Commons Chamber

Tuesday 28th October 2025

(began 3 hours, 25 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. For a second. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And can I join you in the tribute and
11:35
11:36
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that the United Arab Emirates is arming the RSF in Sudan. The RSF is one of the two warring factions in Sudan, and was found by the UN to be responsible for crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, enslavement, rape and sexual violence. As per UK government export data, the UK exported nearly three quarters of £1 billion worth of arms to the UAE by a single export individual export licence between 2019 and 2023. If the UAE is indeed arming the RSF, the UK is breaching its arms export licensing criteria, specifically criteria one, two, four, six and seven.

Importantly, these criteria look beyond considering whether the UK exported weapons ultimately reached Sudan. They instead consider the UK's international obligations. Given this, what steps does the UK government taking to verify whether the UAE is indeed arming the RSF and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, please? It's a very important subject. As other members need to come in as well, they're need to come in as well, they're meant to be questions rather than statements. I recognise the importance. I'm sure you're going to come to the end of the question now, please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, please. Apologies, Mr. Speaker. Whether the UAE is arming the RSF, and will the UK cease all arms shipments to the UK cease all arms shipments to the UAE until it is proven that the UAE is not arming the RSF?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UAE is not arming the RSF? Let me make two points in response to his question. First of all, as he will know, the UK has
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
None Portrait Q2. What steps her Department is taking to support the Gaza peace plan. (906037)
-

Jacob Collier two. Mr.
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK Foreign Secretary. Well, as I have been clear, that the future of Palestine needs to include the West Bank, East include the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. We have always strongly condemned any proposals around the annexation of the West Bank, but also illegal settlements in the West Bank, and it is significant that not only Secretary of State Rubio, but also President Trump and Vice President Vance have all made clear their condemnation of the proposals for the annexation of the West Bank in order to have security and peace for Israelis, alongside security of peace for Palestinians.

We need ultimately to work towards that two state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

solution, two states living side by side. Patrick Hurley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question three Mr. Speaker. Foreign you. Mr. speaker, on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foreign you. Mr. speaker, on Friday, I welcomed President Zelensky and the coalition of the willing to the Foreign Office to a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister to demonstrate our continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. the face of Russian aggression. Since I set out in this House, new, stronger sanctions against the two largest oil producers, Rosneft and largest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, I'm pleased to say the US has followed suit. The EU has also introduced further sanctions.

We introduced further sanctions. We need to tighten the economic vice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to tighten the economic vice on Russia to bring Putin to the table and get a pathway to peace. Early. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I welcome the UK's
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
None Portrait Q4. What assessment she has made of the level of threat China poses to UK interests. (906039)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. From large. Or one second.
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:05
12:05
12:06
None Portrait Q6. What steps she is taking to promote a Palestinian State. (906042)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. The UK's commitment. To a two. State solution.
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
None Portrait Q9. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking with international partners to help tackle organised immigration crime. (906045)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we know that, of course, people smuggling gangs work across borders
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
None Portrait Q10. What steps her Department is taking to provide sustainable funding for the BBC World Service. (906047)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. Minister. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. The BBC World Service remains the world's most trusted international news source and
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:16
None Portrait Q11. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. (906048)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

All of us. Mr. speaker. Mr.
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
None Portrait Q12. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago will come from her Department’s budget. (906049)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us Jack Rankin. Number 12, please, sir. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we have secured a deal that
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
None Portrait Topical questions: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker. A mr. speaker, Hurricane Melissa
12:21
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

A mr. speaker, Hurricane Melissa is expected to make landfall in Jamaica shortly. Potentially the Jamaica shortly. Potentially the most severe storm ever to hit the country. Sadly, seven people have already reportedly lost their lives across the region and thousands are in shelters now as they wait the storm's arrival. Many people will be thinking of family and friends in Jamaica and in the region. I spoke with the Jamaican foreign minister yesterday to offer the UK's full support and solidarity, and we are prepared to mobilise resources at their request, and the Fcdo stands ready to help British nationals 24 over seven.

We have set up the crisis centre in the Foreign Office, including with support from the Mod, and that also we are also positioning specialist rapid deployment teams to provide consular assistance to British nationals in the region. Any British nationals who are there should follow our travel advice and the advice of the Jamaican authorities. We are closely monitoring the hurricane's path. Melissa is forecast to impact Cuba next and potentially the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Bahamas. Ministers have spoken with the governors of the overseas territories in the region, and we hope that these islands are spared significant damage.

The UK government is also preparing to deliver humanitarian assistance to affected areas, with a focus on meeting the immediate needs of those who are most vulnerable. And we send the people of Jamaica our support and solidarity. Today.
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:50
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: Opposition Day (11th allotted day). Debate on a Motion in the name of the Official Opposition. Subject to be announced
-

motion on stamp duty land tax. I inform the House that I have not selected the amendments. I now call Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride to move the motion.
12:50
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper. Mr. speaker, there comes a time in the careers of some in this House when they stand too close to the edge, when they play with fire, when they fly too close to the sun, and to continue in that astronomical metaphor. We have a Chancellor who has truly thrown herself headlong into a colossal black hole entirely of her making. The Chancellor, Mr.

Speaker, has trashed our economy, and she will blame anybody but herself. The OBR, the legacy, the Conservative Party, Donald Trump, Brexit, whatever it is, as long as it is not herself. And yet we on this side of the House know the clear truth. We know exactly what has happened to our economy. We know that we had a government that, when it was in opposition, said that there was no way they would be putting up taxes left, right and centre.

And yet within a few short months they had done precisely that, layering up taxes on businesses, destroying growth at the same time as talking down our economy. The fictitious £22 billion black hole, which, ironically, was debunked as not legitimised by the OBR at the behest of the party opposite themselves. We know that this party has borrowed, borrowed colossal amounts of money, is due to be spending around half £1 trillion more than the plans that they inherited. And what has been the consequence of that, Mr.

Speaker? It has been elevated inflation. We now have the highest inflation in the G7. The IMF tells us that next year we will once again have the highest inflation in the G7. And the consequences of that through monetary policy, of course, are that interest rates will be higher for longer, bearing down on those who have mortgages, businesses who wish to borrow. And critically, I will in a moment. Critically, when it comes to our burgeoning national debt, which is soaring under this government, the costs of servicing that debt are now running at 100 billion a year, rising to 130 billion across this Parliament.

That is twice what we spend on defence. Indeed, if government servicing of our debt was a a department of government, it would be the third largest in Whitehall. And none of that money, Mr. speaker, is going on public services. It is simply going to pay off the creditors who are owed money as a consequence of the profligacy of the party opposite. And I give way to the honourable lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. honourable gentleman for giving way. And would he agree with me that Liz Truss's disastrous mini-budget impacted on working families up and down this country with astronomical down this country with astronomical mortgage interest rates that they're still struggling to fund at this point in time?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this point in time? I think, Mr. Speaker, we'll take no lessons from the party opposite when it comes to the mismanagement when it comes to the mismanagement of our economy. What I have just set out has led to a Chancellor that had a budget back in the that had a budget back in the October of last year, in which she blew all the headroom and more, rebuilt it in the spring, and is rebuilt it in the spring, and is now, as we all know, heading into this budget on the 26th of November, with a gaping black hole that she with a gaping black hole that she will have to fill.

That is due to economic incompetence and it is causing huge uncertainty. Mr. causing huge uncertainty. Mr. speaker, I speak to businesses up and down the country. None of them know what to expect. They're all know what to expect. They're all fearful about the tax rises that are yet to come, and that is down to this Chancellor. And what are the consequences? The consequences are that we have the highest level are that we have the highest level of unemployment in four years, and just with every other Labour government, we always know in history, they leave office with unemployment higher than that which it was when they came into office in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector alone, 90,000 jobs have been destroyed under this government.

Young people bearing the brunt of these policies under us. Mr. speaker, youth unemployment fell by around 45% under the last Labour government. It rose by around the same amount and this government is on course to do that. And young people are particularly I will in a moment. Young people are particularly affected, of course, because the National Insurance changes are not just an increase in the rate, they're a reduction in the threshold. And that affects young people desperate to get their first job.

That foot on the career ladder the most. And I give way to my right honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm really grateful to my right honourable friend for giving way, and does he agree with me that in such a short period of me that in such a short period of time, what the opposite benches are showing out that it's they that cannot be trusted with the economy cannot be trusted with the economy and the future of this country? And it's time they woke up to the reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reality. Yeah, yeah. My right honourable friend is absolutely right, Mr. speaker. We see it in inflation. speaker. We see it in inflation. Inflation running at twice the Bank of England's target or thereabouts twice or thereabouts that they twice or thereabouts that they inherited under us on the day of the general election. And within that food inflation rocketing up at that food inflation rocketing up at over 4%, damaging and impoverishing the very people that that party the very people that that party opposite claims to want to stand up for, and can I, I will give way to my right hon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

my right hon. Friend. Does he agree with me that we also see it in hypocrisy? For example, Cabinet ministers who For example, Cabinet ministers who say build, baby, build, whilst at the same time writing letters to the same time writing letters to the Mayor of London, trying to block homes in their own constituency. Yeah, very good point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency. Yeah, very good point. Mel Stride. The right hon. Gentleman makes, as usual, a characteristically poignant point. characteristically poignant point. There is another act of damage that this government has created, and that is that some of the most successful, high net worth wealth creators in our country have simply gone. They've left. It's estimated 16,000 have gone over the time that this government has been in office. Socialists will say, who cares? Good riddance. But they should dwell on this.

The tax paid by that 16,000 is probably equivalent to between a third and half a million people on average earnings. Hard working people up and down our country, paying the price of Labour's policies. Mr. speaker, there are choices here. It does not have to be like this. We can actually reduce taxes if we get on top and control government spending. My party conference, we set out £47 billion of savings across government, including £23 billion and savings across the welfare budget.

What did the government do when they came to try to tackle the welfare budget? They showed us that this is a Dad's Army of a government, with a Captain Mainwaring of a Chancellor. No match, even for the rabble behind them. We know that we need to have responsible tax cuts, Mr. Speaker. That means they need to be funded and they need to lean into growth. And that is why we have announced that we in government, we would be abolishing stamp duty on primary residences.

