Finance Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

I will draw my remarks to a close simply by observing that this is a poor Bill that fails to meet the trials of the present. It does not set us on the course we should be trying to set ourselves on to meet the challenges of the future.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I feel that I should first explain why I have a teddy bear on the Bench beside me, because various people have been making eyes at me. The bear is the prize for my Christmas card competition. As I am en route between the gift shop and having a photograph taken with the Prime Minister, I thought that I would sit him there.

As I said on Second Reading, I very much welcome the whole thrust of this Bill, which is needed to balance the books. I will not repeat what I said then, but I have a few comments on some of the amendments. First, amendment 2 to clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), is about trying to publish the number of taxpayers who get caught in higher rate bands as a result of this Bill. I very much welcome tax transparency, and I very much welcome His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs telling people how much tax they will pay. There are many measures that we could take to promote tax transparency, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that, if this amendment were to pass, HMRC would not need to write to one single member of the public, because it is fundamentally based on a complete misunderstanding of how fiscal drag works.

The Bill keeps the personal allowance and the higher rate thresholds as they are, so somebody earning, say, £12,000 a year will not pay the base standard rate of income tax now and they will not pay it next year. The way that fiscal drag works is that people get pay rises, which push them into a higher rate band than if they had not got that pay rise, but that is not as a result of a change in the Bill. The wording of the amendment says that

“they have become liable to pay the basic rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable)”.

It is mathematically impossible to have someone not liable at the moment who will then become liable as a result of the Bill.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I just want to clarify that what we are talking about in this amendment is where people are getting pay rises, and even though most people are not getting inflation-rate pay rises, they are nevertheless getting higher cash rises than they normally would have done because of the rate of inflation. For some people that will mean that they will paying income tax for the first time if their rise takes them above the personal allowance threshold, or, indeed, if it takes them above the higher rate threshold. That is what the amendment is designed to address—the fact that there will now be some people paying 40% tax on their increased salary, which, if the thresholds had risen in line with inflation, they would not have done. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to clarify that.

[Anthony Browne]

I am well aware of how fiscal drag works. I have been studying it, reporting on it and commenting on it for about 20 years. My point was that, as the amendment is worded, the person would have become liable to pay the base rate of income tax when they were not previously so liable. If they are not liable now, they will not become liable as a result of this Bill. The hon. Lady could have changed the wording of the amendment—she would need to go to lawyers to work out the wording—but, as it stands, literally no one falls into that category. The one category in which people could end up in higher tax bands as a result of the Bill is not actually mentioned, which is the lowering of the threshold for the additional rate of tax from £150,000 a year to £125,000 a year. So for example, if a person was earning £130,000 a year, they would not be liable for the additional rate of income tax—the 45p rate—now, but they will be as a result of the Bill. However, the hon. Lady’s amendment does not mention that; it mentions the standard rate and the lower rate, for which the thresholds are kept stable.

New clause 8 has not been selected, but the hon. Members for Ealing North (James Murray) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) both talked about non-doms. I just point out that there is a lot about non-doms that I would tidy up. It is clearly not a perfect system, and I do not think that anybody would defend it. None the less, it was there throughout the time of the last Labour Government. They did many reviews on it—I remember those reviews—and they sort of tinkered with it a little bit, but fundamentally left it the same. They agreed with the arguments currently put out by the Government that it is an overall net gain for the UK economy and for the UK taxpayer.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am wondering whether the teddy should be moved on to the Front Bench. It could become one of the most effective Members of the present Cabinet.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned his belief in tax transparency, which is clearly something that we would all welcome. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor made a great deal of the fact that it would mean that somebody working full time on a minimum wage would get a pay rise of about £1,900. He did not mention that the Treasury would then take back almost £500 of that because of the increased tax they would have to pay. Does he believe that it would have been more transparent for the Chancellor to admit how much additional tax somebody on a minimum wage would be paying as a result of there being no increase in the tax bands in this Finance Bill?

[Anthony Browne]

When the current Prime Minister, then Chancellor, initially froze the tax thresholds in the Budget earlier this year, he was very transparent; he said upfront that the Government were freezing the thresholds. He wanted to make sure that no one could accuse him of introducing a stealth tax rise. Previously when thresholds were frozen, Chancellors tended not to mention it during the Budget speech. They just let it pass through and it really was a stealth tax rise.

I want to make one general comment about the different amendments. They all call on the Government to publish documents and reviews of one form or another. I know that amendments are not allowed to commit the Government to new expenditure, or to change their tax take, but there are, literally, no new policies here whatever. As far as I am aware, the Opposition agree with basically all the measures in the Bill, which makes it quite difficult to suggest amendments that change any of them or to make a speech about changing them. However, fundamentally, I have a problem with legislation that urges Government to publish documents and tries to tell Ministers what to do in their jobs, because that is not the role of legislation normally. There is one easy way to get the Government to do what the Opposition want, which is to win an election; that is a little suggestion for them. If they want to get the Government to publish documents, become the Government. I do not particularly want them to, but that is the easier way to do it than trying to pass amendments.

