits at 30%, rising to 34% for high earners. Our closest neighbour Ireland—often seen as a haven for entrepreneurs who feel that the UK is not a good place to do business—charges 33%, and in Germany it is charged at 25%, plus a 5.5% solidarity surcharge on the tax paid.

Clause 12 includes a long-needed reform in the treatment of carried interest, and I am pleased that the Government are proceeding carefully with this long-overdue measure, moving us towards a tax regime where carried interest is within the income tax framework.

These measures will, I believe, contribute to the crucial revenue that must be raised to fix the foundations of our economy and repair our public services. We need to remind ourselves of the words of George Dibb, the associate director of economic policy at the Institute for Public Policy Research, who said of the changes in the Budget:

“After at least a decade of under-investment, there is now real hope that the government can start to fix the UK’s economic foundations.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call the Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining all the things she has just set out, but I did not quite get an answer to the specific question of why it costs HMRC £4.5 million to execute this tax rise, which will not raise any money in the next year or the year after. Could she explain why this specific measure that only affects 3,100 people costs HMRC £4.5 million, but other tax increases cost hundreds of thousands of pounds?

If the shadow Minister looks carefully at the documents we have published, he will find all his answers written out very clearly there.

New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an impact assessment of the changes to business asset disposal relief, and to compare the impact of those changes with the number of claims that would have been expected if the rate had not been changed. Every year, the Government publish capital gains tax statistics, which include the number of business asset disposal relief claims for the most recent tax year with available data. The number of claims in 2024-25 compared with upcoming tax years will therefore become public information in time. Meanwhile, the fiscal impact of the changes are is out in the tax information and impacts note for this measure, which has been published online.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 16 to 18 stand part.

Schedule 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) UK oil and gas production;

(d) UK oil and gas demand; and

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

Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?

Let me try to understand the Minister’s logic. First, he recognises that we will need oil and gas. Secondly, he is going to tax oil and gas companies. Thirdly, he is telling them that his Government are creating an environment in which there is no future for oil and gas, but he still expects them to invest. Where is the logic?

In the last financial year, the oil and gas industry made £6.1 billion in profit, despite the chuntering from Opposition Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives introduced the energy levy? We are simply ensuring that our oil and gas sector pays an equivalent sum, so that we can transition to a green energy future. This money is necessary for that transition to occur.

The oil and gas giants were making eye-watering profits when the Conservative Government finally introduced a levy, although it had a loophole that let the oil and gas companies off the hook. The Government should support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which demonstrates how much of a missed opportunity that was, and how much money we could have raised, had the loophole been closed earlier.

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

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

Certainty is only good if it relates to a positive outlook, not a negative outlook. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked a clear question about the duration. It was not about whether the sector pays fair taxes; we all believe that people should pay fair taxes. Does the Minister still believe that the industry is making extraordinary profits?

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson once again.

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

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

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

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

How much of that profit was made in the UK versus globally?

To be honest, I do not know what the distinction is between global profits and UK profits. The point is that the levy is put on UK profits made out of UK operations. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that when her constituents cannot afford to put their heating on, she should not miss the opportunity to raise taxes from the big oil and gas companies.

As I said, Shell made a profit of £22.3 billion in 2023, and BP saw profit of £11 billion, its second highest in a decade. I hope the Committee agrees that where those profits are made on UK operations, they should pay their fair share. We are glad that the current Government have listened to calls from Liberal Democrats and others and finally scrapped the unfair investment allowance loophole, but we would like the Minister to give the Committee some clarity on how much money will be raised, particularly through the abolition of the carve-out. By extension, we would be able to see how much money could have been raised under the previous Government but was gifted to the large gas giants. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but their constituents are choosing between heating and eating. People should know just how much money could have been raised and how much will now be raised through this measure.

I will speak to clauses 15 to 18 briefly, but mainly to new clause 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). It would require the Chancellor to publish within three months a review of the expected changes introduced by the Bill on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand and the economy. It is inherently sensible, and considers the importance of the oil and gas sector to regional and national employment and economic growth in the UK.

On the need to review the impact on employment, 82% of direct jobs in the oil and gas sector are located in Scotland. My Gordon and Buchan constituency is at the heart of that. New clause 3 would review the impact of the changes to employment across the country, as it is not just direct jobs that are on the line but supply chain and other indirect jobs. Of those, 90,000 are in Scotland and 200,00 are across the UK.