This is one of the worst taxes in our tax system. The OBR states that a 1% increase in stamp duty will lead to between a 5 to 7% decrease in the number of transactions. And yet on this government's watch, the stamp duty due on a home valued at £300,000, will have doubled during their time in office. And I will certainly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to I'll give way to the my right honourable friend. I'd like to thank the Shadow Chancellor for giving way, and he's Chancellor for giving way, and he's making a very powerful speech. And is he aware that recently in the Treasury Select Committee, we were Treasury Select Committee, we were given evidence by a range of tax specialists, all of whom endorsed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

abolishing stamp duty? Yes. And can I thank my right honourable friend, for the excellent work that she's been doing on the committee, particularly when she chaired that committee in the last Parliament. committee in the last Parliament. So, Mr. Speaker, I will give way to my I'm very grateful to my right honourable friend, for the way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable friend, for the way. government. Is not only taxing young people's jobs. It's also taxing young. People's chances of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People's chances of. Owning a home by increasing stamp duty. Its increase, rumoured

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stamp duty. Its increase, rumoured on the capital gains on principal private residences. My right honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend is absolutely right. The reason why we need to abolish this tax, Mr. Speaker, includes the fact that it stands in the way of younger people getting onto the housing ladder. It gums up, to use the words of Paul gums up, to use the words of Paul Johnson, the entire system of House purchasing in our country. In fact, purchasing in our country. In fact, he said, and I quote, stamp duty may look like a taxation on wealthy people who move House, but it also acts to reduce effective supply for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone. And that includes first time buyers. I give way to my honourable friend. I thank my Honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Honourable friend for making an excellent speech to agree with me that it also comes up mobility so that people are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to move as they lose their job. Under this Labour government, it makes it more expensive for them to move House to find another. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My honourable friend makes exactly the right point. It does exactly that. It stops people moving to where the work is to get better jobs to further themselves. Who wants to move to one place, pay Who wants to move to one place, pay stamp duty, then move to another to pay more stamp duty, to move to another? To pay more stamp? It does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not add up and I will give way to my hon. Friend, I'm. Grateful to the Shadow Chancellor for his point. Is he Chancellor for his point. Is he aware of the study done by Jackson-stops, who looked at people who are 55 and over to see how much abolishing stamp duty would help move the market along, and that in its estimate, within the first year, that would be 500,000 people, second year, 1.4 million people. So significantly, allowing people who significantly, allowing people who want to downsize to provide more homes for their families while freeing them up, this is a real blocker.

Does he agree with me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

blocker. Does he agree with me that that study is really useful to show the power of this policy would have? My honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is absolutely right. Look, this is a block of Mr. Speaker on the aspirations of families who are growing, their families, who simply want to find a home with more bedrooms within it. And they can't find those homes, often because empty nesters, those for whom the children have left home, are not prepared to face the huge, eye watering stamp duty that is involved. And the other I give way to the honourable gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. But is the reality not that the the is the reality not that the the reason why people cannot find homes in England is because his government failed to build them when they were in power.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when they were in power. Well, Mr. Speaker, we we built 2.8 million homes since 2010 and a 2.8 million homes since 2010 and a million in the last Parliament. It remains to be seen how many homes this government actually build. But this government actually build. But can I say, Mr. Speaker, another huge advantage of abolishing this huge advantage of abolishing this tax is it will generate more transactions, which means more plumbers, electricians, more builders, designers, more estate builders, designers, more estate agents, surveyors and conveyancing.

Us actually getting to benefit and Us actually getting to benefit and local economies thriving. Above all, Mr. speaker, abolishing this tax Mr. speaker, abolishing this tax increases the effective supply of housing, and that means a fairer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society and a stronger economy. And I give way to the honourable gentleman. Very grateful to the honourable gentleman giving way. He talks gentleman giving way. He talks about the huge advantages. Is the Shadow Chancellor aware that if you own a home worth £2 million, under own a home worth £2 million, under his proposals, you will be benefiting to the tune of £150,000. This is a tax cut for millionaires,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a tax cut for millionaires, wants? Well, I've already appraised the honourable gentleman the fact that on his watch, 16,000 high net worth people have left this country to the detriment of our economy. And you cannot tax your way to growth. And we have to abolish this tax right across the piece that is recognised, that is recognised by think tanks right across the political spectrum. Indeed the Institute I will momentarily the Institute of Economic Affairs says abolishing stamp duty is the single best reform that any government could make to Britain's tax system.

But the Resolution Foundation, which may be more to the taste of the the honourable gentlemen and women opposite, says of stamp duty it is, and I quote, one of the most economically harmful ways of raising revenue. That's a simple fact. And I give way to to my honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Shadow Chancellor for giving way. Will you also accept the fact is, now that also accept the fact is, now that the housing market is virtually stagnant, moribund, and the houses and flats that we want to see built and flats that we want to see built in this country are not being built. But one of the barriers is because the cost of stamp duty is so high

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the cost of stamp duty is so high it. My honourable friend is absolutely right. I've already set absolutely right. I've already set out the figures from the OBR. The estimate that a 1% increase in stamp duty means a 5 to 7% stamp duty means a 5 to 7% reduction in transactions. It is a horrendous and terrible tax, and it remains to be seen later whether the members opposite choose to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the members opposite choose to hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor has been extremely generous, allowing me to intervene. I was just me to intervene. I was just reflecting on the point made by the member opposite. He talks about millionaires getting a tax cut. We're talking about young families getting on. Does he agree with me that while they engage, while they engage in the politics of envy, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

engage in the politics of envy, we will always engage in the politics of hope? Yes, absolutely. My honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, absolutely. My honourable friend is absolutely right. And as Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, says, and I quoted it earlier, it's important and then in quotes that this will reduce the effective supply. It also acts to reduce this tax, the effective supply for everyone right across every age, right across every income section of the income scale. So if only Parliament, though, and the Secretary to the parliamentary Secretary who I see is not in his place, he's a former director of the Resolution Foundation, could show at least some backbone and at least agree with his former self.

And the quote that I read out from the Resolution Foundation, the facts are, Mr. Speaker, they're very clear that the government should support this motion today if it believes in growth, if it believes in a fairer society, and if it believes in a stronger economy. So, Mr. Speaker, as we approach this budget through a period of great uncertainty, The Chancellor faces a clear choice, a choice between still higher taxes or controlling spending and getting taxes down between continued anaemic growth or getting the size of the government under control.

Between continued anaemic growth and getting it under control, between jobs destroyed or getting people off benefits and into work. Between doing the right thing for our country or simply ducking the challenge, we on this side of the House know what must be done, even at this late stage, to save our economy. Perhaps even The Chancellor herself knows deep in her heart that we are right. Yet is it not the truth, Mr. Speaker, that faced with a serried ranks of obstinate delusion arrayed behind her, she is just too weak to act? No plan, no backbone.

No wonder under this government we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

staring into the abyss. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is on the Order Paper. I now call the Chief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary James Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And may I also thank the right honourable gentleman for Central honourable gentleman for Central Devon for opening this day's debate with characteristic theatricality in his remarks so far. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite are desperate to forget their time in office. They are their time in office. They are desperate for all of us to forget the damage that they caused to the economy and to public services on economy and to public services on their watch.

But surely, Mr. Speaker, they cannot have forgotten how the budget process works. And how the budget process works. And so they will know that no Treasury ministers, particularly in the weeks immediately before a budget, weeks immediately before a budget, will speculate on tax changes. Any decisions on tax will be taken at the budget by The Chancellor in the usual way. I see surprised faces on the bench opposite, but I remind you this is how the budget process you this is how the budget process works.

As Honourable and Right Honourable members opposite will know, the OBR produces a forecast. The Chancellor will take decisions in the round based on that forecast. When she presents the budget to this House on November the 26th. this House on November the 26th. But, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding those limitations on what I or indeed any minister can say, I will
13:08
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
seek to address some of the ideas that this motion tries to raise. that this motion tries to raise. And so, first, let's be honest, stamp duty is hardly a popular tax. Moving House. Buying a home is a Moving House. Buying a home is a complex, often stressful process. Stamp duty has to be paid at a point when most people feel they point when most people feel they probably have enough to worry about already. If there was a cost free way to get rid of stamp duty, I way to get rid of stamp duty, I would not expect long queues of people lining up to keep it.

But there is of course no cost free way there is of course no cost free way of doing this. Figures show that it of doing this. Figures show that it raised £13.9 billion in 2425. And of course, at this government's first budget, we made changes to stamp duty to help give first home buyers duty to help give first home buyers and other people buying a home to live in an advantage over those buying second home, third homes and buying second home, third homes and more.

And so if an opposition party is going to propose getting rid of a tax that raises nearly £14 billion a tax that raises nearly £14 billion a year, they need to have a plan for doing so. Because being a for doing so. Because being a credible opposition means proposing things that could actually work. Mr. speaker, and frankly, this Mr. speaker, and frankly, this motion exposes the total lack of seriousness of the current Conservative Party. It exposes Conservative Party. It exposes their complete failure to learn any of the lessons of their time in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

office. I'll give way. I'll give way. To the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He indicated that if giving way. He indicated that if there was a plan to fund this, he would back it. The Shadow Chancellor has clearly set out. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do have a plan to fund it. So will we back it? Yeah. Get on with it. Mr. speaker. The Right Honourable lady is having an Honourable lady is having an attempt at humour in the chamber by pretending there is some kind of a plan from the party opposite for what they're proposing to do. I think to call it half baked is not really going far enough when talking about the motion that they talking about the motion that they put forward today.

And in fact, Mr. Speaker, what their motion put forward today shows the recklessness which the party recklessness which the party opposite has when they approach the economy. It may be Halloween on Friday, Mr. Speaker, but the ghost Friday, Mr. Speaker, but the ghost of Liz Truss is here today because the economic recklessness that the the economic recklessness that the former Prime Minister embodied is back in front of us in this chamber today. We have a half baked motion, today. We have a half baked motion, a half baked motion from the party opposite, built on the wholly unworkable premise of more unfunded unworkable premise of more unfunded tax cuts.