New clause 3, which the hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned, calls for a review of the effectiveness of the research and development tax credits. I have a lot of sympathy with the broad thrust of that. I talked about that on Second Reading. Clearly, it is a big issue for my constituency. I have many life science companies that depend heavily on that tax credit. Their whole cash flow depends on it. They do research for 10 or 15 years before they earn any revenue—before they have any chance of getting money in through the door. They are funded by investors and part of their funding model is getting that tax credit. It has been alarming for them to see it being cut off in April.

Clearly, the Government are, rightly, worried about fraud in tax credits. There is a lot of fraud in that area, and a whole industry effectively encourages it, so the Government are right to tackle it. I know that the Government are committed to promoting research and development and championing the life sciences. The Minister has been generous with her time and we talked about it this morning. What the chief executives and leaders of all these life science companies want is reassurance from the Government that they are really committed to making sure that research and development in small and medium-sized enterprises is not adversely affected by this measure. I also urge her to meet the industry urgently to get to the bottom of this and to work out a regime to help them.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive and eloquent way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents and those critical businesses in his constituency. I genuinely take this matter very seriously. In addition to a wider roundtable meeting that I am having next week with a broader range of sectors that may be affected by this, I wonder whether it would meet with his approval if we could have a meeting before Christmas specifically with the life sciences industry to try to ensure that we continue to see the thriving industry he has described, while also bringing about these much-needed changes to the R&D tax reliefs.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank the Minister for that positive and constructive response. I would be absolutely delighted, and I know that the industry would be delighted, to sit down with her urgently in the next few weeks to go through the different options.

My last comment on the R&D tax credits is on evaluation. Various people have mentioned in this debate and on Second Reading the effectiveness of those and whether they lead to more research and development. Clearly, we do not want to give good taxpayers’ money to businesses if they do not end up doing what we want them to do, which is doing more research and development. New clause 3 asks for evaluations. There are various published evaluations by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other bodies already about this, but I would just caution against reading too much into the headlines, because the evaluations I have read combined the whole spectrum of businesses that claim research and development tax credits, including the fraudsters, the chancers and the people who are just doing stuff they would do anyway and trying to get a tax credit for it, and all the knowledge-intensive companies in life sciences and other sectors that are doing the valuable research we want to encourage.

I would caution the Government to base any policy on an evaluation of how the tax credit is spent on the businesses that they want to encourage, as opposed to the fraudsters and the chancers that they do not. Any change to the regime needs to try to separate and distinguish between those two branches. As a result of the constructive approach taken by the Government, who I know want to sort this out, I do not think new clause 3 is necessary and therefore I will not be supporting it. I do support the Finance Bill, however, and commend it to the Committee.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Thank you for your flexibility in allowing me to speak this afternoon, Dame Rosie.

I rise to speak to amendment 2, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), and to amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled in her name. This Bill is an unfair stealth raid on millions of hard-working low and middle-income earners during a terrible cost of living crisis. Thanks to the Conservatives’ threshold freezes, 6 million people will be dragged into a higher tax band by the end of 2028. Those stealth tax rates are not particularly obvious in someone’s monthly payslip, but that does not mean they are not going to hurt people struggling with the cost of living.

Basic rate taxpayers will pay an additional £340 this year due to the freeze of the personal allowance, and higher rate taxpayers are estimated to pay an extra £1,700. Amendment 2 would require HMRC to write to all those affected by those income tax threshold freezes, to tell them whether they are paying more tax than they normally would and, crucially, whether they have been dragged into a higher tax band. It is vital that the British public have clarity on the Conservative increases to their tax liabilities from April and for that reason I wish to push amendment 2 to a vote.

The Conservatives promised not to raise taxes, as written in their own 2019 manifesto:

“This is a tax guarantee that will protect the incomes of hard-working families across the next Parliament.”

Three Prime Ministers and five Chancellors later, the Conservative Government have delivered an autumn statement with £24 billion in tax rises, all to fill a black hole—or indeed a blue hole—that they have created through their own incompetence. The Prime Minister and his Government are now breaking the Conservative manifesto pledge and the Prime Minister has no mandate for that. The Conservatives could at least make the British public aware that their promise to the country has changed by accepting amendment 2.

In 2019, the Conservatives promised voters a high-wage, high-skilled, low-tax economy. At a time when real-terms wages continue to fall, the tax burden has reached its highest level since the second world war and we have a chronic skills shortage, I would appreciate some clarity from the Prime Minister on the delivery of his party’s manifesto commitments.

I will also speak briefly to amendments 3 and 4. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a windfall tax back in October 2021, when gas prices first began to soar. Through their delay in taking action, the Government allowed fossil fuel giants to get away with half a year’s-worth of untaxed super-profits. Amendment 3 would require the Government to produce an assessment of how much revenue has been lost through their delay. I am pleased that the Government are finally raising the rate of the windfall tax, but I am afraid it does not go far enough. If Shell paid nothing when the rate was 25%, it will still pay nothing when the rate is 35%.

Amendment 4 would require the Government to produce a quarterly assessment of how much revenue has been forgone through the investment allowance and publish the names of the companies that have benefited from the tax break. The lost revenue could have gone to supporting struggling households or protecting our public services, and the British people deserve to know how the money has been spent. I am also concerned about the environmental impact of the investment allowance. The Government state that they are committed to net zero, but at the same time the allowance promotes oil and gas exploration, while refusing renewable generators an equivalent tax relief.