The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?

We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland.

We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying:

“The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.”

According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.

On the impact that increased tax on the industry will have on jobs, was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was to hear the Liberal Democrats talking only about how much cash can be raised from an industry, without asking how many jobs would be affected across Scotland and the UK, or about the impact on the economy as a whole?

Absolutely; sometimes there is a complete disconnect in this place between how much we can tax and squeeze something dry and what that does to investment. These companies, especially the global ones, do not have to invest in the UK—they can invest across the world. They are choosing to invest here at the moment, and therefore we get jobs, opportunities and employment. That investment can go abroad, and if it does, it will take jobs with it, to the detriment of all of us, but particularly us in north-east Scotland.

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we are in a transition period, which we need in order to get to net zero? Of course, we need to protect jobs, but the transition to net zero is essential.

I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the mobility of investment in the oil and gas industry. Is it not ironic that, since we will need oil and gas, if we tax companies on production in the United Kingdom, they will simply produce elsewhere, other Governments will get the revenue from the tax on that production and we will pay more for imports?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the heart of this, when we have comparisons to Norway, is a sheer focus on trying to squeeze as much taxation out of the industry as possible, without a focus on how to become more competitive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we need for jobs and for energy security in the UK is to compare ourselves to the most competitive oil and gas economies in the world, and not those that squeeze and tax the most out of the industry and kill jobs?

Exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of jobs, and the Government are playing fast and loose with jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are playing Russian roulette. They do not seem to understand that when what they have got wrong comes home to roost, they cannot just say, “Sorry, we got that wrong.” When it is gone, it is gone—they cannot bring it back. This is 2024, not 1972. We are already in the closing chapter of the sector; it will not be coming back. This Government seem to completely misunderstand that.

The simple truth is that the UK state cannot meet net zero or create green growth if Labour’s policies to hack away at investment in both the domestic workforce and the sector are allowed to progress. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition into the bargain. With these changes to the EPL, Labour will be creating the worst of all worlds: it will starve industry of investment, sacrifice the jobs of those who can deliver net zero, threaten energy security, keep energy bills high and harm the economy of Scotland, while at the very same time failing to invest the money required to truly deliver against a green transition.

I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 2. I welcome the Government finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole for the oil and gas giants, which the Liberal Democrats have advocated for and called for since the previous Government introduced the levy—too late, and half-heartedly—in May 2022. Oil and gas companies made eye-watering profits off the back of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain problems that caused energy prices to soar. While the oil and gas giants saw record profits, my constituents in Bath and others across the country faced a cost of living crisis.

The previous Government have a lot to answer for. They sat and watched as the oil and gas giants lined their pockets off the back of people struggling with their bills. It did not have to be that way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but it did not have to be that way. Those were the political choices the previous Government made.

The measures announced by the Government in this Bill are welcome, in particular the removal of the 29% investment allowance except for investments on decarbonisation. This has been a Liberal Democrat policy, and I am pleased the Government have picked up on it and that it will now become a reality.

We Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021. While the previous Government did eventually introduce the energy profits levy, they did so half-heartedly and woefully late in May 2022. It matters that we repeat that again and again: it is something that the previous Government failed to do. That Government let the oil and gas giants off the hook by putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. It was thanks to that allowance that in 2022, Shell admitted it had paid zero windfall tax, despite making the largest global profits in its 150-year history of £31 billion. That cannot be right while our constituents have been struggling to pay their bills.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has tabled new clause 2, which would require the Government, as we have already heard, to produce a report about the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the EPL and relief for investment expenditure. We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. To avoid a repeat of the energy crisis, we must end our reliance on oil and gas. Investing in renewables would mean cheaper energy across the country. We would no longer be reliant on dictators such as Vladimir Putin who use natural gas as a weapon. As well as being more affordable, renewables are the best route to energy security. It is very disappointing to hear Conservative Members advocate for business as usual. We need to transition away from oil and gas.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. At what point does she believe we will be fully reliant on renewables?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is absolutely by putting in place the measures for transition that we will meet net zero. If we continue with business as usual and continue to listen to people who ultimately do not understand that unless we get to net zero our whole economy will suffer, then people will suffer. We will also have big, big problems with issues such as huge migration if climate change can rule unchallenged. This is why the Liberal Democrats believe the transition to net zero is important and why we need to put measures in place to make that happen. It is disappointing that the Conservatives, as the previous Government and now the Opposition, still do not understand how urgently we require climate action.