Three years on from their disastrous mini-budget. They have learned precisely nothing. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

learned precisely nothing. I will be interested to see the gentleman's link. I'd be very interested, Mr. Speaker, in what the Minister Speaker, in what the Minister intends to do to UN gum the housing market. I think he'll accept it's an important part of our economy. He says he's very keen on growth. So what will he do to un gum it? And what does he say to those legions of trades electricians, plumbers, kitchen fitters who are all looking to the government to provide them with some relief in the months ahead? Yeah.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I would say to everyone who works in building homes that we are the party who are getting on with building. We are getting on with building. We are the party who are making those changes to the planning system to get those homes built. And I get those homes built. And I noticed I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not address, despite his attempt to make a link to my his attempt to make a link to my previous comments, the fact that this motion is entirely half baked.

And I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine shame for British politics that we have an opposition who thinks they can put forward a motion like this for serious debate motion like this for serious debate in the House of Commons, because the party opposite. To be fair, Mr. Speaker, is steeped in centuries of opposition and government, but they have become deeply unserious by putting forward motions like this today. Their motion, Mr. Speaker, today. Their motion, Mr. Speaker, their motion on the Order Paper today simply says that their plan to abolish stamp duty is to reduce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to abolish stamp duty is to reduce public expenditure. That is it. That is the sum of their plan. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. My right honourable friend for giving way. He's absolutely right to say that the opposition have not to say that the opposition have not been clear about how they would fund this tax cut, but there are fund this tax cut, but there are there are some clues. The shadow chief secretary to the Treasury told a fringe event at Tory party conference that we should look at the Australian system of state pension and, in his words, essentially a means tested state pension.

Does my right honourable friend share my concern that under the Tories, the state pension is under threat?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Done. Well, my honourable friend is absolutely right to point out the state pension is under threat. the state pension is under threat. If the party opposite were to win the next general election. And in fact, my honourable friend is also fact, my honourable friend is also right to draw the House's attention to comments that the party opposite made at their party conference, because they may think people are because they may think people are not watching what they say in those fringe meetings at their party conference, but we do get it reported.

So we know exactly what reported. So we know exactly what they've said, and we know that their recent party conference, they think they can find some £47 billion Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman, through cuts to public spending. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look let's look at the detail. Let's look at the detail in this, shall we? Because at least half of these fantasy savings come from a welfare fantasy savings come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices, a list of measures that they say would raise £23 billion in they say would raise £23 billion in total, but with no breakdown of how whatsoever.

Now, in June of this whatsoever. Now, in June of this year, just as they were on their way out of Downing Street, they said they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they've doubled it without explanation. And frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the right frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Member for Central Devon thinks he has any credibility on this matter at all, he is sadly mistaken. He is far from the best mistaken. He is far from the best person to be making this argument, given the fact that he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefit spending in decades during his time as the Work and Pensions Secretary.

I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I don't think he's in any position to lecture on reducing the position to lecture on reducing the size of the state, given that when Labour attempted to reduce the welfare Bill, they marched all of welfare Bill, they marched all of their MPs up the hill to march them down again when they buckled under the pressure coming from his own backbenchers. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backbenchers. Yes. Mr. Speaker, as members on all sides of this House will know, we are determined to get people back into work because that is the way into work because that is the way to bring the welfare rolls down. That is the way to bring the benefits bill down, and that is the benefits bill down, and that is the way to make people better off. What is not the right thing to do for this country, Mr. Speaker, is to follow their plans of £47 billion of cuts for which they have no plan, and would represent nothing less than a return to austerity.

Mr. than a return to austerity. Mr. speaker, because their £47 billion of cuts, if they were to come from public services, if they were to public services, if they were to come from cuts to public services, that would mean 85,700 fewer nurses. It would mean cutting every police It would mean cutting every police officer in the country twice, and it would mean cutting the entire it would mean cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, Mr. Speaker, none of that detail is in their motion today.

And this is a their motion today. And this is a shame for British politics. As I said, Mr. Speaker, because with their long history, they really their long history, they really should know better were it to be the Greens or applied or reform proposing policies with little regard for the consequences. I would not be surprised because they've never had a chance to implement them. But frankly, to see the party who were in charge for 14 years acting just as recklessly as they are, shows just how far they have fallen.

On that note.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the minister, who's always generous and always has a smile, which is a welcome has a smile, which is a welcome thing in this chamber. The government spending this year's government spending this year's approaching £1,300 billion, I think, and the party opposite couldn't save five because of the people sitting behind the minister. Is it his complete failure to make even his complete failure to make even the smallest savings on that monumental budget that makes him find it impossible to believe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

find it impossible to believe others would have the will to do so? Mr. speaker. Mr. speaker, what I find impossible to believe from the party opposite is we now have a shadow Chancellor claiming to have a plan for a £23 billion of welfare cuts when when he himself was the work and pensions secretary, he presided over the biggest increase presided over the biggest increase in welfare spending in decades. That is a record which gives him no credibility whatsoever in this debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in their motion, the conservatives also claim that they want to get Britain working, grow the economy and give people a stronger stake in their communities. And yet they spend communities. And yet they spend their whole time trying to claim that Britain is broken. They have joined the ranks of those trying to joined the ranks of those trying to co-opt our flag for their own ends by claiming it is in tatters. And I cannot believe that so many who claim to be proud of our country are so willing to talk it down.

Mr. speaker, our country is not broken. We are a great country filled with great people and great businesses, willing to roll up our sleeves and work together for a greater future. But it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that many people across our country feel stuck. Under the last government, our economy stalled, our public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

services were starved and opportunities dried up. way. He's always very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's always very. Generous with his time, and I'm always smiling in the chamber as the member opposite will know. There seems to be a collective amnesia from the benches opposite. Can he remind me whether the national debt went up or down under the last government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the last government? Well, my hon. My honourable friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the record of the attention to the record of the party opposite. I think in 2010, the national debt was about 67% of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

GDP. It was about 100% by the time they left office. The two sideline conversations, I can't hear the minister and I can't hear the minister and everybody wants to hear the minister, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister, but. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was I was confirming what I think everyone in this chamber knows of how bad the previous government's how bad the previous government's record in office was when it comes to the economy, and we know why that record was so bad, and it was that record was so bad, and it was because the previous ministers failed to invest. When we know that investment is the fuel for our economic engine, and that is why we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic engine, and that is why we are taking a different approach. I'll give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. Just on helping ministers with amnesia. Does he acknowledge that there was a pandemic and that required huge amounts of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

required huge amounts of intervention, or is this is his claim that he would have not supported so many people during that period? He voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For it. Speaking of amnesia, a lot of people on that side forget Liz Truss, and they're not very Truss, and they're not very prepared to talk about the impact that she had. And we know, we know and we know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we know. Speaking of amnesia, speaking of amnesia, Mr. Speaker, would the amnesia, Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. Gentleman like to remind the House what the deficit was in 2010 when we first formed a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2010 when we first formed a government? Mr. speaker, that's right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, that's right. Were you born at that time?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Were you born at that time? Mr. speaker, I was. I was, I was I was definitely born at that time. I was definitely born at that time. Mr. speaker, I do my maths there very rapidly, but I can be confident in saying that. I think confident in saying that. I think I've quite lost my way now after that intervention from the speaker. Mr. speaker, but let me, let me, let me just return to the main thrust of the argument that I was making a few moments ago, which is making a few moments ago, which is to which is to which is to make the point that our approach as a government is a serious government government is a serious government who is a serious partner for the private sector.

And that is why we're investing in things that will get our country moving again. Now, get our country moving again. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is early days and the damage the Tories did will take time to unpick and there will, of course, be more difficult decisions ahead. But since we came to power, this government has announced £250 billion of new investment commitments, creating tens of thousands of jobs. The Bank of England has cut interest rates five times so that if you are on a tracker mortgage of just over £200,000, you are already around £10 a month better off.

We have cut red tape and changed planning regulations so that we can deliver 1.5 million new homes. Over the course of this Parliament, we have acted to accelerate the construction of nearly 100,000 new homes which have previously stuck. We were the fastest growing G7 economy in the first half of this year, and most telling of all since the general election. Real wages have risen by more than they did in the first ten years of the Conservative government. Mr. speaker, the answer to the nation's challenges from the conservatives are always the same, and they are austerity.

They want to cut spending, increase debt and accept decline. And in contrast, we will never accept austerity and we will never gamble with the public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finances. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. Another term for giving way. Another term for austerity is living within your means. That's what the British public understand. That's the point we're trying to make here. And when difficult decisions need to be made difficult decisions need to be made by the other side, they fallen short. So could he explain why the government isn't living within its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government isn't living within its means? Hear, hear! Mr. speaker, as the honourable gentleman will know, the Chancellor's fiscal rules say that day to day spending must be paid for through tax receipts. That is a definition of living within your definition of living within your means. And those fiscal rules were met at the first budget last year at the Spring Statement this year. And they are an ironclad commitment And they are an ironclad commitment that we will continue to meet those fiscal rules at the autumn budget coming up next month, Mr.

Speaker. coming up next month, Mr. Speaker. Those fiscal rules underpin our our approach to the economy and our approach to a stronger public approach to a stronger public finances because we know that fiscal responsibility, which the previous government abandoned, underpin a stable economy. We need underpin a stable economy. We need to secure our country's renewal through that public and private investment. We want to secure investment. We want to secure rising wages, support for businesses, more jobs, more homes and more opportunities in every and more opportunities in every corner of our country.

Mr. speaker, the motion brought before this House today simply is not serious. It is an admission from the members opposite that after years in power and countless opportunities to reflect and learn from their mistakes, all they can come up with is the same failed solution more unfunded tax cuts, more cuts to public services, more failure to invest, more austerity and more pain for the British people. And that is what will keep them on the opposite benches for a very long time.

On this side of the House, we reject their recklessness, we reject their lack of ambition for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our country, and we reject this motion today. Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrat spokesperson. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Our tax system is. A mess. It's complicated and unfair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's complicated and unfair. It's riddled with cliff edges that distort behaviours and create inequities. And there are exemptions that haven't been exemptions that haven't been reviewed for years. Council tax is outdated and hated. Inheritance Tax outdated and hated. Inheritance Tax and capital gains allow the super wealthy to exploit loopholes, whilst whilst the squeezed middle picks up the tab. Business rates are a tax on bricks and mortar which penalises our high streets, whilst online giants corner more whilst online giants corner more and more of the market.