Lastly, I draw attention to amendment 5. At a time when petrol and diesel prices are sky high, the Government should not be making it more expensive to own an electric vehicle. They have already scrapped the plug-in car grant and now they are extending vehicle excise duty to electric cars, which will only slow the road to electrification. I urge hon. Members to support these amendments to improve this Bill and to be honest about the impact it will have on British people.

Finance Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak at the back end of the debate following so many fascinating contributions from the Government and Opposition Benches. I particularly enjoyed the comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), positioning Labour as the party of small business. I have long believed that that is true—the best way to create small businesses is to start with a big business and then elect a Labour Government.

I support the Government overall and this well-crafted autumn statement. It balances the books in a way that bears down on inflation without harming growth, and it has been done in a fair way, as many hon. Members have said, helping households who are struggling. The energy price guarantee and the retention of the pensions triple lock are particularly welcome. I also welcome the extra money for health and education. Like my fellow Conservatives, I do not like the fact that taxes are going up to the highest level for 70 years, but I accept that that is necessary and that we must accept sound money before tax cuts.

The main focus of my comments will be on an issue raised by several hon. Members: research and development. I very much welcome the fact that the Government are committing to £20 billion a year of public money for research and development, but my concern is about the changes to the R&D tax relief system. The Government have made major changes, with the system becoming more generous to big firms to make them more internationally competitive, but the rate of relief for small and medium-sized businesses effectively being cut in half, from 33% to 18.6%. It is a bit more complex than that, but that is the gist. Why are the Government doing that? As the Chancellor said in his autumn statement, it is to tackle fraud. Indeed, fraud is a problem—I have looked into that as chair of the Conservative Back-Bench Treasury committee —and we do need to tackle it. However, the trouble with this way of tackling research and development fraud is that it punishes legitimate research companies as much as fraudsters and chancers, lumping them all in together. There are better ways of doing that.

I am talking about this because it is a particularly big issue in my constituency. South Cambridgeshire is the life sciences capital of Europe. I have literally hundreds of life science companies, from the global headquarters of AstraZeneca down to the newest start-ups. Almost every village has a science park packed full of life science companies. Those small start-ups are at the cutting edge of research and development in life sciences. More research and development in life sciences is now done in small businesses than by the big pharma companies. Without them, innovation would be very slow and the UK would lose its position as a life science superpower. We talk about becoming a life science superpower, but we are one already, and most of the rest of the world recognises that.

It is in the nature of those small companies that they are research-heavy, but clinical trials mean that it could take 10 to 15 years to bring a product to market before they make any revenues. They are funded not by revenues from global sales of blockbuster drugs, like big pharma companies, but by investors who fund research for a decade or more before they have any chance of a return. Their financial models depend on the research and development tax credit regime, which is fundamental to them in leveraging funds from investors from around the world. It has been successful in making the UK an attractive place to do research.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is important to have research and development. It is also important that those companies can do their research on Parkinson’s, diabetes and heart disease, and all those things must have research and development investment. Does the hon. Member feel that the Government need to enhance that to their betterment and find cures for Parkinson’s, pancreatic cancer, diabetes and heart disease?

[Anthony Browne]

Absolutely. Many companies in my constituency and publicly funded institutes are doing research on those diseases. That is critical to people living healthy lives as well as to the economy, and the Government are absolutely right to support it.

The sudden cutting in half of research and development tax relief is a major challenge to the life science companies in my constituency, which are shocked at what is proposed —seemingly out of the blue. Many, if not most of them, are suddenly having to rethink their research plans. They are in shock particularly because it was proposed at such short notice—it will come into effect next year—and without consultation. They are having to go to their investors now and say that they will no longer have the money they thought they would and that they will have to cut back research and jobs.

Let me give the House a few examples of real companies in my constituency that I have been working with. PhoreMost combines artificial intelligence with drug research. I went to the opening of its laboratories in the village of Sawston. Neil Torbett, the chief executive officer, said:

“The current R&D tax system has been instrumental in our growth as a Cambridge-based Biotech, which has grown to over 50 highly skilled staff, raised £45 million in investment and entered into multiple pharmaceutical industry partnerships. Receipts from R&D tax credits form a critical part of our funding equation, and the proposed SME R&D tax relief cut will materially adversely affect our future growth plans within the UK.”

I opened the offices of bit.bio, another company in my constituency, which does the most amazing genetics research—I have mentioned it before. Mark Kotter, the chief executive officer, said:

“The assistance at the current level is a cornerstone of our financial projections, which also help us to attract equity funding, and any reduction in the claimable amount will have a significant impact on our ability to invest and grow at the desired rate.

As part of our forecast, we will be looking to increase our current headcount of 175 by approximately 30% in the next year, but quite simply this will not be possible if the tax relief changes announced in the Autumn Statement become reality.”

I could give countless other examples. This is dramatically changing the prospects of life science research in Cambridge.

I know that the Government want to champion life sciences as part of their ambition to ensure that we are a life sciences superpower. I have worked with the Government on that. Indeed, I welcomed the life sciences Minister—the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince)—to my constituency just last week. I know that they want to tackle fraud in the R&D tax credits regime. As a taxpayer, I very much want us to do that; it is a duty of Government to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is well spent. We share those dual objectives, but there are better ways to tackle fraud without harming research. We can throw out the dirty bathwater without throwing out the baby.