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What is her understanding of what will happen to domestic consumption of oil and gas products in the United Kingdom if the domestic industry atrophies but domestic demand still exists? What will happen in that scenario? Where will the oil and gas come from, or will we just give it up overnight?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The whole argument is that we will continue to rely on oil and gas for the time being, but unless we start to change something, on the current projection we will not get to net zero as urgently as we need to. Progress has been too slow, so the longer we hesitate the more difficult it will become. The new Government have understood that urgency, and the Liberal Democrats support them in dealing with this issue with more urgency than we saw from the previous Government. I therefore repeat that we support the measures, but we would like the Government to support our new clause 2. As I said, it will show what we can raise by closing the loophole. It would by extension, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans clarified, show what has been squandered by the previous Government—money that could have been invested.

According to the New Economics Foundation, the previous Government’s levy raised £10.6 billion for the oil and gas industry, but the industry invested only £3.6 billion of that in new capital projects, taking the remainder as sheer profits. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that that is exactly why it was a foolhardy proposal? The profits made did not go into investing in new capital assets, but largely went into shareholders’ pockets.

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

I call Yuan Yang.

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

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

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

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

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She says it is clear who is on the side of working people versus the companies. My constituents are the people working in the oil and gas sector. They are the ones most at risk of losing their jobs if the changes brought in through the EPL go wrong. I am on the side of working people, and I am on the side of my constituents. No matter what MPs across the House say, I will always fight for my working people in Gordon and Buchan who just happen to be working people in the oil and gas sector.

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and, at this point, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support from the unionised voices of those who work in the sector to which she referred. I commend the Government’s green prosperity plan to initiate a skills transition, and provide funding for it, so that those workers can profit from the industries of the future rather than the industries of the present and the past.

As the Minister said, the energy profits levy will raise £2.3 billion over the current Parliament, which will go towards the funding of, for instance, Great British Energy. GB Energy, whose headquarters are in Aberdeen, will bring innovation in green technologies not only to Scotland but to the whole of the UK. I will forgive, for a moment, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for perhaps not recognising my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—I know that an awful lot of new Scottish Members were elected in the last general election, and it must be difficult to learn all their faces. I ask the hon. Member to reflect on the possible reasons for the election of a record number of Scottish Labour Members while he sets about learning their names and faces.

The Government’s auction of 130 wind, solar and tidal energy projects in the latest round of the contracts for difference scheme points the way to the future. It points the way to the generation of 95% of the UK’s energy through green and decarbonised energy by 2030; to a transition that everyone in this Committee, and certainly everyone on the Government Benches, is looking forward to seeing in the next 10 years; and to the delivery of the local power plan, which will support local energy projects in communities such as mine. I welcome the funding of local projects such as Reading Hydro, which takes hydroelectric energy from the Thames, and the work of Reading Community Energy Society, which generates solar energy on the rooftops of the University of Reading and rooftops across my constituency. I look forward to all those projects and to the projects of the future, which is why I commend the measures that we are discussing today.

The Government have set a number of objectives that they wish to achieve over the next five years. Central to those objectives are growth, highly paid jobs, energy security, and increased investment. However, when I look at clauses 15 to 17, I ask myself, “Have the Government gone mad?” They are undermining the very objectives that they are seeking to achieve through their policy of taxation, a policy that I believe is driven more by green ideology and by prejudice against some high-earning companies than by any economic logic. The economic logic of these proposals, and indeed the predictions made by those who have fed in the data and the information about them, indicate that, at least in our major oil and energy industry, investment will go down, production will go down, and highly paid jobs will go down.

The hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) said that hers was the party that was interested in ordinary workers. As has already been pointed out, no Scottish Labour Members are taking part in the debate. I suggest that the 100,000 workers in Scotland who depend on the oil and gas industry feel abandoned today because there is no one here to defend them—although I have to say that if I were a Scottish Member I might not want to stick my head over the parapet, defend measures such as these, and then have to go back to my constituents to explain. I suspect that they will go through the Lobby and vote for those measures, but—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is opening her arms and saying that she is from Scotland. I look forward to hearing her speak later in the debate in defence of these measures, which will cost jobs.