Ir35 is a sledgehammer to crack a nut for contractors and R&D tax credits are in such a muddle it's triggering lots of disputes, even for legitimate claims. Madam Deputy legitimate claims. Madam Deputy Speaker, when any one of these is tweaked, it causes problems elsewhere. And what we see time and elsewhere. And what we see time and again is that when people want to do the right thing, they want to pay the right amount of tax and
13:22
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
pay the right amount of tax and query a tax issue. They call HMRC, only to have the call handler hang up or contact the VOA and have to spend money on expensive third party who specialises in disputes. Stamp duty too. Madam Deputy Speaker has all the hallmarks of a bad tax. It is a transaction tax. It is an extra cost that stops people from moving. They might want to move, to start a family, to take up a new job, or to take on caring responsibilities.

It stops people from getting on the housing ladder, from upsizing and sometimes downsizing to it gums up the housing market. In a country where we simply cannot afford for that to happen. It does disincentivise people from moving, and it holds

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back a dynamic economy. On that. Point, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson making some excellent points. Therefore, will she be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting the motion today? No, for all the reasons I. Never stop. The garden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The garden. So here's the rub. You are a fraction too early. It costs. It fraction too early. It costs. It raises a lot of money. And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is Madam Deputy Speaker, that is presumably why the conservatives didn't seek to scrap it at any point during all their years in point during all their years in power. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker for primary residences, stamp duty from primary residences in England from primary residences in England and Northern Ireland raises around £4 billion in 20 2324.

And it £4 billion in 20 2324. And it suggests that it will. There will be a cost of 9 billion. It will be a cost of 9 billion. It will raise 9,000,000,000 in 2029 2029 to 30. The IFS estimates that the cost 30. The IFS estimates that the cost in 20 2930 is around £11 billion, with the additional costs in Scotland and Wales taken into Scotland and Wales taken into account. That means, Madam Deputy Speaker, that abolishing stamp duty Speaker, that abolishing stamp duty on primary residences would cost in the region of 36 to £44 billion in total over the next five years.

For anybody who isn't keeping up, this is almost the cost of a mini-budget just in slow motion. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Conservative Party says that they want all of those cuts to come from public expenditure, but in this motion, they do not say where it would come from. Well, by my calculations, to make those savings, they could choose to scrap nearly the whole of the Ministry of Justice. Given revelations in recent days about prisoners being let out wrongly. It feels like they may already have done that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, they could instead decide to end all support for farmers by scrapping the entirety of the Defra budget, which should reach £7.4 billion in 2029, including capital. Maybe they would want to do. Well, it doesn't say so in the motion. Maybe they would want to do away with clearing the vast majority of the NHS maintenance backlog, the cost of which would reach it in a single year. Or maybe they would want to scrap the 12 billion a year send budget. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not clear in the in the motion of the opposition party today where those cuts would come from.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a strong case for looking at reforming or scrapping stamp duty altogether alongside other property tax reforms and moving to a land value tax. Indeed, some commentators suggest that scrapping stamp duty and council tax together and phasing in land value over time could be one way to move ahead. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The average price of a property in St Albans is £642,000 a year. in St Albans is £642,000 a year. Under the proposals of her party. How does she think her constituents are going to face paying ever more are going to face paying ever more taxes, either through stamp duty, land tax or the council tax reforms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that she and her colleagues are proposing now. Well, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, I'm not setting out understand, I'm not setting out proposals today. I am commenting on the proposals from his party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So no, I, I. Madam Deputy Speaker, for the record, I outlined that there are some commentators who have been some commentators who have been talking about how to change this. This was not setting out Liberal Democrat policy. I was discussing Democrat policy. I was discussing what some commentators have been pointing towards. Well, I'm sure the next 2 or 3 years, as we get closer to the general election, there'll be very interested to read our tax plans, which are under active consideration.

Madam Deputy active consideration. Madam Deputy Speaker, even if people cannot agree on what should replace it, agree on what should replace it, they can agree on this. If you change one tax on its own in change one tax on its own in isolation, it has knock on negative effects. And far from giving more people the security of home people the security of home ownership, this measure in isolation would make it more out of reach. And how do we know that? Because during the temporary stamp duty holiday in 20 2021, there was a big surge in House prices that had a negative impact on on House buyers.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Conservative Party is truly interested in growing the economy, indeed, if the government is surely they will agree that the best and most immediate way to do that is to reverse the damage of their terrible Brexit deal with Europe. Analysis shows analysis shows, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the government did a better deal with the EU within their own red lines, well, I'll tell them again it would raise an additional £25 billion per year. Madam Deputy Speaker, £25 billion per year.

By unleashing the growth potential of our exporting British businesses. That is the way to grow our economy, to do away with the 2 billion pieces of paperwork that have come in since Brexit. Enough papers that can wrap around the world 15 times and yet they still groan. Madam Deputy Speaker, 15 months ago it seemed as though the conservatives were struggling to adjust to life in opposition. Now it seems to me that they are simply enjoying it far too much. That's precisely why this idea of abolishing stamp duty in isolation and funding it through cuts to public services alone, is fantasy economics and desperate politics.

This announcement at the Conservatives party conference had everything to do with the leader of the opposition keeping herself in post until after May's elections, and nothing to do with making a serious contribution to the debate on tax reform. Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion is unfunded, unserious and not worth the paper it is written on, and that is why we won't be supporting it. Jonathan

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hinder, please. Mr. Speaker, let's cut straight to the point. What we're discussing to the point. What we're discussing today is a Tory plan for tax. Cuts for the better off, with no plan to pay for it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay for it. Yeah. That's what the Tories have chosen to spend their opposition chosen to spend their opposition day on. My constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe are frustrated at the stark regional inequality in our stark regional inequality in our country, which means London and the South East are now, economically speaking, another country speaking, another country altogether. And they lament the lack of public investment in transport, infrastructure and transport, infrastructure and skills that this Labour government is now seeking to put right.

So it's staggering that today the Tories have chosen to propose tax cuts for people buying expensive
13:29
Jonathan Hinder Portrait Jonathan Hinder MP (Pendle and Clitheroe, Labour)
-
-
cuts for people buying expensive homes in London and the South East, further entrenching that regional inequality in the North west. The average House price is about 200,000. In London it's over 550,000. That means that 95% of first time buyers in the North West of England do not pay stamp duty, whereas in London 80% of them do so. Mr. speaker, let's be clear, these are the priorities of the same old Conservative Party that we've always known, prioritising the protection of wealth in the South East above the concerns of constituents like mine.

Where would their proposed spending cuts fall? They don't actually tell us, so we can only assume they would fall on public services in areas like Pendle and Clitheroe. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, sorry. The funny thing is I'm a strong advocate of serious property tax reform, but the Tories aren't proposing to address the most unfair, regressive tax in Britain the council tax, a council tax system that punishes working class people in the North precisely because they live in a poorer area.

Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that someone living in £1 million London townhouse will pay £1,000 less per year in council tax than a constituent of mine living in a House worth 250,000. It bears repeating. £1,000 less if you live in £1 million London townhouse than if you live in a £250,000 House It is outrageous. And if the conservatives were still a serious party, then perhaps they would focus on the council tax, which is so emblematic of the regional inequalities I just mentioned, and these inequalities that have condemned once prosperous regions of the country to steady economic decline.

But they won't, now no long represent regions like mine. Chamber. I can't see a North west Conservative MP, but then that's not so difficult because there are now only three. There are rare species, just as they are in many other regions outside the South East. So the Conservative Party Conservative Party's answer remains the same as it has always been, that growth in the South East will lift up constituencies like mine, make those with wealth wealthier and everyone else will benefit, they say.

But that failed economic thinking has failed. Time and time again. So let me finish by saying I'm going to finish by saying that property taxes in this country do need radical reform, and in that, I hope I can find allies on all sides of this House. We need a more proportional property tax. Yes, but the Tories harebrained idea to scrap stamp duty, a big tax cut for the better off in the South east, with no plan to pay for it while leaving the regressive council tax untouched, is just not serious.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Kit Malthouse. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm very sorry to hear the honourable gentleman's antipathy towards the South East. I can. Assure him it's not reciprocated. Assure him it's not reciprocated. And no doubt the London members who are may or may not be present here will have something to say to him
13:33
Kit Malthouse Portrait Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
will have something to say to him about the wealth or welfare of their residents. Madam Deputy Speaker, since this government was elected, I have often called to mind the famous aphorism uttered by Ronald Reagan about the government's contemplation of the economy. He said they think if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidise it. And it feels to me as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if with housing in particular, we're moving into the third of those phases. And I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm. Afraid, contemplating the fact that with some alarm in chasing their huge housing target, noble their huge housing target, noble though it is and shared by this party, we're about to see enormous subsidies in the budget pumped subsidies in the budget pumped towards the housing market, which is precisely the wrong thing to do, particularly for a government which particularly for a government which is struggling to create growth within the economy. What they seem within the economy. What they seem to have failed to realise is that if you allow capitalism to function, if you allow it to do what it's if you allow it to do what it's supposed to do, it is brilliant at creating abundance.

It has been the single greatest tool for single greatest tool for alleviating poverty across the world that humankind has ever known. And yet here in this country, not just this government, but to my alarm, previous governments over alarm, previous governments over the last 20 years or so have not appreciated the formula of incentives that is required for incentives that is required for capitalism to function, and particularly damaging for it to function or not function as it has function or not function as it has been within the housing market.

And that's particularly salient for the United Kingdom, whose economy is so closely tied to its domestic housing market. If you look at the correlation between the two, it's pretty much 1 to 1. If the housing market is doing well, our economy is doing well and vice versa. And that points to the problem that we face with this particular tax. I just wanted to raise, if I may, a few points, Madam Deputy Speaker, about this motion. I agree entirely with the Shadow Chancellor in his excellent opening speech.

First of all, this is not a tax on wealth or even on property. It's a tax on decision making. It skews people's ability to conduct their life as they wish to, and it deters decisions within the housing market and bungs it up in a way that means it doesn't work for anybody, wherever they sit in the in that market, paying stamp duty or not. Because for capitalism to work for a market to work, there need to be lots and lots of transactions.

