Finance Bill 2023-24 Public Bill Committee

Finance Bill 2023-24 public bill committee took place in just two sittings on Tuesday 16 January. The main contributors were:

• Nigel Huddlestone (Financial Secretary to the Treasury (FST))
• Gareth Davies (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (XST))
• James Murray (Labour, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
• Drew Hendry (SNP spokesperson)
• Tulip Siddiq (Labour, Shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

No amendments were made to the Bill during its committee stage.

Useful documents

Read the amendment paper published by the House of Commons, and the Explanatory Notes to the Bill for a fuller description of the intent of each clause and schedule. Further documents related to the Finance Bill are available to view on the House of Commons website.

Briefings on issues in these clauses were provided by both CIOT and LITRG.

Some clauses of the Bill were debated in Committee of Whole House on Wednesday 10 January. Read our report here.

Sitting One – Tuesday 16 January (morning)

Creative industries reliefs

Clause 3 and Schedule 2 introduce a new tax relief regime for films, television programmes and video games.

Clause 4 and Schedule 3 allow for changes to Theatre Tax Relief, making its policy intent clearer and streamlining administration.

Clause 5 and Schedule 4 provide for changes to Orchestra Tax Relief, making its policy intent clearer and streamlining administration.

Clause 6 and Schedule 5 introduce changes to Museums and Galleries Exhibition Tax Relief, making its policy intent clearer and streamlining administration.

Clause 7 and Schedule 6 amend Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998 to streamline administration of the reliefs outlined above.

Clauses 1 and 2 having been considered in Committee of Whole House, the session began with consideration of clauses 3-7. Nigel Huddleston, the Financial Secretary, opened the debate by explaining the main reform in this group, which is that a new audiovisual expenditure credit will replace the four existing film and TV reliefs. This, he explained, “will ensure that they continue to work as intended following the implementation of the OECD pillar two rules in the UK and elsewhere. A company claiming expenditure credits will not see its effective tax rate lowered as a result.” Under the new credit the relief calculation will change from a super-deduction to direct qualifying expenditure, impacting about 3,000 businesses claiming the creative reliefs.

Discussing clauses 4 to 7, Huddleston explained that Brexit has provided the opportunity to “refocus our tax reliefs on activity that occurs in the UK and to give organisations more choice over where they source goods and service”.

James Murray, the Shadow Financial Secretary, welcomed these measures. However he sought further clarification on several issues. This included the rationale behind a greater credit increase in animation and children’s TV production. He also asked for assurance that we would now see stability in relation to the new expenditure credits, and also about the role of HMRC in providing guidance and support.

Additionally, Murray expressed concerns about clause 4, particularly regarding guidance and consistency of claims for theatre relief. He asked the minister whether guidance would be issued to make sure UK creative exports are “protected and not inadvertently hit by technicalities in the wording of the tax relief rules”.

While welcoming the intention of clause 5, Murray noted a lack of clarity on how the rules should be interpreted and what orchestras would be eligible to claim. “I am sure the Minister will agree that clarity is crucial for a successful tax system” he said.

Addressing clause 7, the Shadow FST questioned the readiness of HMRC’s digital system to operate from 1 April 2024, amid delays to the Making Tax Digital scheme. He emphasised that it is vital that “HMRC is equipped with the tools it needs to provide a high-quality online service that individual taxpayers and businesses should expect the Government to deliver.”

Dan Carden (Lab) questioned whether proposed changes in clause 5 would allow external events with connected companies, such as those at Liverpool Philharmonic, to be eligible for tax reliefs. Another Labour MP, Debbie Abrahams, also sought clarification on the size limit for companies affected by measures in clause 4.

The minister responded that HMRC will provide guidance to the industry. Commenting on the longevity of expenditure credits, he stated that “tax legislation should never remain static because [of] the nature of the economy… It is therefore always appropriate to change relevant tax legislation”.

Clauses 3 - 7 were agreed without division, along with schedules 2 and 6.

Real Estate Investment Trusts

Clause 8 and Schedule 7 make various amendments to Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) rules.

The FST argued that while the government has introduced several reforms to REITs, clause 8 and schedule 7 will ensure that “the right tax is paid” and changes are better aligned with the needs of investors. He added that the government is also taking this opportunity to make further changes to the related tax rules including a technical correction to the corporate interest restriction as it applies to REITs, and a change in the non-resident capital gains rules for collective investment vehicles.