We have heard that those jobs will be replaced by highly paid, skilled jobs in the renewables industry, but there is little evidence of that so far. Indeed, if we look at the sources of the materials and the providers of, for instance, wind turbines, we see that the skilled jobs are not in Britain. We are making ourselves dependent on countries such as China which have control of the earth metals and valuable metals that are required to provide the necessary equipment for the renewables industry.

The right hon. Member has touched on an important point. Meeting the Government’s 2030 target and creating the green jobs to which he has referred will require two technologies that have not yet been tried and tested at scale, carbon capture and battery storage. Why would we gamble such an important 100,000-job industry in favour of technologies that have not even been tried and tested at scale?

It is not just that they have not been tried and tested. There is also an acceptance—indeed, it is the Government’s own stated position—that even with those technologies, we will be reliant on, and will need, oil and gas not until 2030 and not even until 2040, but beyond 2050. If we do not extract as much oil and gas from our own resources here in the United Kingdom, where will we get it from? We will get it from abroad, which brings us to the issue of energy security.

The places where energy is likely to be produced will not be stable countries, countries that will always be favourable towards us, or countries that are ruled by rational rulers. It will come from countries where rulers are irrational, and take political decisions about who they do or do not trade with on a whim. The idea that we will rely on fossil fuels until well beyond 2050 but not produce them ourselves—in fact, we are going to discourage companies from producing them in the United Kingdom, even though we know that we have the resources—and somehow or other we will still guarantee security of supply, and security of energy, for our constituents is just madness.

I have a very simple question to ask the right hon. Gentleman: does he believe that climate change is happening and that we need to get to net zero by 2050, or does he believe it is all a hoax?

Only a fool would say that climate change is not happening. Climate change has occurred in all the time that the earth has been in existence. Of course it happens, and of course it is happening. The hon. Lady asks me a question to which I think anybody could give an easy answer. Yes, climate change is happening, but does that mean that we have identified all the sources of the change in our climate? Does it also mean that we should distort our economy, in such a way as she would suggest, to try to make changes to the world’s climate, especially given that other countries are not making any changes to their economy and are not following our lead? They are simply ignoring us and doing what they believe is best for their own economies.

The second point I want to make is that we are leaving ourselves open to a situation in which companies that we need to invest in energy production will not do so. The OBR has made that quite clear, but even if it had not made its predictions, economic logic should make us understand that if we take investment allowances away from people and tax them, they will have less money to invest.

The Minister makes a great point: by putting all these measures on the statute book, he creates certainty for the industry. He does create certainty, because anybody looking at the Bill knows for certain what the future entails: they are going to be taxed until the pips squeak, so they will look for other places to go and make their investment. He argues that putting out a tax plan somehow gives assurance to companies, but sometimes it confirms their prejudice that Britain will not be a place where they have a future, or where they wish to invest.

I turn to the third impact of these measures, building on a point made by the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley. The Government’s whole approach is to tax oil and gas companies, get money, and help working people by putting it into schools and so on. But the predictions are that we will not get more revenue, because if there is less production, there is less tax to be paid. If there is less tax to be paid, the Government have less revenue to invest in the things that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to invest in. Where does that tax go? It will go to foreign countries, because that is where production will take place and where the oil companies will be taxed. They will get taxed where they make their profits. If they are not making any profits in the United Kingdom, they will not pay any revenue in the United Kingdom. They will take their production and tax revenue elsewhere.

There does not appear to be any economic logic to this proposal, other than that the oil companies are seen as bad so the Government have to tax them, even though they are taxed heavily already, and that the Government want to ensure that we have this transition to net zero, even though we know that we will still need the product that the oil companies produce for many decades into the future and we will be turning our back on that production in the United Kingdom.

If the Government are so sure that this cunning plan is going to work—I think Baldrick would have been embarrassed by this cunning plan, I have to say—they should not fear any examination of it. They should welcome it. In fact, maybe once the assessment is done, they will be able to point to red faces on the Opposition side of the House. If I were as certain as the Minister is that his plan was going to work, I would be saying, “Right, we’ll do the assessment and we’ll make you eat your words.” I suspect that the reason that new clause 2 will be rejected today is that the red faces and the eating of words are going to be on the Government’s side of the House. Unfortunately, the people who will suffer will be the hundreds of thousands of people facing rising fuel bills, the 100,000 workers who will face redundancies and an industry that we very much need in this country going into decline.