Here are some suggestions. We can ban contingent fee—no-win, no-fee—tax agents. A whole industry of people are trying to make money out of encouraging other people to put in fraudulent tax credit claims. We could ban that. We should resource HMRC so that it can scrutinise the claims. Most claims are automated and there is no scrutiny of what is put in. That encourages and gives an easy ride to fraudsters.

We can also limit claims for soft innovation—that is, technical maintenance and updates that would have been made anyway and which people would not normally think of as research and development. They should not be getting research and development tax relief in the first place. Lastly, to distinguish between the life science companies that we all want to encourage and the fraudsters and chancers, the Government could create an R&D tax regime for knowledge-intensive companies, which are already recognised in the tax codes; there would be no definitional issue, because those companies are already in the tax code. I am talking about companies with under 500 employees carrying out work to create intellectual property and expecting the majority of their business to come from that work within 10 years, or companies where more than 20% of employees are doing research roles requiring a master’s degree, a PhD or beyond.

If the Government take those steps, they can promote research while tackling fraud. I urge them, on behalf of all the businesses in my constituency—dozens of which have been in contact—to delay the implementation of the change, consult the industry on it and to look at more specific ways to tackle fraud, so that we can distinguish between genuine research that we want to encourage and the fraudsters and chancers. Will the Financial Secretary or the Exchequer Secretary—I am not sure whether this applies to him or her—meet me and industry representatives urgently to talk about the impact of the changes in the regime on life sciences research in the UK? With that caveat—I realise that it is a big one for my constituency members—and assuming a positive answer, I support the Bill overall, and I commend it to the House.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I take it from that that the hon. Gentleman supports pensioners paying more tax as a consequence of the decisions in the autumn statement.

On social security payments for working age adults, the Chancellor again, in fairness, listened to the arguments that were made and uprated benefits in line with inflation. That is important, because this year, those on benefits and pensioners have seen a real-terms cut. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said earlier today that it was important for payments to be increased to make up for the real-terms cuts that they have experienced this year.

As always, however, the devil is in the detail. The Chancellor has uprated the headline rates and we also understand that many of the additional allowances within the benefits system have been uprated, although we do not know that for certain; we are assuming that only because Martin Lewis tweeted it based on what the Treasury press office had told him. As far as we are aware, the Secretary of State has not confirmed it to Parliament—I just asked the Library and we still do not have an official confirmation—so when the Minister sums up, perhaps he can confirm that the different allowances and reliefs within universal credit will be uprated in line with inflation. I would welcome it if those allowances were uprated, but not all of them have been, have they? The local housing allowance rates, for example, are frozen at 2020 levels at a time when private rents are rising at record rates. The consequence is that rents will swallow up the increase in universal credit for many of the poorest families. That is why Shelter has concluded that the freeze means that

“The boost to benefits will be built on quicksand”

and has warned that homelessness will increase this winter.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has welcomed every single increase in spending in the autumn statement, and in some cases, as he has just said, he wants spending to be increased even further, yet he has also attacked several of the tax rises. Will he explain whether he wants other taxes put up, spending cuts in other areas or more borrowing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend makes a point not dissimilar to that made by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire. All these things need to be looked at in the round, and the wider implications of tweaks here and there need to be properly assessed when making decisions. If the Treasury Minister is prepared to meet the former Leader of the House to discuss the impact on those who need childcare, I hope that he will also be gracious enough to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the impact of the changes on carers.

Let me move on to the Government’s proposal for another round of energy support, this time targeted at those on means-tested benefits only. Again, because this is a flat rate, families with children—they spend more because they are larger families—will get proportionately less. It is worth noting that, even with the inflation-proofed uprating of benefits, which we welcome, we will still have 4 million children growing up in poverty, and we will still have 500,000 children destitute, hungry, ill-clad, cold and often without a decent bed to sleep in. Tackling these shameful levels of child poverty is surely the obligation this generation owes to the next, but we still have no child poverty strategy from this Government. Tackling these unfairnesses is also key to unlocking growth, because an economy with so much poverty and so much inequality is a weaker, less-productive economy, which leads to a greater burden of ill health, forcing more people out of work against their wishes.

That brings me to the health announcements made by the Chancellor. He is of course a former Health Secretary—the longest serving Health Secretary, in fact—and he made great play of the increase in health spending. However, he knows as well as I do, both from the many exchanges I had with him across the Dispatch Box over many years and through his time as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, that what he announced was an increase in NHS England funding. As the Chancellor well knows, and he probably produced reports on this when he was at the Health and Social Care Committee, overall health spending includes public health, capital and training budgets, which means that the uplift is 1.2%. That is below the 2% of the Osborne years and well below the historic 4% uplifts that health services enjoyed historically. This is at a time when the typical wait for treatment in the health service has doubled from seven to 14 weeks, when 400,000 people are waiting beyond a year for treatment, which is enough to fill Wembley stadium four and a half times over, and when 7 million are on the waiting lists. This is not just miserable for patients; it holds our economy back.