While welcoming the measures, James Murray expressed concern about their impact of these measures on HMRC and asked if the minister could ensure that “businesses that want to enter the REIT regime will be supported by HMRC without other aspects of HMRC’s work suffering”.

The FST stated that he is ‘confident’ about HMRC’s capabilities in dealing with this matter and thanked Murray for his support. He added that these measures will improve the operation of the REITs rules, aligning them with current commercial practices and enhancing the regime’s competitiveness.

Clause 8 and schedule 7 were agreed without division.

Tonnage Tax

Clause 9 and Schedule 8 enable companies and groups managing qualifying ships to make a tonnage tax election (so that their profits for the purposes of corporation tax are calculated in accordance with the tonnage tax regime) with effect for elections made on or after 1 April 2024.

Clause 10 increases the limit applying to claims for capital allowance made by lessors to ships leased in the tonnage tax regime.

NB. Tonnage tax is a form of corporation tax calculated on the capacity of ships in the regime, rather than on profits, and is usually beneficial.

Gareth Davies, the Exchequer Secretary, highlighted some of the government’s reforms of tonnage tax so far and noted that the proposed capital allowance increase (clause 10) “recognises general price movements and changes in vessel design and costs”. Additionally, it will ensure that the UK tonnage tax continues to be internationally competitive.

Clauses 9 - 10 were agreed without division, along with schedule 8.

Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trust Tax Reliefs

Clause 11 extends the availability of the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and Venture Capital Trust (VCT) tax reliefs to investments in shares issued by qualifying companies and VCTs on or before 5 April 2035.

The FST claimed that the UK’s EIS and VCT schemes are ‘world-leading’ in terms of generosity and said that the proposed extension would encourage entrepreneurship in the future.

The Shadow Treasury minister, Tulip Siddiq, also praised the schemes and noted that the latest HMRC data revealed that, between 2021-22, approximately 4,500 businesses accessed more than £2.3 billion of funds through the EIS scheme. However, she argued that the government needs to listen to concerns of businesses and take an active interest in improving these schemes, including “delivering the simplification measures that many are calling for to ensure that more companies and more investors can benefit from the tax reliefs available to them”.

The FST responded that the government is listening to businesses at all times.

Clause 11 was agreed.

Post Office Compensation

Clause 12 introduces exemption from corporation tax, income tax and capital gains tax to ensure sub-postmasters in receipt of compensation under the Group Litigation Order or Horizon Shortfall Scheme are not unduly penalised due to the legal form through which they chose to structure their business.

FST Nigel Huddleston said that clause 12 aligns the “tax treatment to ensure that claimants who chose to set themselves up as companies obtain tax relief comparable to that available for claimants set up as individuals”. Addressing the Horizon IT scandal, he stated that government is determined that postmasters affected by the scandal will receive the compensation they deserve regardless of how they arrange their business structure.

Labour’s Tulip Siddiq emphasised the importance of proposed measures following the scandal and said “it is even more critical that the tax exemptions in clause 12 are implemented at pace”. She continued that government must make sure that the “complexities of taxing compensation are not allowed to stand in the way of delivering justice to victims of future scandals”.

Huddleston said that HMRC has also set up a dedicated extra support team and phone helpline to deal with postmasters and sub-postmasters’ queries.

Clause 12 was agreed.

Enterprise Management Incentives

Clause 13 extends the time limit for an employer company to notify HMRC of a grant of Enterprise Management Incentives (EMI) options from 92 days after the date of the grant of the option to 6 July following the end of the tax year.

The FST stressed the effectiveness of EMI and noted that the government has acknowledged that the administrative requirements of the scheme could be improved. As a result, clause 13 would address this concern and make it easier for companies to use EMI. He noted that Individuals will not need to do anything differently and he believed that this change would also result in fewer late notifications and a lower possibility of options being disqualified.

The Shadow Treasury minister welcomed this clause as it aims to simplify the process and increase small businesses’ ability to benefit from recruiting and retaining staff. 

Clause 13 was agreed.