On a point of order, Madam Chair. The last but one speaker, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), called me out regarding my perfectly legitimate comment that there was not a single Scottish Labour MP in here. I chose my words carefully, taking part in this debate. I appreciate that there is a Labour Member here who, unless I am very much mistaken, is fulfilling the role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and therefore will not be taking part in the debate. I ask your guidance, Madam Chair, on whether it is legitimate to call somebody out in a debate and not give them an opportunity to respond. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley to correct the record, but she refused to give way. How can we correct the record to underline the fact that there is not a single Scottish Labour MP in here taking part in this debate on Scotland’s energy?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and therefore I cannot provide advice as to how he can put that on the record. He will know as well as other hon. Members do that it is entirely at the discretion of the individual contributing at that time whether or not they take an intervention, but he has done good work in putting his point on the record via the mechanism of a point of order.

I would like to echo the arguments made by the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) . I rise to speak to whether clause 18 and schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill. I argue that both should be omitted, to remove the proposed new tax relief for carbon capture and storage installations as currently drafted. The tax regime for oil and gas is riddled with reliefs, exemptions and loopholes. The windfall tax introduced by the last Government was widely reported, but was slightly less reported was the increased tax relief that went along with it, which allowed oil and gas companies to deduct 91% of their capital investment costs from their tax bill.

We are now many years into an escalating climate crisis, and one that the oil companies have known they were causing since at least 1977. There is absolutely no excuse for public subsidies that incentivise fossil fuel companies to expand their operations. So while I welcome the increase in the rate of the energy profits levy and the reduction of the investment allowance, I want to highlight the fact that, because of other reliefs that still exist, North sea oil and gas companies will still be able to offset 84% of capital expenditure against tax in relation to their expansion of operations.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that capital reliefs are about attracting investment that creates jobs and secures energy security for this country? If UK countries are to make such investments, we have to be competitive in the global market. If we do not make those investments, what does he think will happen to the industry and the 100,000 jobs that go with it?

As we heard earlier, it is vital that there is strong Government support and a dedicated plan to ensure transition to alternative job opportunities for anyone working in the oil and gas sector. Having a background in the renewable energy sector, I strongly support Government incentives and policies that will help that sector to expand, so that we create jobs and skills. My amendments would reverse the Government’s tax relief on the conversion of oil and gas infrastructure to carbon capture and storage installations. There are many other reliefs in the tax regime that should be addressed, but they are out of the scope of the Bill.

Carbon capture and storage is a complex area. There are different types of technology that use different techniques. I support further research and development in relation to the hard-to-abate sector, but CCS cannot be used as a fig leaf to hide the expansion of fossil fuel operations. In reality, after years of hype, the result is very little carbon—less than 0.1% of annual emissions—being captured globally. Most of the carbon dioxide that has been successfully captured has been used to extract more oil. The UK has also been criticised for targeting most of its CCS at so-called blue hydrogen, the use of which would increase our long-term reliance on gas and generate more carbon emissions.

The proposed tax relief is too blunt an instrument to make a useful contribution to decarbonisation. The role of CCS is still relatively untested, so it is vital that we do not bake in over-reliance on that technology. Public funding for CCS should be restricted to research and development, and to projects that would clearly help to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors. It absolutely must not be a green light for fossil fuel companies to carry on with business as usual and an expansion of operations. Will the Minister explore the idea of reviewing the measures, in the light of what I have suggested?

In October 2021, we Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits, so I am glad that the Bill is finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole, after years of oil and gas companies not paying their fair share under the Conservatives. I urge the House to adopt our amendment, which calls on the Government to set out exactly how much money is being raised through the scrapping of the investment allowance loophole, and how much money was gifted by the last Government to the oil and gas giants. My constituents in Yeovil deserve full transparency.

I encourage the Government to use the money raised by closing the loophole to address energy and environmental issues impacting my constituents in Yeovil, such as fuel poverty, particularly among pensioners; the need to protect homes and businesses from flooding; the need to support farmers with green investments; and helping homeowners to install clean heating.

In conclusion, we must ensure that our constituencies get a fair deal out of the Bill. If the average taxpayer is expected to pay their fair share, then so must the wealthiest individuals and companies in this country. There cannot be one rule for them and another for the rest of us.