There needs to be fluidity, liquidity. That's what achieves a steady price. That's what creates abundance, because people know they can take a risk in a market because they'll find a counterparty. Scarcity is what raises prices. And that's exactly the position we find ourselves in the moment. And penal rates of stamp duty do precisely to the housing market what none of us want them to do, which is that they reward scarcity. They push people into other forms of economic activity and means that they can't fulfil the wishes and aspirations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their family. By all means, I thank you for. Giving way. It's very generous with his time and I agree with him in the housing and I agree with him in the housing market on the importance of creating abundance. Does he therefore think it was wrong for his party and the Prime Minister at his party and the Prime Minister at the time, in the general election, to come to my constituency and to campaign against the new homes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

campaign against the new homes being built there, that we know needs. Hear, hear. Well, look, I was housing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, look, I was housing minister for 12 golden months, during which I'm pleased to say the United Kingdom achieved its highest United Kingdom achieved its highest starts and finishes of housing for ten years either side. And not that that was entirely due to my stewardship, but nevertheless, I'll take the credit. So I'm with him in take the credit. So I'm with him in wanting to encourage the building of a significant number of houses, and I'm very pleased that large numbers are to be built in my constituency, but they have to be built in the right place.

We have to protect our landscape. We have to protect our landscape. We have to protect our countryside and heritage, and we need at the same time to recognise that many of our time to recognise that many of our market towns need to grow and reach sustainable size, so we can have the houses, they just have to be in the right place. And also we have to. I think we'll be able to embrace more housing if somehow embrace more housing if somehow we're able to breach the conspiracy of crap.

Frankly. Excuse my language, Madam Deputy Speaker Chris Webb, but it's just a great way of summing up the fact that we're building terribly, badly designed houses. The conspiracy between planners and the development community to produce ersatz housing across the country, rather than building beautiful designed houses as generations of House builders did before us. It won't come as a surprise to the honourable gentleman that in his constituency, as in mine, the most valuable houses, irrespective of size, are often the oldest houses.

The Victorian houses and even earlier periods Georgian houses that command huge prices because they're seen as desirable because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their beauty. So we can have the houses as long as we put them in Yes. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very. Grateful to my right hon. Friend for. Giving. Way. And this stamp duty. Policy will help.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

help. Lubricate the system. But he's talking about putting the houses in the right place and can. Can you agree with me that this government really does need to follow through on that and put the houses in the right place? They've got to prioritise brownfield sites, and prioritise brownfield sites, and they've got to stop bringing in policies that are going to rip up the green belt, which in in areas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the green belt, which in in areas like mine in Epping Forest represent the heart and lungs of our area. I completely agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with the honourable gentleman and the best people know the best people who can decide where houses should go are decide where houses should go are local people. And that's why for many years I've been a proponent, a strong proponent of neighbourhood strong proponent of neighbourhood planning. It has proven time and time again that neighbourhood planning actually produces more houses than other forms of planning, in particular local plans, something like 15 to 20% more. Because if you get the design right Because if you get the design right and you put power in the hands of local people, they will very often make the right choices, not just for their community, but also for the next generation as well.

The second point I wanted to make was a second point I wanted to make was a point made by the Shadow Chancellor very powerfully, which is that we should recognise that a gummed up housing market and it is stagnating at the moment, really suppresses the supply. And, sorry, the renovation and construction supply chain. When people move House, they invest in redecoration, they invest in extensions, they put a new roof on the House, they build on the side. They do all sorts of things to it that are good and valuable, productive economic activity, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're missing out on at the moment. Yes. Can I commend. Honourable gentleman for what he's saying and commend the he's saying and commend the opposition for bringing forward this proposal? In Northern Ireland, the House prices have risen by 7.7%, the House prices have risen by 7.7%, the highest in all of the United Kingdom. What's happening in my constituency, I suspect in others, is that young people are coming by and saying, I can't get a mortgage, so they need help. I'm hoping that this proposal tonight, brought this proposal tonight, brought forward by the opposition, will be one that can give that hope.

The aspiration that the honourable aspiration that the honourable gentleman refers to, that I have as well. Every person wants to own their own House. This will be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their own House. This will be a method of making sure that the young people have that opportunity. Well, I understand the the honourable gentleman has hope for honourable gentleman has hope for the next generation, and I completely agree with him. As somebody with with three children, somebody with with three children, I hope they get the same housing opportunities and economic opportunities that that I did. Sadly, unfortunately, the way the housing market has gone and is going, it doesn't look to me as if that's going to be the case.

But he makes the point that I made in the opening of my speech very neatly. We've we've come full circle to the extent that to get young people on extent that to get young people on the housing ladder now we want to have a subsidy scheme instead of thinking again about how we can have a market that functions for them, a deregulated free market that allows the houses to be built, that can accommodate young people. We're saying, well, actually what we should do is take tax off them and then give it back to them in the form of housing subsidy, which seems to me nonsensical.

So just back to my point on on supply chain, there are thousands and thousands of small builders around the country desperate for this kind of work and seeing the housing market stagnating and seeing the work reducing. But worse than that, in areas of high property value, what you find is that instead of moving those that do have capital decide to build down or up or out, and so we get a densification, particularly in areas like central London, which very often causes significant problems.

And then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I, I just wanted to move on to the fact why this tax actually doesn't work very well for government either. First of all, as members will know, it is procyclical. It crashes at a time when the government needs it most. So during the 2007 eight crash, stamp duty receipts fell by 60%. We saw a surge in stamp duty receipts during the window a year or so ago, but since then it's been falling very significantly. And The Chancellor, who's facing very significant fiscal problems, is going to see that fall even further.

So it doesn't work for government on that basis either. Secondly, it's a bad tax because of its salience. Economists have this idea that taxes have a salience, which is, frankly, how much people notice they're being taken. VAT has low salience because we don't really notice it. It goes in the price of what we pay. Income tax pay has low salience. This tax is enormously noticeable at a moment when people are making a huge decision about their lives. They're trying to progress their families.

Wow, there comes the government saying, we're going to have a slice of your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wealth. Yeah. Extremely grateful. To my right honourable friend. He's obviously making a brilliant speech. But on that last point, does he acknowledge in terms of the salience, it has had a particularly pronounced effect in the capital, particularly for those that come to this country that invest in this this country that invest in this country, create jobs. And one of the prime reasons why we've seen such a significant, perhaps 16,000 people leave this country is because of the incidence of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because of the incidence of that tax in the capital. Well, he's completely right. And he makes a very powerful point, as he makes a very powerful point, as I say, anybody overseas or here who comes particularly to London and the South-East or frankly, anywhere in the country and wants to make a significant purchase, is immediately presented with a immediately presented with a massive bill, a huge bill that cannot be borrowed, that comes out of any equity that you may have of any equity that you may have spare lying around, or that you may have saved up for years to build towards your housing decision, and for the government to show up and take it at that moment of of significance in anybody's life, significance in anybody's life, seems to me to be extremely damaging, in the same way that when the government shows up on the the government shows up on the death of a relative and says, we'll take our slice, this tax has enormous salience and as a result, stamp duty along with Inheritance Tax are easily the two most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unpopular taxes in the country. Yes. Thank the honourable gentleman for being so generous with his time and the interesting points that he's putting forward. It just he's putting forward. It just surprises me that nobody on the benches opposite brought these points forward in the last 14 years. Stamp duty. Land tax is not a new tax. It's a tax that went up over tax. It's a tax that went up over the last government. And yet there have been no proposals brought forward until this unfunded

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward until this unfunded announcement made at the party conference a few weeks ago. What are you going to do it? Well, Madam Speaker, she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Speaker, she shouldn't assume that from the outward utterances, there wasn't an outward utterances, there wasn't an internal conversation going in within the party about about what within the party about about what our tax strategy should be. And those in the chamber who will have those in the chamber who will have shared the Cabinet table with me will know that that was often a very vigorous conversation. So I'll very vigorous conversation. So I'll leave it, I'll leave it at that.

And then the other, the third point, I want, the third point I wanted to I want, the third point I wanted to make. I guess it's possibly the might be the one that appeals most to the to the opposite benches, which is that actually this is a very generationally unfair tax. Younger people move House more often. They are more exposed to this tax. The younger you are, the more likely you are to be building a family, require more space, be moving up the ladder.

Older people tend tend to sit still. They sit pretty on their capital. They sit pretty often on their on mortgaged houses. And because of the lack of a market, generally over under occupy the houses which they own. And so when looking at stamp duty, you have to look at it in terms of generational fairness as well. I know hundreds and hundreds in my own constituency, aspirational families who need more space, who would like to move up the ladder, who've worked hard and accumulated money and deposit that will allow them to do so, that want to spend that money on curtains and carpets and decoration and all the rest of it who are deterred from doing so because of this tax.

And so if we're going to be fair to the next generation, not only do we have to build the houses that they want to buy, we have to make it cheap for them to buy them too. And that means cancelling stamp duty as well. So for all these reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, for fluidity and liquidity in a market that is skewed in a way that it produces artificially high prices for a market in which developers will take a risk and build more houses and landowners will put land forward.

But fundamentally, for a generation which has been denied access to housing, we need to take very seriously the idea that stamp duty sits at the heart of this problem and to abolish it entirely. And for those who say, like the Liberal Democrats, that this will raise prices, well, of course it will raise prices. If you tell people there's a window because you get a frantic activity by those who are desperate to buy, if it becomes a permanent abolition, then you get a liquid market that achieves a real price.

Notwithstanding this initial bump. And for those who say the savings can't be found, does. The honourable gentleman said on the budget of that size, if you can't find this amount of money. I had a look this morning. I could find 50% of it out of the Department of Transport, no problem. And if we add that to the half, the half of welfare reforms, the other half could come from the welfare reforms that the Labour Party bottled on. We could easily find the money and do the whole country and the economy an enormous favour.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Curtis. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the right hon. Member from North West Hampshire for his speech, and also for his for his speech, and also for his fight and campaign within his party in favour of abundance and against scarcity. I hope it is a fight that scarcity. I hope it is a fight that he can win, given the damage that was done by not having enough of that attitude and when the that attitude and when the conservatives were in power.

And I hope, given that this debate cannot happen in isolation from the supply of housing, the next election, I will not be facing leaflet after leaflet after leaflet from the Conservative Party campaigning
13:48
Chris Curtis Portrait Chris Curtis MP (Milton Keynes North, Labour)
-
-
Conservative Party campaigning against the building of new homes that this country so desperately needs. Yeah, and can I also start by thanking the opposition for securing this debate, and also want to start on a few points where I hope that we can we can agree stamp duty is a dreadful tax. It discourages the very behaviour we should want to encourage people moving homes that no longer suit them, and into properties that do. As an example, as has been mentioned by many others, it deters people from downsizing, which means fewer family homes become available for those who may need it.

