Capital Gains Tax Bill - New clause 1, New clause 4, New clause 5

She proposes new clauses to ensure transparency and accountability by requiring the Chancellor to produce impact assessments on long-term investment, disposable income distribution, business asset disposal relief claims, and various aspects of tax compliance and planning.

The UK has faced low productivity, rising debt levels, and declining public services since 2010. Public sector net debt is at its highest since the early 1960s. The Government uncovered a £22 billion in-year pressure in the public finances this year due to previous underestimations of financial pressures. To address these issues, the Government are increasing the main rates of capital gains tax (CGT) from 10% to 18% and from 20% to 24%. These changes will raise £8.9 billion over the forecast period without significantly impacting the UK's competitive position compared to France, Germany, and Italy. The Government also introduced a phased rate increase for business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief, which helps mitigate short-term impacts on entrepreneurs planning to exit their businesses.

He argues against the proposed changes to capital gains tax, stating it undermines business confidence. He mentions that clause 7 increases capital gains tax rates immediately without proper planning for HMRC, leading to administrative complications. Davies also highlights that clauses 10 and 11 reduce investment limits and introduce anti-forestalling provisions that could be seen as unfairly retrospective.

Supports the new clauses, emphasising they address tax avoidance. Illustrates how some individuals funnel income through companies to avoid higher income taxes by using lower capital gains tax rates upon disposal of assets.

Committed to the Government's efforts to raise revenue through capital gains tax but argued for a fairer reform. Proposed separating CGT from income, raising allowances and introducing indexation to account for inflation. Argued this would incentivise long-term investment and be more effective than proposed changes. Cited IFS report supporting their proposal.

Supported the Government's proposals to raise capital gains tax rates, seeing it as necessary to ensure wealthy individuals contribute fairly. Cited IFS data showing impact of changes and compared UK rates favourably with European neighbours. Emphasised need for revenue generation to fix public finances.

Critiqued proposed changes as insufficiently progressive, citing IFS criticisms of merely raising rates without reforms. Highlighted flaws in existing CGT system and potential for growth-friendly reforms suggested by experts. Argued current design is unfair and distorts economic activity.

Discusses the broader conversation around tax, highlighting that while few organisations are viewed as legitimate targets for taxation, paying taxes is a sensible investment. Criticises the current capital gains tax system for being neither efficient nor equitable and raises concerns about inflation indexing, targeting larger gains, and rate alignment with income tax rates. Concludes by stating he cannot support the measure.

Asks if the shadow minister wishes to speak, indicating she is calling for a response but does not provide arguments herself.

Responds to points made by Conservative spokesperson, discusses revenue impacts of carried interest measures, explains why changes are being made in-year, addresses inflation indexation, long-term investment impacts, distributional analysis, and tax revenue projections. Concludes by urging Members to reject new clauses 1, 4, and 5.

Intervenes to ask about the cost to HMRC of executing a tax rise that affects only 3,100 people.

Proposes new clauses for reporting fiscal impacts of investment relief changes in the Energy Profits Levy and a review to assess economic effects on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand, and Scottish economy.

Questioned the Minister about whether oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits, challenging the justification for the levy.

Critiqued the logic of taxing an industry while simultaneously discouraging its long-term viability, questioning the Government’s approach to fostering investment in oil and gas.

Defended the levy as necessary for transitioning to green energy and noted that profits from the oil and gas industry remain significant, despite previous criticisms. He also highlighted the Conservative Government’s initial introduction of the energy levy.

Suggested that the original loophole in the energy profits levy allowed oil and gas companies to avoid substantial taxes, indicating missed revenue opportunities. She supported a Liberal Democrat amendment aimed at closing this gap.

Cited research showing the vast profits made by fossil fuel companies during the 2022 energy crisis, while highlighting the struggle of households with fuel poverty. Emphasised that extending the levy is essential for addressing this imbalance and supporting those in need.

Asked whether oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits, emphasising the importance of a positive outlook for investment certainty in the sector.

The amendment increases taxes on oil and gas companies, which will reduce investment in the sector. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a significant decrease in production and capital expenditure. This could undermine energy security and employment. He urges the Government to provide long-term certainty by confirming details about future taxation policies.

The amendment is necessary due to the massive profits made by oil and gas companies during a period of high energy prices. These profits have contributed to increased living costs for ordinary citizens, leading them to choose between heating and eating. The Liberal Democrats advocate for fair taxation on windfall profits and support the abolition of investment allowances that allowed these companies to avoid taxes.

She argues that new clause 3 is necessary for assessing and accounting for impacts on jobs related to oil and gas sector, supply chain and the wider economy. She cites investment figures showing £19 billion contribution by the oil and gas industry in Scotland and £27 billion in the UK.

Intervened to express disappointment that no Scottish Labour MPs turned up, highlighting economic consequences for Scotland.

Expressed disappointment in Liberal Democrats for not addressing job impacts across the UK and focusing only on raising taxes from the industry.

The changes will jeopardise investment, risking the future of our skilled workforce. Analysis shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. The policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation.

At the heart of this debate is the need for competitiveness. Comparing ourselves to the most competitive oil and gas economies in the world, rather than those that squeeze and tax the most out of the industry and kill jobs, is crucial for jobs and energy security.

I welcome the Government's measures to remove the 29% investment allowance except for investments on decarbonisation. 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.

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. 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.

Critiques Government's objectives, arguing that clauses undermine economic growth and job creation. Cites predictions indicating decreased investment, production, and high-paying jobs in oil and gas sector due to proposed tax policies driven by green ideology rather than economic logic. Emphasises negative impact on Scottish workers who feel abandoned. Questions the claim that renewable industry will replace lost jobs and highlights reliance on foreign countries for key technologies and materials.

Supports Wilson's point about risk associated with untested technologies like carbon capture and battery storage. Questions why the 100,000-job industry is being gambled on such uncertain foundations.

Questions whether Wilson believes in climate change and the necessity of achieving net zero by 2050 or if he considers it a hoax.

Raises point about absence of Scottish Labour MPs in debate, calls out previous speaker for incorrect statement. Seeks to correct record through point of order.

Argues against proposed new tax relief for carbon capture and storage installations. Highlights current tax regime's reliefs, exemptions, and loopholes that benefit oil and gas companies despite an escalating climate crisis. Suggests public subsidies should not incentivise fossil fuel expansion. Supports Government incentives to expand renewable energy sector. Proposes amendments to reverse tax relief on conversion of oil and gas infrastructure for CCS. Criticises limited carbon capture globally and misuse of technology to extract more oil.

Supports the Liberal Democrats' call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits. Urges transparency in financial impact of scrapping investment allowance loophole. Encourages use of funds raised to address issues like fuel poverty, flood protection, green investments for farmers, and clean heating installations.

Defends Government's position on retaining energy security investment mechanism until 2030. Explains impact of ESIM and OBR forecasts. Justifies 78% rate for energy profits levy as a balanced approach, ensuring companies continue investing while contributing to clean energy transition. Reassures about long-term stability post-2030 through consultations on the regime.