😓 Finance Bill

• The Finance Bill was considered, focusing on various clauses and new clauses proposed for amendments.
• New Clause 1 proposed a review within three months of the Act’s passage on how many people receiving the full state pension rate will be liable to pay income tax due to section 1 of the Act, projecting tax liabilities for 2025-26 and subsequent years.
• New Clause 2 aimed at requiring the Chancellor to assess the impact of changes to the energy (oil and gas) profits levy on domestic energy production, UK energy security, energy prices, and the UK economy within six months of the Act coming into effect.
• New Clauses 3 and 5 addressed the need for assessing the impact of the Bill’s tax changes on household finances, particularly at different income levels, within six months of the Act’s passage.
• New Clause 4 proposed a report within six months on the Bill’s impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), focusing on employment, closures, and new business establishments.
• New Clause 6 requested a report within six months on the fiscal effects of changes to the Energy Profits Levy’s investment expenditure relief as outlined in clause 16 of the Bill.
• New Clause 7 called for the regular review and reporting of the Bill’s VAT provisions’ impact on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) without an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
• New Clause 8 addressed the need for a review of sections 63 and 64’s impact on sectors like Scotch whisky and small spirit distilleries, the hospitality industry, and the night-time economy, including an estimation of administrative and operational costs.
• Amendments 67 to 69 proposed removing clauses 47 to 49, which deal with the removal of the VAT exemption for private school fees and related policies.
• Discussions highlighted concerns about increased taxes, their impacts on pensioners, households, SMEs, and specific sectors such as energy and education.
• The Government’s amendments, primarily technical and administrative, aimed at ensuring the new residence-based tax regime for non-doms works as intended and supports economic competitiveness.
• Opposition to the Bill centered around its potential to hinder economic growth and increase the financial burdens on working people and pensioners, while the Government defended it as necessary for fiscal responsibility and to support public services.
• The Bill passed its Third Reading with a vote, indicating it is moving forward with the outlined measures and amendments.

The session demonstrated a significant level of disagreement, reflected in the debates and the division votes that took place over various amendments and new clauses to the Finance Bill. Here are the key indicators and examples that support a rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 for disagreement:

1. Opposition to the Bill’s Measures: There was clear opposition to various measures in the Finance Bill, such as the removal of the VAT exemption for private schools (amendment 67) and changes to the energy profits levy (new clause 2). These oppositions were articulated by several speakers, including James Wild and Dave Doogan, reflecting a significant divergence of views.

2. Division Votes: The session included multiple division votes, indicating formal disagreement on key issues. Notably, new clause 2 regarding the energy profits levy resulted in a vote of 113 Ayes to 331 Noes, and new clause 8 on alcohol duties had a vote of 176 Ayes to 332 Noes. The final vote on the third reading, with 339 Ayes and 172 Noes, also showed a strong split in opinion.

3. Debates and Interventions: The transcript reveals intense debates and numerous interventions, particularly around the impact of the Bill on different sectors and demographics. James Wild’s critique of the Budget’s impact on growth, pensioners, and small businesses, and the subsequent support from other Conservative members like Graham Stuart and Dr Luke Evans, highlights a strong disagreement with the government’s approach.

4. Specific Concerns Raised: Detailed concerns were raised about the effects of the proposed changes on specific groups. For example, the impact on pensioners (new clause 1), children with special educational needs (new clause 7), and industries such as oil and gas (new clause 2), and alcohol production (new clause 8). These concerns were voiced by both opposition and some government backbenchers, indicating broad disagreement.

5. Government’s Stance: The Government, represented by the Exchequer Secretary James Murray, defended the Bill and its measures, opposing all new clauses and amendments tabled by the opposition. This maintained a strong line of disagreement throughout the session.

6. Cross-Party Disagreements: While the primary disagreement was between the government (Labour) and the opposition (Conservatives), there were also points of contention among backbenchers and from the Liberal Democrats, such as Daisy Cooper’s concerns about the impact on SMEs and SEND pupils.

Overall, the level of disagreement was high due to the numerous amendments debated, the formal divisions, and the strong critiques from various members across the political spectrum. However, the session did not reach the highest level of disagreement (5) because despite the opposition, the government managed to pass the Bill, and not all amendments or concerns led to a vote, suggesting that the degree of disagreement, while significant, was not pervasive enough to prevent the Bill’s passage.