And in much of London and the south east, where housing costs are already painfully high, it makes moving almost prohibitively expensive at a time when, for various reasons, the demand side of the housing market is struggling, it is also a barrier to building the homes that this country so desperately needs. So I think there was a lot to agree with on the drive in order to campaign against stamp duty, and I am in no doubt that we should find a path to removing it.

However, I can't support the motion today for two reasons. Firstly, because, as has been said, a tax cut of around £9 billion must come with an honest explanation of how it is going to be paid for. If there were apparently tens of billions of cuts that you could make to the state, then you can only conclude that it was pretty negligent for the previous government not to find them when they were in power for 14 years, when they were handing out redundancy notices to police officers.

Why were they not making those cuts instead? Unfunded tax cuts are either a return to Liz Truss or a return to Tory austerity. But there is the second and perhaps more important point that I would like to discuss the focus on stamp duty alone, I fear through the motion today is too narrow when we need, as was mentioned earlier, a wider conversation about property taxes in this country. The right hon. Member for North West Hertfordshire. Sorry, North west Hampshire. My apologies.

I think it was actually wrong. In one of the remarks that he made. I used to work in market research. So stamp duty is not actually an Inheritance Tax and not actually the most unpopular tax in this country. Council tax is consistently the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most unpopular tax in this country. Of course I'll give way. Does he regret that his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he regret that his government has not honoured its pre-election promise to reduce council tax.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To some comments about the unfairness of the council tax system in the moment? But the point about this we can have a about this we can have a conversation about tax and spend in this country, and there's a much wider conversation to have. But this debate today is focusing on a this debate today is focusing on a very specific tax cut to a very specific part of property taxation. And I think there is a problem, as And I think there is a problem, as I mentioned, with having that conversation in isolation and conversation in isolation and rather having the bigger, bolder, more politically brave conversation that I would like the opposition to start about wider reforms to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

start about wider reforms to our property tax market. Of course I'll give way. I must say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm really encouraged by the I'm really encouraged by the honourable gentleman's speech. For once, he's not purely dealing in the the sort of 14 years of failure the the sort of 14 years of failure rhetoric from the party opposite. He recognises that stamp duty is a bad tax, and he says that we need a proper, joined up and deeply thought through approach to getting rid of it.

Is he pledging to lead such an operation within the Labour Party? Because for the next four Party? Because for the next four years there are 400 plus Labour MPs? It's it's the debate within his party that's more important than the one within our own.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm glad he asked me to comment on the 14 years of Tory failure, which the 14 years of Tory failure, which failed to grow the British economy and created many of the problems that this country now faces. And I that this country now faces. And I do think that while there were many good remarks made in the opening speech from the shadow Chancellor, speech from the shadow Chancellor, there was a little bit of amnesia about just the state that was left to this government.

But we do need to this government. But we do need to have an honest conversation about tax reform, including two property taxes, council tax. Just property taxes, council tax. Just we've spoken a little bit about the IFS and what they've said. And they're right. The UK essentially they're right. The UK essentially relies on two big but fairly broken property taxes. Council tax does not create the distortions that stamp duty does, but it's regressive. Stamp duty creates these distortions. But at least these distortions.

But at least it's progressive and mitigates against some of those regressive elements of council tax. If you only look at one half of the equation and simply cut stamp duty, we will tilt that system further in favour of the wealthiest households, favour of the wealthiest households, many of them in London and the South East, while telling lower and middle income families elsewhere middle income families elsewhere that that that there is nothing in the system for them. And we should consider just how unfair council consider just how unfair council tax has become, given that the top band is capped so lightly.

A modest family home in the North or Midlands can face a similar bill to a multi-billion pound townhouse in London. We've quoted Paul Johnson, so I'm going to quote a tweet from Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, if that's OK. Buckingham Palace, valued at around £1 billion, sits as a band H property and is charged £1,828 by Westminster City Council, less than the average three bedroom semi in Blackpool. 46% of households in England will receive a bigger council tax bill than Buckingham Palace.

That is clearly a broken tax system and if we ignore that and just focus on stamp duty, then we're only going to make that broken system worse. And of course, because successive governments have not addressed, have not had the bravery to revalue those tax bands, they're still based on 1991 values. In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee had had just released a World Wide Web. Nirvana had released Never Mind. Will Smith was filming the first series of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and I was Not Born.

A lot has changed since then. And yet. And yet we still have not reformed the way we do council tax valuations. So yes, I will agree that we should set a path to reduce and ultimately reform the way we do stamp duty, but we should do it as part of a broader package that shifts tax away from transactions and towards ongoing occupation of higher value properties. Now that could include revaluation and rebuilding rebanding of council tax so that the bills reflect today's values.

It could include a higher rate of surcharge on the most expensive property and targeted reliefs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support downsizers and first time buyers. Would you. Allow me? Yes. Go on. Last time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Allow me? Yes. Go on. Last time. The honourable gentleman. He's giving a brilliant speech, I must say. And it smells like Teen spirit say. And it smells like Teen spirit to me because of the energy that he's bringing to it. Would he recognise as well as council? And I recognise as well as council? And I agree with most of the points he's made about council tax. If you see what a small flat in Beverley, the what a small flat in Beverley, the council tax charge is compared to a multi-million pound apartment in in Westminster.

It's outrageous and I agree with him. But does he also see that the business property relief, this BPR is going to be bringing in huge costs on businesses like housebuilders? I met one last week if that business was worth £100 million, say on the death of the owner, it would be a £20 million tax. The the the person £20 million tax. The the the person who inherits it would have to extract 40 million from that business in order to do it. And as business in order to do it.

And as they told me, for every 40 million you take out of the business, that's 120 million of investment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's 120 million of investment not made in housing. Would he Yeah. And I think I think with respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've already Madam Deputy Speaker, I've already stretched the debate a little bit far away from stamp duty, and I don't want to go into a wider tax don't want to go into a wider tax system. But I'll finish up. I'll finish off, I'll finish off, I'll finish off on, I won't. I think it's important to widen this debate out to a wider conversation about property taxes, as I've tried to do.

And if the opposition genuinely wants to remove stamp duty, I invite them to engage in that wider conversation in good faith. If you want to remove the costs at the point of transaction. For high value homes, the only fair route is to ask those homes to contribute more through day to day charges. That would be a system that was fairer, supported mobility and meets the objectives that I think members from across this House share a housing market that works more, building a tax system that is both pro-growth and fiscally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsible. Thank you. I call Blake Stephenson. Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy. Speaker, stamp duty is the worst kind of tax, and it feels like there's cross-party consensus on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there's cross-party consensus on that point in this House today. It's a tax that stands in the. Way of the. Aspiring young couple.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who want to buy their. First home, or when they want to. Move on. And bring up a family. It's a
13:57
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

And bring up a family. It's a tax that punishes the older couple who want to downsize to a more suitable home once their family has suitable home once their family has flown the nest. It's a tax that stifles growth and it restricts mobility, and it's even attacked. That's become so complex that it confuses even deputy prime ministers. So I think it's in all of our interests to simplify this taxation. And we do that by abolishing it so that we can also get the housing market moving.

Once again, I know members from across the House have spoken about how the housing market is bunged up. It absolutely is bunged up. There are so many properties on the market for many, many, many months not selling at all levels within the housing chain, not just multi-million pound houses, but if those multi-million pound houses don't sell, then houses throughout the chain also don't sell, impacting young people, families and old people right throughout the country. We have a commitment to unshackling our housing market by abolishing stamp duty on primary residences, and I was really pleased to see that announcement in the Conservative Party conference a few weeks ago.

And I'm pleased also to hear the honesty from my right honourable friend from North West Hampshire when he says this debate has been ongoing in the party for some time. And I'm pleased, very pleased indeed that we've settled on this position. Madam Deputy Speaker, in my constituency in Mid Bedfordshire, the average House price is around £372,000. Purchasing that property would require stamp duty outlay if the online stamp duty calculators are accurate. Of £8,625. When the stamp duty land tax was introduced on land transactions by the then Labour government in December 2003, the average House price in my constituency was £169,000, with a stamp duty outlay of just £1,090.

Taken together with increasing House prices, that's a 224% increase in the cost of buying a home. By comparison, average earnings have risen by 190% in that same period. Now, abolishing stamp duty won't fix that overnight. We still need to do more to build warm, dry homes in the places people want to live. And I'm pleased that in this debate today that this debate has been broadened out slightly to discuss housebuilding. I think parties from across this House want to build good quality homes in the right places for young people to get on the housing ladder.

I think we are not at odds with that at all. They do need to be in the right places. And I agree with my honourable friend again from North West Hampshire in that the quality of those homes is incredibly important. If we improve the quality of new build homes, I think that our communities would be much more open to accepting housebuilding in our communities, which would increase supply and improve opportunities for young people. I think that's critical to all members across this House.

But places like London, Madam Deputy Speaker, where this government and their Labour mayor have utterly failed to tackle a severe housing crisis with lower targets and reduce aspiration, not ambition, building more houses will help to arrest the charging growth in House prices, but we know that just building is unlikely to bring prices down 20%. Fewer 25 to 34 year olds are homeowners today than in the year 2000. Average first time buyers are almost a decade older today than they were in the 1980s.

Our property market is failing our young people, so in this place, we must do more to make it more affordable for people to make that next move. The Chancellor, despite a desperate to raise more money following her economic vandalism, wants to drag more people into paying stamp duty or a higher rate of stamp duty by freezing thresholds. Reform reportedly about to scrap their half baked stamp duty plans are looking to concrete over our greenbelt, as they lack any credible plans to deliver homes at all.

The conservatives are the only party with a sensible plan to unlock our housing market, to give young people a stake in society and roots in their community. By abolishing stamp duty on primary residents, we can make it over 2% cheaper for families to buy the average House in my constituency overnight. We can save prospective first time buyers in London an average of £18,000, and I am sure members or I think at least one member on the other side representing a London seat, may wish to comment on the savings that she could deliver to her constituents by supporting this motion and pushing this policy through within her party.

That's the sort of real impact that people will feel in their pockets, and it's a real impact that they will feel while unboxing their prized possessions in the living room of their new family home, enabling a new generation of young people to achieve the dream of home ownership, enabling young people to move up the housing ladder into more suitable family homes, unlocking our housing market and knocking down a barrier to social mobility, stimulating our economy and abolishing the drag on growth.