[Anthony Browne]

Does my right hon. Friend agree not just that spending on the NHS is at the highest level in cash terms and real terms, but that as a proportion of GDP it has never been higher in this country? Our Government spend one of the highest rates of GDP on healthcare compared with other developed countries, and according to analysis in The Guardian, growth in spending on the NHS, adjusted for inflation, has increased by 35% since 2010.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman has elevated me to be his right hon. Friend, and I am delighted to consider him a friend. Of course, we have an ageing and growing population, which is why the health services have always expected a higher uplift. The point I was making is that, in order to get the headlines and in the hope of giving people some good news in his otherwise quite miserable set of announcements, the Chancellor thought he was giving the NHS a huge uplift. However, if we look at public health, training and the other budgets, which, as we know—and as the Chancellor knows—is how health spending is properly measured, we will see that he is giving them a 1.2% uplift.

The reason why this is particularly significant, and why what is happening with the NHS is causing us such a problem, is that we now have 2.5 million people out of work for reasons of ill health. The OBR predicts that these figures will rise by another 1 million, costing £7.5 billion extra in sickness benefits. That is the OBR’s projection, and it is projecting that to be permanent, not to come down. The UK has seen the largest employment rate drop in the G7 since the pandemic because of rising numbers of people—the over-50s and those with long-term sickness—leaving the jobs market. Once people are out of work for sickness, that in itself can be bad for their health, and the lack of proper help and support leaves them trapped out of work. Only one in 10 disabled people or older people out of work is currently getting any help with employment support to return to work. When one looks at the case load for employment and support allowance, which is the old sickness benefit—obviously people are migrating to universal credit—one sees that only 4% of people come off sickness benefit or disability benefit and move into work each year. Those people should not be ignored and forgotten as they are at the moment. That is a dereliction of our responsibilities to those people, many of whom want help. Some have suggested that 700,000 want help. The Secretary of State has suggested that it could be as high as 1.7 million people who are economically inactive.

Offering no help to those people now undermines our economic performance, too, but instead of a plan to help people move into work, all we got was a review. We did not get a plan for our already overstretched jobcentres, which will be responding to an extra half a million unemployed and to 600,000 extra coming for interviews. We need action. Instead, the Secretary of State has launched a review: the Stride review. I could do the review for him—I can give him the Ashworth plan to get people back into work. We should be aiming for the highest employment in the G7 by using not threats and more sanctions or more humiliating assessment tests—we know too well that a letter from the DWP can fill people with dread—but a completely new approach. That is what we need.

First, the Government have actually underspent by £2 billion on their own employment schemes. Perhaps my old friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), can take this message back to his boss: the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should stand up to the Treasury and, rather than hand back that £2 billion, refocus it on the economically inactive over the next few years. That could help an extra million people.

Secondly, when we know that mental health is a growing burden of sickness for those out of work, we should be doing more to better integrate jobcentres, employment services and the NHS. We should be building on individual placements and support. We should be building on the pilots where employment advisers have been located in “improving access to psychological therapies” services, and we should locate employment services alongside primary care and addiction services, too.

Thirdly, to help more disabled people into work, Access to Work should be made more flexible. The unacceptable waiting lists also need to be urgently tackled. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Access to Work allowance was frozen or lifted in line with inflation in the autumn statement; that is not in the details of the Budget.

Fourthly, we should devolve more, and not use national contracting, which we know does not provide value for money. As we have seen in Greater Manchester, for every pound spent by the working well programme on getting people back into work, we get £1.75 back. Devolving more allows services to work better with adult education providers, which is vital when 9 million of our fellow citizens have poor literacy and poor numeracy. Older workers should be given more opportunities to access retraining and upskilling.

Finally, we need flexible working options, especially for those with caring responsibilities. So there we have it: a five-point plan to tackle inactivity. The Chief Secretary can take that back and implement the Ashworth plan. He is more than welcome to it. It is simply unacceptable to waste our most precious resource: the extraordinary skills and talents of ordinary people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome this carefully crafted and carefully balanced autumn statement. I welcome the fact that, at its heart, its No. 1 priority is balancing the books. The reason that is so important is shown by chart 19 of the OBR report, if people read it, which shows that debt interest payments as a proportion of Government revenue are at record high levels. As the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, our interest payments are heading for being almost as much as is spent on the NHS.

We have to fill that fiscal black hole, and the Chancellor has managed to do it in a way that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said will lead to lower inflation than would otherwise be the case, a shorter, shallower recession than would otherwise be the case and lower unemployment than would otherwise be the case. Those from the Office for Budget Responsibility are coming before us on the Treasury Committee tomorrow, and I look forward to grilling them then.

The Chancellor has also done this in a way that is fair. I notice that the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) welcomed many of the measures. In fact, it is noticeable that virtually none of the Opposition Members has attacked any of the substantial measures in the autumn statement: the pensioner triple lock being continued, we welcome it, they welcome it; benefits being uprated with inflation, we welcome it, they welcome it; and the energy price guarantee, we welcome it, they welcome it. The windfall tax has been a bit controversial at some points, but there we are, and it is there. I do not know how they are planning to vote tomorrow—I do not know if they have said which way they are going to vote—but I would be very surprised if they vote against all these measures that they clearly welcome.