Pension Lifetime Allowance

Clause 14 and Schedule 9 abolish the Lifetime Allowance (LTA) and sets out the new tax treatment of lump sums and lump sum death benefits with effect on or after 6 April 2024.

The FST emphasised that this clause and schedule will deliver the government’s policy of incentivising highly skilled individuals to remain in the labour market or return to the workforce to build up their retirement savings, ultimately stimulating the economy. He quoted some stakeholders who have suggested that “pensions tax limits can and, indeed, do influence the timing of retirement” and act as a barrier to returning to the workforce.

He added: “The new tax treatment ensures that lump sums do not, regardless of their size, become entirely tax-free,” adding it will also clarify the tax treatment of transfers to overseas pension schemes.

The Shadow FST, James Murray, disagreed, suggesting the move would give “the wealthiest in society a tax cut”. He raised concerns that deadline given (6 April) is very tight for such a complex matter.

The Shadow FST quoted the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s (CIOT) concern that the legislation in the Finance Bill on the abolition of the LTA is different from that which was published for consultation last summer. He added that the relevant part of the Bill comes in at nearly 100 pages — that is one-third of the Bill and two and a half times the size of the original legislation published last summer. “With such a great degree of apparent change between the draft and final versions, there are of course likely to be many questions about details of the version before us, and about the government’s intent”, he said.

Murray continued that the CIOT has noted that the pension commencement excess lump sum aspect of the legislation, which replaces the current lifetime allowance excess lump sum charge, should be revised to meet the policy intent.

SNP spokesperson Drew Hendry also thought that the government could explore other approaches to tackle the issue and wondered whether the government had considered any other options. Similarly, Dan Carden (Lab) suggested that these changes could complicate the pension system further, while only keeping 15,000 individuals in the workforce.

Huddleston believed that this was an “appropriate measure” that government has taken, and the measure will be beneficial to many public sector workers.

In relation to Murray’s comment about CIOT’s concern, he argued that majority of the 100 pages of legislation he talked about remove references and concepts associated with the lifetime allowance. Regarding the timeline, the FST said that the government has repeatedly publicised that the abolition of the lifetime allowance will be effective from April 2024 and has been working closely with the HMRC to implement these changes.

Clause 14 and schedule 9 were agreed without division.

MPs’ pension scheme etc

Clause 15 will allow the Treasury to make regulations to address the tax impacts of a rectification exercise to remedy age-related discrimination from pensions reform for members of the Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly.

The FST said that this clause “will ensure that [those affected] receive tax treatment comparable to the wider public sector when their pension schemes remedy age-related unfairness in past pension changes”.

James Murray, for Labour, supported the clause and noted that the changes are “designed to be capable of having a retrospective effect to ensure that individuals are, as far as possible, put in the tax position they would have been in had the discrimination not occurred”.

Clause 15 was agreed.

Cash Basis

Clause 16 and Schedule 10 make the cash basis the default basis for calculating profits of trades (including professions and vocations) for the tax year 2024-25 and subsequent years. Additionally the turnover threshold of £150,000 will be removed entirely, so even the largest self-employed businesses can use the cash basis. Existing restrictions on interest deductions and loss relief under the cash basis will be removed.

On clause 16 and schedule 10, the FST noted that the government acknowledges the usefulness of full accruals accounts for businesses, however the cash basis acts as a valuable simplification for small businesses. Furthermore, the cash basis reduces errors and minimises the risk of unexpected tax bills. He outlined that, currently, there are only 1.2 million users of the cash basis and many more could benefit the scheme if existing restrictions are removed. Moreover, start-up enterprises opting not to utilise the simpler cash basis, with the intention of being eligible for loss relief available under the accruals basis, will now have the option to also claim loss relief using the cash basis.

The FST suggested that these changes are expected to save small businesses a total of about £13 million annually in administrative burdens. HMRC will also be prioritising a review of its guidance on the cash basis to improve the understanding and awareness of this regime.

The Shadow FST quoted the CIOT’s concerns that “conducting accounts on a cash basis fulfils the need to report to HMRC, whereas businesses that report on an accrual basis serve several purposes, including for loans and profitability”. He also expressed concern about the potential increased scope for fraud and stated that “as with new tax changes that relax restrictions on access, a small number of actors could spot an opportunity to reduce their tax liabilities”.