That is what I got into politics to deliver. Madam Deputy Speaker, less government red tape, fewer taxes on aspiration and mobility, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families in a home of their own. Thank you. Yes, Doctor Jeevun Sandher.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak in this debate on stamp duty, but there's a lot of agreement on both sides of lot of agreement on both sides of the House. I think that if we could just abolish stamp duty, we would. So the question is not about stamp So the question is not about stamp duty. Abolishing the question is how do you pay for it? And what we've seen from the benches we've seen from the benches opposite in their so-called costing is £23 billion of cuts to Social is £23 billion of cuts to Social Security.

Now these are £23 billion they couldn't deliver while they were in office, but £23 billion that were in office, but £23 billion that would lead to rising destitution, and not just for those who are out of work, not just for children, but of work, not just for children, but also of those who are in work as we speak. It's worth thinking about Speaker, about how the Social Security system has changed over time, what's happened in our economy and indeed high income economy and indeed high income nations across the world.

Technological change means that we've divided between high and low we've divided between high and low paid jobs. It means some jobs, mostly done by graduates, pay enough to live, and a lot more do
14:03
Jeevun Sandher Portrait Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
-
enough to live, and a lot more do not pay enough to live at all. For a two parent household to just afford the basics, just the basics and have two kids is £35,000 each. They need to earn 40% of full time workers earn less than this. So in order to top up wages in order to people can't afford to live. We have used the social security system to top up wages. It's what we did with working tax credits. It's what the benches opposite did when they reformed it to become Universal Credit.

But of course, what did they build into that system? A huge amount of cuts. And what did those cuts mean? It meant food banks in our nation that we'd never known previously. It made kids going hungry. It made parents not be able to afford the basics. It meant that people across this country who worked hard, did the right thing, could not afford a decent living. And today we're sitting here and the party opposite is once again suggesting £23 billion of cuts to Social Security.

That's £23 billion out of the pockets of families and working families as well. It is shocking. It should mean something to them. It should mean something to all of us. Our nation does better when every single one of us can afford a decent life. It absolutely should be the case that people who work hard should also be able to have a decent life. And yet these cuts way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the honourable member for giving way. He's making a very powerful argument, but I just wonder whether argument, but I just wonder whether he reflects on the size of the welfare budget. Now, is he making the argument that welfare spending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the argument that welfare spending should not come down at all? At all? The argument I'm making,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At all? The argument I'm making, the argument I'm making is how do you ensure that people live a decent life, that £23 billion of decent life, that £23 billion of Social Security spending with huge amounts of destitution and increasing unaffordability for increasing unaffordability for families? And also this debate is opposite as well. I worked at Treasury under George Osborne. Even he wouldn't have come up with something like this. And when he tried to do it, he did not get it passed this House.

I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passed this House. I'll give way. Reflect on the fact that 1 in 6. People in this country are on Universal Credit, are not British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Universal Credit, are not British citizens, and how would it justify that to his constituents, the. People in this country who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People in this country who have the right to remain and the right to work, and people who have earned Social Security contributions can claim so? He'll also know that many claim so? He'll also know that many people in this country have no recourse to public funds at all. Which meant, for example, during the pandemic, despite paying into the pandemic, despite paying into the system, they couldn't claim back out. It's a shame to see where the party opposite has got to on the party opposite has got to on this stuff, to be honest with you.

Yeah, there was a time when the party opposite condemned Enoch Powell. There was a time when the party opposite joined us across this House in believing that every single person, regardless of the colour of their skin, if they're given a legal status to remain, have rights and responsibilities as a British citizen. It's such a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shame to see where the party opposite has gotten to. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. And the truth is, I think the party opposite feels ashamed as well. When they talk about things well. When they talk about things like cultural coherence, we can hear the dog whistle across this country. We hear it. And I'll tell country. We hear it. And I'll tell you why. Because British citizenship is not just about the colour of our skin or the way we look. It's our values and the way we act and the way we cohere together. Different communities across this nation who speak in different ways.

It's a deep, deep on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. Thank him for giving way. I just call upon him to reflect on the fact that regardless of political fact that regardless of political difference, it's the Conservative Party that has delivered three female prime ministers, one Prime Minister, the first one from an ethnic minority background. Whilst his party has not managed to present a leader other than a white

**** Possible New Speaker ****

present a leader other than a white man from. Send a response. Let's try and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep this debate in scope, doctor Jeevun Sandher. And look how much the party opposite has changed since last opposite has changed since last July. That's where we are. I will come back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to come back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the issue at hand here. 4.5 million children in poverty, 1 in 6 children in households have food insecurity. They're struggling to make ends meet, £23 billion of welfare cuts. That does mean that families can't afford and children can't afford to eat.

It does mean those who are most destitute becoming poorer. And it also means, of course, that working families, 40% of them on Universal Credit who are working families, will see cuts as well. That is the outcome here, making our nation poorer. That's not what we should want. It's not what we want. And the benches opposite. I'd hope it's not what they want either. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's an absolute joy to see the wonderful Chelsea pensioners in wonderful Chelsea pensioners in their glorious red uniforms, observing proceedings on behalf of Mr. Speaker. No doubt it will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. No doubt it will Stuart. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take part in this debate. And I think the quality of contributions from all sides has been excellent today. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sides has been excellent today. And and that's not always the case. Over recent. Months.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Months. Madam Deputy Speaker, no one in Beverley and Holderness likes paying stamp duty. Not first time paying stamp duty. Not first time buyers and Beverly not grandparents seeking to downsize and headon. And of course, as we know, it's not of course, as we know, it's not very popular even with the Right Honourable member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Stamp duty was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ashton-under-Lyne. Stamp duty was. First introduced in 1694 to fund our war against the French. And our war against the French. And while we may have our differences with our friends across the channel, when I checked this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was pleased to Deputy Speaker, I was pleased to find that we're not currently at war with France and what began as a
14:09
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
temporary wartime measure, raising £91,206, ten shillings and £0.04 in 1702 has become a permanent tax. But it's more than just a tax. It's a barrier to opportunity for young couples in my constituency. An impediment on aspiration in Aldeburgh and a block on families in Withernsea trying to climb the property ladder. And we, the Conservative Party, have always been the party of opportunity, of home ownership, of family aspiration. And that's why at the next election we will abolish this three century old tax.

While we welcome signs, I didn't expect to hear today from colleagues opposite who too often just slavishly repeat their speaking points. Today we've heard thoughtful speeches and recognition that this is a harmful tax. They may question our way of implementing it, but they recognise that. So we will abolish this three century old tax, unlock the housing market in Beverley and Holderness and beyond. And I encourage the current Chancellor and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues behind her to follow our lead. Andrew Lewin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let me start by saying that I welcome a debate on how we incentivise home ownership. I'm a Labour MP who wants more of my constituents in Welwyn Hatfield to have a secure home of their own, to build a life home of their own, to build a life in our community, and also for the ability to buy a home. Not to be so ability to buy a home. Not to be so dependent on your access to the bank of Mum and Dad.

The proposition we are discussing today from the benches opposite, is that from the benches opposite, is that the abolition of stamp duty is the answer. Before we assess that claim, answer. Before we assess that claim, let's look at how we got here today. Home ownership went backwards under 14 years of the last Conservative 14 years of the last Conservative government. There are 600,000 fewer homeowners in the UK than there homeowners in the UK than there would have been if home ownership rates had remained at the levels they were at in 2010.

That's more they were at in 2010. That's more than the population of Liverpool. 20 years ago, 50% of people aged 25
14:11
Andrew Lewin Portrait Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
-
-
20 years ago, 50% of people aged 25 to 34 own their own home. By 2022, this had fallen to fewer than four. In ten Madam Deputy Speaker members across the House will recognise that that is a record of failure. I think they will also agree that there is no panacea for increasing the levels of home ownership, and that it requires a range of policy solutions. That being said, there is one fundamental truth that we need to recognise. If you don't build more homes, you won't have more homeowners.

The last government dropped mandatory housing targets, and I've lost count of how many MPs on that side of the House have used departmental questions, statements and even today's debate to say, oh, I like the idea of homes in the right places, but it doesn't happen to be in my constituency. I have to say, the Liberal Democrats have been just as guilty as the Conservative Party on on that. So where the conservatives have failed, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour government is acting the return of housing targets for every local. Authority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ambitious planning reform and a record 39 billion for affordable homes programme. Do we have further homes programme. Do we have further to go? Yes, absolutely. But new housing starts in the first quarter housing starts in the first quarter of 2025, were up by 17% on the same period in 2024, when the conservatives were still in power. conservatives were still in power. So let's look more closely at the proposition that abolishing stamp duty is the answer. First of all, duty is the answer.

First of all, who benefits most? If your home is who benefits most? If your home is worth £1.5 million, you will save £93,750 under this proposal. As I £93,750 under this proposal. As I intervened earlier, I said, if your home is worth £2 million, you'll home is worth £2 million, you'll save to the tune of £150,000. And it was cheered by the party opposite. And I think that's telling. Madam And I think that's telling. Madam Deputy Speaker, whereas if you buy a home that's worth under £300,000, then this proposal will save you no then this proposal will save you no money at all.

That's the threshold, by the way, that stamp duty cuts in by the way, that stamp duty cuts in at the moment, and 40% of first time buyers buy homes that are worth less than £300,000. So the worth less than £300,000. So the Conservative choice, the Conservative proposition, is to ask ordinary taxpayers to either accept, as my honourable friend said, deep cuts in Social Security or to pay more taxes to subsidise a tax cut for millionaires. That's the proposition today. Liz Truss would be proud.

We have no reform colleagues in the chamber today, but I suspect they would be pleased as well as of course, their leader famously said at the time of the mini-budget that it was the best one since 1986. Deputy Speaker, if we seriously want more homeowners, the real answer lies in building more homes of all tenures, in offering mortgage guarantees to help those who earn enough but can't raise the deposit to get on the ladder. In continuing to support low cost home ownership models like shared ownership in planning reform, and by embracing a new generation of new towns.