The Opposition have called for more money on the NHS, without explaining how they are going to pay for it—whether they are going to cut spending elsewhere, raise taxes in other places, or borrow more—but I do say this. As I pointed out in one of my interventions, despite the Labour party repeatedly accusing the Conservatives of starving the NHS of money, spending on the NHS is at record high levels not just in cash terms or in real terms adjusted for inflation, but as a percentage of GDP. Never has more of the UK economy been spent on health than now—it is now 10% of GDP. The latest international figures that I have seen—they are from 2019 —show that the UK Government were spending more of their money on health and the NHS than the European average. The Guardian—hardly a Conservative-supporting newspaper, and a doughty defender of the NHS—recently published analysis showing that, as a result of the autumn statement, spending on the NHS between 2010 and 2024 will have increased by 35% in real terms after inflation. That is from The Guardian, and that is to be welcomed.

I will make some substantive points, but I have one more observation about the Labour party. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), talked in his opening comments about the economic crisis made in Downing Street—a theme of many Opposition interventions—and the Conservatives’ terrible economic track record since coming to power in 2010. He mentioned the mini-Budget and blamed that for the economic crisis. I agree that we have an economic crisis—inflation is at its highest level for 40 years and disposable incomes are falling rapidly—but that is nothing to do with the mini-Budget.

Let me share a little secret with the House: almost nothing in the mini-Budget was actually implemented. Almost all of it has been ditched. It is absolutely true that it did cause turmoil in the bond markets for a few weeks and it pushed up mortgage rates. For those who renewed a fixed-rate mortgage in that period, yes, it would have pushed up the cost. However, just last week, Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, went before the Treasury Committee and both the Chair and I grilled him on whether the mini-Budget had pushed interest rates up higher than they would otherwise be and whether there were any long-term consequences for the economy. He said, “Absolutely not.” He was explicit.

[Carol Monaghan]

rose—

[Anthony Browne]

I will give way to the hon. Member. I do not expect her to agree with me.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but of course there were long-term consequences. I have been contacted by a number of people who have lost out on mortgage deals, and some of them were first-time buyers who lost out on properties because of the chaos created.

[Anthony Browne]

I agree with the point made. As I said, there was a temporary period of a few weeks when there was a rise in interest rates. Some people renewed mortgages in that time and some people lost mortgages. That is terrible for those people, but there are no ongoing, long-term consequences because virtually none of the mini-Budget was implemented.

Many Opposition Members have referred to the Tories’ economic record since 2010. The fact is, we have had a series of extraordinary economic hurricanes. In 2010, we inherited an economy in recession—by Labour’s own admission, we had run out of money—and the 2008 economic crisis was so profound and deep that it led to the longest, deepest recession since the second world war. It took about a decade for the structural changes to the economy to play through, and gradually we returned to growth. Since then, as many have mentioned, we have had the once-in-100-years pandemic followed back to back by the once-in-50-years energy price shock.

During the pandemic, we spent £400 billion supporting households and businesses. I do not think Labour has complained about that too much, but that has led to higher national debt. The pandemic also led to problems with global supply chains that hit countries across the world. On the energy price shock, we are an energy importer, so inevitably we are poorer as a country and inflation has shot up. The question is this: if you are in a plane in a hurricane, or repeated hurricanes, and the plane gets struck by lightning and the engine catches fire and explodes, do you attack the pilot and ditch them because they happened to be in the pilot’s seat when all that happened or do you judge them on their performance and how they managed to get through those crises?

There are two things. First, this is not a UK crisis at the moment. Inflation has shot up around the world and is at roughly the same level in America and Germany as it is here. The IMF has said that one third of the global economy is going into recession this year. The downturn in Germany is faster than it is here. In America, they are putting up taxes by $800 billion to pay for it all. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

Secondly, as many Opposition Members keep going back to 2010, I have been checking my data—I like data. Between 2010 and 2019—the latest international figures I could find while sitting in the Chamber—the UK’s GDP growth per capita was lower than that of the US and Germany, but higher than that of every other G7 country. It was higher than that of Japan, Canada, France, Italy, and every other major European economy, including Spain. Our economic track record between 2010 and 2019 was better than all those countries, so the Conservative Government have a lot of which to be proud.

I want to make a couple—I see you waving your hand at me, Madam Deputy Speaker—of substantive points. The autumn statement does increase taxes; no Conservative Government like increasing taxes, but it is far better to iron out tax distortions before, or indeed while, raising them. The capital gains tax system, for example, has many distortions and is not indexed with inflation, which it should be. It works in a very perverse way. Inheritance tax, which has effectively been increased because the threshold has been frozen, is riddled with issues. There is a potentially exempt transfer scheme where many people do not pay any inheritance tax at all. We need to get rid of all these exemptions, smooth things out and fix inheritance tax before raising it. I also urge the Government to look at marginal rates of taxation that are more than 50%. Increasing numbers of people are falling into that bracket because of the freezing of the thresholds.

Finally—thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker—I welcome the protection of capital budgets. In particular, I urge the Government to protect the funding for Cambridge Children’s Hospital.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I was not so much waving my hands at the hon. Gentleman, as indicating that he might remember that we had talked about an eight-minute speaking limit. That was simply my intention, and I realised that he immediately remembered that stricture.

Autumn Statement

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I do not deny for one second that Brexit will be a change in our economic model, but whether we make a success of it is up to us. This Government will make a success of it and make it a tremendous opportunity.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on this carefully crafted and balanced autumn statement, where he managed to fill the fiscal black hole without raising the headline rates of tax, as well as protecting education, the health service and pensioners. All the research institutes in my constituency will very much welcome the commitment to keep R&D funding going up to £20 billion a year. I look forward to grilling him on some of the details when he appears before the Treasury Committee.