The minister clarified that the government is not forcing businesses to use cash accounts and they can choose the method of accounting that best suits their circumstances. He continued that the government have set the cash basis as the default to “make it easier for businesses to use the simpler regime” and business could opt out of the scheme by ticking a box on their tax return.

Clause 16 and schedule 9 were agreed.

Deemed employee PAYE liability

Clause 17 gives HMRC the power to make regulations offsetting tax paid by workers and intermediaries on income from IR35 rules against subsequent PAYE liabilities of their deemed employer.

The FST explained that clause 17 aims to address the potential overcollection of tax and national insurance contributions in cases of non-compliance with the off-payroll working rules and ensure that the cost of the liability is shared more fairly between the deemed employer and the worker.

While not opposing the clause, James Murray observed that the provision comes into effect from 6 April, and will apply to deemed direct payments made as far back as “on or after” April 2017. He noted that the CIOT “had argued for this set-off to be legislated for since the off-payroll working rules were first introduced seven years ago”. The Shadow FST asked the minister to explain why it has taken the government so long to act after the problem was first identified by a respected industry body.

Blaming the complexity of the legislation, the minister defended the government’s approach to ‘work through’ these issues thoroughly, and noted that HMRC has also undertaken significant informal consultation with key stakeholders.

Clause 17 was agreed.

Carer’s allowance supplement

Clause 18 corrects a legislative reference to how Carer’s Allowance Supplement payments are made.

On clause 18, the FST confirmed that changes do not affect the substance of the legislation, neither impacting on payments that have already been made or payments going forward.

Debbie Abrahams (Labour) asked the minister to confirm that there will be no retrospective tax collection deductions of carer’s allowance, to which the minister replied: “Nobody will be financially impacted by the change”.

Clause 18 was agreed.

Stamp Duty and Stamp Duty Reserve Tax

Clause 19 amends the qualifying conditions for markets applying to HMRC to receive stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax reliefs.

Clause 20 and Schedule 11 ensure that it continues to be the case that no 1.5% charge to Stamp Duty or Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (SDRT) arises in relation to issues of securities or stock or transfers of securities made in the course of capital-raising arrangements or qualifying listing arrangements.

The FST said that the changes in clause 19 reflects the modern market and show that the government is committed to help innovative SMEs to grow.

Labour’s Tulip Siddiq questioned the impact that changes will have in practice and wondered whether the minister plans to increase the availability of growth capital for business.

In reply, the minister argued that “any market that meets the requirements will be able to apply to HMRC to take advantage of the exemptions”. He emphasised the importance of not restricting future markets by legislation adding: “The point of the changes is that other markets could benefit in future and, because of the dynamism in such markets, we need to plan ahead.”

In relation to clause 20 and schedule 11, the FST proposed that the measure will provide legislative certainty to businesses that “there will be no charge on those transactions going forward”. He shared the government’s desire to support the competitiveness of UK capital markets and openness by permanently removing the 1.5% charge.

“It is vital that our tax system remains internationally competitive” said Siddiq, who welcomed this clause. However, she called on the minister to listen to industry voices such as the Capital Markets Industry Taskforce about the solutions that are needed to resuscitate domestic markets.

Clauses 19 and 20 and schedule 11 were agreed.

Excise Duty Rates

Clause 22 provides for changes to rates of excise duty on tobacco products.

Clause 23 changes rates of vehicle excise duty for vehicle licenses taken out on or after 1 April 2024.

Clause 24 amends rates of Air Passenger Duty.

Clause 21 having been agreed in Committee of Whole House, debate turned to a number of duty increases – inflationary for vehicle excise duty and air passenger duty, above inflation for tobacco.

On the latter, the Exchequer Secretary discussed several measures that the government has introduced so far to support smokers to quit and explained that the policy of maintaining high duty rates for tobacco products would support the government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition and plan to improve public health.

The minister then discussed clause 23, highlighting that this measure will maintain revenue stability and ensure that “motorists continue to make a fair contribution to our public finances”.

Regarding clause 24, the minister stressed that air passenger duty rates will remain frozen in real terms, while explaining that following the 50% cut in air passenger duty for domestic flights in 2023-24, the rate for those flying in economy class will increase by just 50p to £7.