In the first 14 months of being in office, this government has done more to make progress on identifying sites for the next generation of new towns than the Conservative Party did in 14 years. If your objective is to give millionaires a tax cut, abolishing stamp duty in one sweep is a good way to do this policy. But if you're more serious about helping people onto the housing ladder, we should reject the Conservative motion today. Reject their failed approach over the last 14 years, and support a package of reforms to get Britain building

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. Saqib Bhatti. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's a it was very interesting to follow the the last speaker because the the last speaker because obviously I did an intervention earlier relate to him. He knows I fundamentally disagree with him. fundamentally disagree with him. This is a tax cut for everybody irrespective of the value of their House. And fundamentally what we know is that the housing market is gummed up. I have serious questions about whether the Labour government will be able to meet its housing will be able to meet its housing targets.

I'm not sure what those housing numbers are currently. Maybe he'll be able to enlighten me, but fundamentally, this is a tax but fundamentally, this is a tax cut that will apply to everybody. But my reflections, you know, my honourable friend earlier said honourable friend earlier said about the speeches coming from opposite there have been very interesting, but they are slightly siloed. They slightly miss out the
14:15
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
siloed. They slightly miss out the the context of what we're talking about currently in an economy that is stalling with, you know, the jobs tax, which is meant that there's unemployment has gone up. That means hard working families, more of them are now unemployed. More young people are now out of work as a result of this Labour government. And they can absolutely talk down this motion, as I'm sure they will, because, you know, the whips have told them to do so and all the other things.

But the reality is we are putting something on the table that is credible, that is funded and that will the housing market, but it will also contribute £1.2 billion worth of economic growth. And at a time when The Chancellor is scrambling to fill her own black hole, we put credible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ideas on the table and they should take it more seriously. I will take the intervention, he said. That this tax.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cut will. Benefit everybody. I wonder if you could tell me how will it benefit the people who how will it benefit the people who don't currently pay it because first?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first? Well, two ways. First of all, first of all, increase mobility in the housing market. And also as my the housing market. And also as my my Right honourable friend Foyle North West Hampshire stated in a in an incredibly eloquent speech, it an incredibly eloquent speech, it will also mean that the construction industry and all the peripheral jobs will start to peripheral jobs will start to mobilise, it will create economic growth. And I suspect actually the 1.2 billion is probably a bit understated, actually, and it will understated, actually, and it will probably create more.

We're talking about creating jobs and making people wealthier, making people people wealthier, making people wealthier, being aspirational for the aspirational instead of what they're talking about, which is they're talking about, which is talking down a credible policy that will put money on the table for some of our poorest people. Ultimately, it means that more and Ultimately, it means that more and more people will be able to get onto the housing ladder, because, let's face it, and I posed a question earlier that the question earlier that the government is not going to meet its housing targets.

It's quite obvious already. They're massively way behind. It's not possible to do so. behind. It's not possible to do so. They're killing off aspiration and confidence in the economy and housing builders are not going to want to meet those unless of course, they're met with huge subsidies. And so the question really I have for the government benches is how many, how much representation have they made on the back of the current economic situation to The Chancellor about putting growth principles on there and cutting taxes so people have more money in their pockets, and the answer will be none, because that's not happening.

The member for Loughborough talked about, he said he wasn't making an argument for not cutting welfare. He didn't put a figure on the table how much welfare needs. We know the welfare bill is ballooning. It started ballooning post Covid. It was happening, right. We we did interventions during the pandemic. It had to happen. We saved £2 trillion economy. We saved businesses. We saved jobs. We did all of those things. Sometimes with the support of the opposition benches and sometimes not. Sad to say, but we did all that to to save the economy.

But of course, all of that comes with a cost. It is now right that we look forward and look forward to make sure that we are putting proposals on the table that help grow the economy. And by the way, help The Chancellor, help The Chancellor get out of this mess. Because actually, I want her to do better, because right now I've got constituents who are struggling, who are anxious, who are worried. She her policies, backed by the benches opposite, have contributed. Bless you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have contributed, have contributed to higher inflation and higher cost of living.

These are all consequences that they backed and they've walked through the voting lobbies. There is a budget coming. And and while they may be talking in silo, the government is already briefing out to papers about all the taxes. They're going to rise. And they're not talking seriously about they're talking about government. They're not talking about seriously about the cuts that they're going to have to put on the table because The Chancellor knows the moment she does that, it's going to be her backbenchers that stab her in the back.

And that's the fundamental conundrum she's got, because she's also now going to placate the bond market where we've got the highest bond yields. That's the I see shaking heads. That's the reality of what the backbenchers are dealing with. We are putting proposals on the table where people can. And by the way, good proposals which mean that young families who want to get on the housing ladder, I'm happy for the PPS to take it. I'll take an intervention for PBS if he wants to. Is no, it's OK.

Well, I was offering an opportunity, madam speaker. I was getting distracted by country. But the reality is, most serious economic economists, Dan Needle, the IFS have said that this is a bad tax. In fact, the the the Member of Parliament for Swansea West, who I hear is very instrumental in this budget, has talked about stamp duty being a bad tax. We all agree on that. So we put a policy on the table with cuts with with funding, which the Chancellor's going to need. Surely this is something we should all be taking seriously because the government is going to need those answers, and I suspect we will come back to that.

We we've also I know lots has made lots has been made about the fiscal rules of The Chancellor. I think they were named I think the Chief Secretary of Treasury said they were ironclad. I suspect they are until the next ones. We've got a golden rule. We we in the spirit of rules, we put a golden rule. The leader of the opposition put golden rule, and that's for every pound saved, half will go in cutting our national debt. Surely that is something we can all get behind that when the interest on our on our debt is something like £100 billion a year.

You know, surely that's something we can get behind when The Chancellor, month after month, is borrowing more to meet everyday spending? That is obviously happening and that is there. The other point I just wanted to make was there's an argument about the cliff edge. And, you know, we we had the window. I think my right honourable friend spoke about this, the window through Covid, and I was one of those who was on the receiving end of not being able to buy a House at that time.

I was looking at the time for my new family, and houses were going quickly because people were trying to beat the cliff edge at the end of the stamp duty. This is not the same thing, right? This gets rid of that window, and it means that more and more people will be able to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely. Yeah. I'm grateful to him. I'm perplexed by the the argument that the Liberal Democrats advanced the Liberal Democrats advanced earlier that if you that abolishing stamp duty will raise taxes, stamp duty will raise taxes, presumably the quid pro quos if you raised it, that would lower taxes, that would lower prices. So why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that would lower prices. So why aren't they proposing that policy? Well. I'm sure the Liberal Democrats. It's a good point he's making. And It's a good point he's making. And the Lib Dem spokesman will address that in there. But it speaks to their economic incoherence in what their economic incoherence in what they've presented already. But fundamentally, we believe in property rights. We believe in the ownership of property and the rights that derive from there the freedom, the fundamental freedoms freedom, the fundamental freedoms in this country.

And it is a moment of great pride when you take the first keys for your first House. And I'm sure there are for for And I'm sure there are for for others, cutting stamp duty is the right thing to do. And if we win the next election, that's exactly
14:22
Rachel Taylor Portrait Rachel Taylor MP (North Warwickshire and Bedworth, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the next election, that's exactly what we'll be doing. Rachel Taylor. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The Shadow Chancellor would have us believe that the party opposite have changed, that the days of Liz Truss and her disastrous mini-budget are behind them. But we can all see that nothing's changed. Once again, we see the same reckless attitude towards the public finances, cutting public expenditure to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest without actually being honest with the British public about who pays the price.

Shadow Chancellor tells us he can fund this Liz Truss style tax cutting bonanza by making £47 billion in spending cuts. Well, I'd simply ask him this if these fantasy savings are so easy to find, why didn't the conservatives make them in the 14 years that they were in government? No, not at this point. We've been here before with the Tories. They tell the public they can slash the state without any downsides. But the next thing you know, your local library is being shut down, your local swimming pool goes with it, and our vital services like the NHS and schools end up in crisis.

My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have suffered 14 years of austerity once, and they don't want to suffer it a second time. Let's look at some of the real facts about stamp duty. The Tories. Yeah, I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Does she think stamp duty is a bad tax?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bad tax? Kenneth Stevenson I'm not saying whether stamp duty is a good or a bad tax. What I am saying is to bad tax. What I am saying is to simply to simply abolish it without any thought as to the impact that that is going to have on the poorest people in our society, is poorest people in our society, is not something that I will be supporting. Yes, the Tories have dressed up this fantasy tax cut as dressed up this fantasy tax cut as standing up for first time buyers.

But as a former property solicitor, I can tell you for a fact that that I can tell you for a fact that that argument is completely false. In my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, a first time buyer and Bedworth, a first time buyer purchasing an average price property pays no stamp duty. This property pays no stamp duty. This tax cut would be of no benefit to them whatsoever. Indeed, the them whatsoever. Indeed, the average property sale in my constituency would see buyers. I'll constituency would see buyers.

I'll make some more progress. The average property sale in my constituency would see buyers constituency would see buyers buying for the second or subsequent time, paying between 2000 and £3600. time, paying between 2000 and £3600. Not an insignificant amount of money for sure, but just a tiny fraction of the cost of buying an average home. Compare that to the kind of House being bought by, say, your average Tory party donor, perhaps a £2 million property in central London. That property sale or purchase would attract stamp duty of more than £150,000.

That's who this massive Tory tax cut is helping. Not first time buyers in my constituency, but London based millionaires. So let's be clear this whopping Tory tax cut will overwhelmingly be spent on the wealthiest in our society while sucking money out of our public services and local communities. It will do nothing to help young people to get a foot on the housing ladder, while giving a whopping tax break to some of the richest people in our society. Let us be absolutely clear this isn't a tax cut for working people.

It's a tax cut for the wealthy. It will take money out of our public services and our local communities, while doing nothing to help young people get a foot on the housing ladder. The conservatives claim that they've changed, but this latest plan shows they haven't learnt a thing. It's the same failed ideology, the same unfair priorities, austerity 2.0 and the same harm to my constituents in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North Warwickshire and Bedworth and right across this country. Hear, hear. Office.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. Stamp duty land tax is one of the most unfair and outdated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the most unfair and outdated. Taxes in our system. It punishes aspiration, locks people out of home ownership and blocks up the home ownership and blocks up the housing market. I have heard from constituents who are first time buyers struggling to get a foothold on the housing ladder because of the amount of stamp duty they are
14:26
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page