My constituency is the life sciences capital of Europe, but it suffers acutely from a shortage of nurses and doctors. I have been working with medical groups to try to push for higher levels of training with up to 15,000 places a year for doctors, so I welcome the fact that the Chancellor agrees with himself and wants to introduce a long-term NHS workforce plan. Can he confirm whether one of its objectives will be to ultimately make the UK self-sufficient in the training of nurses and doctors?

[Jeremy Hunt]

Absolutely, because the NHS as it stands at the moment would fall over without the brilliant contribution made by doctors and nurses born or trained overseas. I think it is about 24% of doctors in the NHS at the moment. We always welcome international exchanges, but in the end a huge health organisation such as the NHS—the biggest health organisation in the world—should be training the number of doctors and nurses that it needs itself. With a 2 million shortage of doctors worldwide, there is no other alternative.

The Growth Plan

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We are absolutely looking at the childcare issue, and I am sure one of my Cabinet colleagues will update the House on that; we are talking about the heating oil intervention; and we are very willing and eager to engage with Northern Ireland colleagues and friends on working out how we can roll out investment zones in Northern Ireland.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I strongly welcome this radical and generous package of measures to promote growth and provide support for households. I also welcome the position of the Conservative party as a low-tax party, and join my colleagues in welcoming the cuts in income tax, corporation tax and various other taxes. I particularly welcome the cut in the most economically damaging of all taxes, stamp duty, which is seen as reducing labour mobility and clogging up the housing market. However, groups including the Institute for Fiscal Studies have called for its full abolition to promote economic growth. Will my right hon. Friend go even further, and consider more cuts in stamp duty to reduce the economic damage and the damage to households that it causes?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose policy prescriptions are always interesting and valuable. I have only been in post for two and a half weeks, but I should be happy to discuss with him how we can simplify our tax system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Clarke]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out very clearly the choices the Scottish Government made at their most recent spending review, on which they can be judged. Let us be very clear: it is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government alone who are wasting millions of pounds of this country’s and indeed their country’s citizens by pursuing a referendum. That is the last thing that Scotland or the UK needs, soaking up resources that should be spent on people who need them.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

T7. The east of England is the only region in the country without a dedicated children’s hospital which is why I am delighted that the Government have committed £100 million to building Cambridge children’s hospital. It has recently got planning permission and its exciting designs were shown last week to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, William and Kate. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury commit to working with me to make sure the hospital is built on schedule?

[Mr Clarke]

This Government are determined to deliver for the people of Cambridgeshire. My colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments about the importance of this facility, and that is why we are investing £4.2 billion in new hospitals over the course of this Parliament.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson]

As I have said, 54% of Scots are paying lower rates of tax than they would be paying if they lived elsewhere in the UK. Overall, the tax system has been reshaped to make it more progressive and, I would argue, more equitable. According to the Resolution Foundation, about 1.3 million people across the UK will be pushed into absolute poverty as a result of tax decisions made by this Government. I have to say that it is a bit rich to argue, as some Conservative Members wish to do, that the Scottish Government, on a budget that is determined in great part by political decisions taken in this place, should be dipping into the revenues that it has earmarked for essential public services in order to mitigate the impacts of poor choices made here.

The Scottish National party has been sharply critical of the national insurance rise since it was first announced, for straightforward reasons. We believed that it was a regressive tax. It hit the lowest earners the hardest. It was a tax on jobs, and therefore a tax on growth. It was rebranded as a “health and social care levy”, although the Government had no clear idea of how the money was to be spent within the NHS, and could not clarify the question of how any of it would be passported through to social care services in England. Moreover, as a result of its impact on people’s incomes, it would bake in inequality—both generational and geographical—for decades, mitigating social care costs for some but not for all.

The Bill removes some lower earners from the liability that the Chancellor has created, and we welcome that partial retreat. Realigning national insurance and income tax thresholds is broadly sensible, but I believe—I am happy to be corrected on this point—that it only takes us back to the status quo ante of 2010, when the Conservative Government first came to office. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, posed an important question in The Times this morning:

“Why promise to spend billions cutting the basic rate of income tax whilst going ahead with an increase in NI rates? That will make the tax system both less equitable and less efficient. It will increase the wedge between higher taxes on earnings and lower taxes on pensions and unearned incomes. And wouldn’t that money have been better spent sooner helping those most in need?”

I certainly cannot quibble with that.

Let us not be fooled: even though the thresholds are moving, this is still a tax increase. There has been no shortage of informed opinion telling the Chancellor that this was the wrong thing to do, but from a political point of view I am bound to say that he has made mugs of his Conservative colleagues—not just those who had to swallow the indignity of betraying a manifesto pledge at the last election, but those who have gone all out to stoutly defend the policy over the last few months.