For Labour, James Murray did not dissent from any of the three clauses, though he took the opportunity to probe the treatment of both helicopter flights (excluded from APD) and private jets. The minister replied that private jets pay much higher rates than any commercial flight passengers.

Clauses 22 – 24 were agreed.

Miscellaneous VAT and Excise Measures

Clause 26 enables regulations to be made to exempt those granted visa clearance under the Family, Sponsor and Extension Ukrainian visa schemes from the requirement to tax their Ukrainian plated and registered vehicles in the UK for a period of 36 months

Clause 25 having been agreed in Committee of Whole House, debate turned to a measure to make sure that individuals fleeing war in Ukraine who have not yet registered their vehicles in the UK do not face costs and administrative burdens associated with vehicle taxation and registration while they are temporarily in the county.

Shadow minister Tulip Siddiq welcomed the clause, although she highlighted that the “intervention has come far too late to prevent many refugees from paying eye-watering bills”. Likewise, Drew Hendry (SNP) questioned why this issue took so long to be resolved.

The Exchequer Secretary recognised members’ concerns and said that due to a number of administrative complexities this measure could not be implemented sooner.

Clauses 26 was agreed.

Sitting Two – Tuesday 16 January (afternoon)

Waste and recycling

Clause 28 increases the lower and standard rates of landfill tax from 1 April 2024.

Clause 29 increases the rate of aggregates levy, including rock, sand and gravel, from 1 April 2024 in line with the retail price index.

Clause 30 increases the rate of the plastic packaging tax from 1 April 2024 in line with the consumer price index.

Clause 27 having been approved in Committee of Whole House, attention at the start of the second session turned to three environmental tax measures.

On landfill tax, Shadow Financial Secretary James Murray said that while Labour does not oppose the clause, it has concerns over the landfill tax gap – the difference between the landfill tax due and the amount collected – which stood at £125 million, or 17.1%, in 2021.

Exchequer Secretary Gareth Davies said the tax gap grew to 18.4% in 2021-22, but HMRC was tackling this through increased data sharing with government agencies and “intelligence-led interventions”. He added: “Clearly, we all agree that we need it to be lower, and I assure him that at HMRC, every effort is being made to tackle the tax gap.” He claimed that, since 2000, landfill tax has contributed to a 90% decrease in local authority waste to landfill in England.

The XST said the aggregates levy encourages the use of recycled aggregate in construction and the changes will ensure that, following a period of rate freezes, the value of this incentive does not fall in real terms.

The Shadow FST questioned why the levy is being raised now, having remained frozen since 2009. The XST responded that the levy had been subject to “ongoing litigation” which made increases “inappropriate”. Following the conclusion of the litigation, and a government review, “now is the appropriate time to increase the tax and return to how it was originally intended: to index it to inflation,” he added.

Murray said Labour support the plastic packaging tax as an “important tool” in tackling plastic pollution. He added it is “important to tackle less sustainable packaging products, including those from overseas”, but raised concerns aired by the British Plastics Federation around the UK’s policy on chemical recycling, which said: “The lack of clarity to date has prevented companies from investing in the UK and some have looked elsewhere to build facilities.”

The XST replied that while chemical recycling is “a legitimate form of reprocessing plastic waste”, it is “not currently possible for businesses to use chemically recycled plastic in packaging and claim a relief from the tax”. He added that a plan to evaluate the tax will be carried out to 2026, adding that the government “engages very closely and extensively with industry ahead of fiscal events”.

Clauses 28, 29 and 30 were agreed.

HMRC data and late filing penalties

Clause 35 enables HMRC to collect more accurate and timely data, in order to improve accuracy and compliance. Specifically it requires (1) employers to provide information on employee hours via RTI PAYE reporting; (2) shareholders in owner-managed businesses to the provide amount of dividend income received from their own companies separately to other dividend income, and the percentage share they hold in their own companies via their SA return; (3) self-employed people to provide information on the start and end dates of self-employment via their SA return.

Clause 36 introduces a new simplified penalty system for late submission of tax returns and late payments of tax, for taxpayers who voluntarily join Making Tax Digital for income tax self-assessment from 6 April 2024.

Clauses 31-34 deal with avoidance and evasion measures and were debated in Committee of Whole House. The committee therefore turned next to two measures related to the administration of the tax system.

The Shadow FST said that clause 35 represents a “significant change” and will incur “large costs” for businesses, including a one-off cost of £44 million and ongoing annual administrative burden of £9.6 million. He added: “The Chartered Institute of Taxation has conveyed its concerns that it seems unrealistic that the average transitional costs to businesses of providing the data on employee hours will be just £18.42.”

Murray also questioned whether the legislation provides “appropriate authorisation” for the data required, as, for example, hours worked by employees are not currently required for the collection and management of tax.

Financial Secretary Nigel Huddleston responded: “No one wants to put a disproportionate administrative burden on businesses, but we see an upside to asking for the information.”

He admitted that the total estimated one-off cost to businesses for hours-worked data is about £35 million, and £9 million for dividends, but said subsequent ongoing costs will be “negligible”.

The FST said the government “listened carefully” to the views expressed in public consultations, resulting in it “narrowing down” the number of data items it will collect from six to three. “This approach will minimise any additional administrative burdens,” he argued, adding that the government “are collecting improved data only in areas where taxpayers already hold it or already provide it voluntarily through the tax system”.  “We expect and anticipate that we will need to learn from this experience, but going through that voluntary step first seems like a good process.”

On clause 36, the FST said the new system “penalises those who persistently fail to submit returns or pay tax on time, while being more lenient on those who make occasional mistakes”.

The Shadow FST said there were wider concerns over the likelihood of Making Tax Digital being delivered in April 2026, and asked his opposite number for reassurance.

Clauses 35 and 36 were approved.

Administrative

Clauses 37 and 38 set out the Bill’s legal interpretation and short title.

Clauses 37 and 38 were approved without discussion.

Net Zero

New Clause 1 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on the Government's ability to meet its Net Zero by 2050 pledge and its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

Proposing this new clause, SNP spokesperson Drew Hendry said despite the “climate emergency”, the government “do not take their published climate ambitions seriously”, resulting in investment in renewables in the UK dropping to 4.45%, compared with almost 10% worldwide. “The UK cannot keep delaying and muddying the rising waters on climate change,” he added.

The FST said the government is “fully committed” to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, adding that the Autumn Statement delivered measures to allow more investment, such as permanent full expensing for plant and machinery investments, accelerating grid connections, and reforming planning.

The clause was defeated 9-2 in a vote.

Cost of living

New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on public finances and the cost of living crisis.

Proposing this new clause, Drew Hendry criticised the Bill for missing measures that provide “help for those struggling families”, such as energy rebates and scrapping the two-child limit. He added: “We believe that it is incumbent on the government to report on the measures that they are taking and how they are affecting the cost of living, particularly in relation to rising household costs.”

The FST said “numerous” government departments already have mechanisms in place to “systematically monitor and evaluate the impact of government policy on public finances and households across the UK”, making the proposed new clause “redundant”.

He added that, since 2010, the Treasury has published an “impact on households” report at major fiscal events, to scrutinise the impact of measures on personal finances.

This clause was also defeated 9-2.

Healthcare and inequality

New clause 3 would compel the Chancellor to assess the impacts of the Finance Bill on poverty, inequality, and health and healthcare demand across the UK, and to lay a report before the House within six months of Royal Assent.

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, a former public health consultant, said the clause would “tackle health inequalities” and increase transparency in how policy affects healthcare and inequality.

“We are experiencing one of the biggest health divides since 1980,” she added, with research suggesting divides in health between rich and poor, men and women and even the north and south of the UK.

Abrahams said: “To date, I have seen no evidence that policymakers are taking this issue on board and learning these lessons.”

The FST said while he “completely understands the intent” of the clause, there are once again existing mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate the impact of government policy on public health inequality and poverty.

He added: “The Treasury carefully considers the impact of its decisions on those sharing protected characteristics, in line with both our legal obligations and our strong commitment to providing fairness. We go beyond our legal requirements by publishing a summary of equality impacts for tax measures within the tax information and impact notes alongside the Finance Bill.”

The clause was withdrawn.

Read the full debate at first and second sittings.

The Bill has now cleared its committee stage and will progress to report stage on the floor of the House of Commons, on a date yet to be set at time of writing.