The manner in which the Bill has come before us exposes the nonsense that this tax rise was ever in any way “hypothecated”. If the right way to fund the health and social care levy was through a hike in national insurance—and I do not believe it was—it cannot also be right to backtrack on the extent of that rise. It is also impossible to argue that it is hypothecated when we see no corresponding increase in the health budget in England.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member has described this as a tax increase, and obviously it will raise revenue, but does he accept that raising both the threshold and the rate of national insurance means that it is actually a tax cut for people earning less than about £40,000 a year and that only people earning more than that amount will be paying more tax? Overall, is that not the sort of outcome that we would want?

[Richard Thomson]

Raising the threshold will certainly take some people out of the scope of the measure that was previously announced, but overall, for those who are not in that category, this still represents a higher level of tax that they are paying to the state than would have been the case had it not gone ahead.

As with yesterday’s other announcements, notwith-standing the Chancellor’s conceit about being an instinctive tax-cutter, these measures are being paid for largely through fiscal drag. The other invidious element is the fact that state benefits are failing to keep pace with inflation. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said earlier, only one in eight workers will see their tax bills fall by 2025 as a result of these measures, and as I said in my opening remarks, this will be the highest tax burden since Clement Attlee was Prime Minister.

Let me now turn to the Barnett formula. I think that the Bill exposes the fragilities and frailties of that funding settlement. The Scottish Parliament has limited tax and benefit powers, but much of its funding is contingent on policy decisions being taken first of all in this place, for England, before any corresponding resources are released for devolved Governments. We see the foibles and the fragility of that in the Bill, but we also saw it during the pandemic, when decisions had to be taken here before those corresponding resources were released. That, in my view, is not a good way of trying to run the country. We should be trying as far as possible to align policy with resources so that there is clear accountability in terms of decisions made and outcomes delivered, and the funding structures of the devolution settlement are not conducive to that.

In his statement, the Chancellor seemed to me to cut the figure of the pickpocket who expects some credit for returning half an hour later to hand back someone’s wallet after abstracting the cash and cards that were inside it. It is amazing that he should expect any gratitude for what he is doing. I do not believe that any responsible Government seeking to tackle some of the crises facing public services post pandemic would reach for national insurance as the best way to do it. If, as I fervently hope, a Scottish Government will one day have full powers over their finances, I do not believe that they will reach for that lever either.

We support this Bill, but it is very much an indictment of the Government’s priorities that we are here to discuss it at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It has been interesting to listen to the speech from the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), but I do not think we read the same books or share the same philosophy. This country is set to have the biggest fall in living standards since records began. Households up and down the country are struggling to pay their energy bills. This is a crisis that requires big solutions. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor looked at big solutions to big problems, but I am afraid he did not do that yesterday. The energy crisis was already here before Russia invaded Ukraine, and it is now set to get worse. We do not know how long the war will last. The British people understand that we must have some hardship here to help the heroes in Ukraine, and they understand that the war is about standing up for freedom and democracy. What people do not understand is why the Government are not doing everything in their power to help us get through this energy crisis.

People at home are struggling, business are struggling and the Chancellor must do more to ease this struggle. Raising the national insurance cap is welcome, but it is a drop in an ocean compared with the measures that are needed. Critical manufacturing industries such as glass are on their knees. Yesterday, I, along with the CBI, British Glass, Glass Futures and manufacturers and sellers of glass celebrated the International Year of Glass, but the businesses are on their knees. One told of a rise in energy costs this year of £250 million; another of a £48 million rise. This has had no acknowledgement from the Government. Once these businesses go, they are gone for good. They provide good, high-paying jobs that we cannot afford to lose. Other Governments are stepping up to support their industries and ours must do the same.

The energy companies have made huge profits and will continue to do so. They are massive corporations, and energy is always going to be in demand. The Chancellor needs to be on the side of the British people and put a one-off windfall tax on the energy companies. They are not investing; their profits are going into shareholders’ dividends. The energy companies will still be around when this crisis is over. The Government need to ensure that the livelihoods of the British people are still here as well. We cannot afford to have thousands of people in crippling debt, going to moneylenders, as millions are.

[Anthony Browne]

The hon. Member makes the case against the rise in national insurance and for a one-off windfall tax on the energy industry, but that would obviously be just a one-off for one year. The costs of Government spending will continue year after year. Which taxes would she raise to pay for public spending in the years following the windfall tax?

[Ms Rimmer]

I do not accept what the Member says.

The tax burden is at its highest in 70 years, and it is estimated that the Government have an additional £50 billion to operate with because of taxes that have come through. This begs the question of why the Chancellor is not using that £50 billion to help British people. We are already in a time of crisis. First it was covid, then it was energy and now it is Ukraine. The Chancellor must adopt big solutions to the big problems our country faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. We know that the price cap does not support those who are off-grid. That was a point Members made in Monday’s Opposition day debate in relation to pensioners, and in other places. I hope that the Government will consider that and if they do not do something about it now, I hope they will do so in future.

Yesterday’s statement was all smoke and mirrors. It increases the disparities between unearned and earned income.

[Anthony Browne]

I was intrigued by the hon. Lady’s comments that a VAT cut would increase economic activity, leading to more tax receipts and therefore it would pay for itself. I very much welcome the idea that tax cuts help to promote economic activity, but if she believes that VAT cuts pay for themselves, does she believe we should always have VAT cuts? How low would she bring VAT? I have to say that that analysis is not shared by Treasury economists.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I find it interesting, given the criticism always given to those on this side in relation to the European Union and VAT, and what we could not and could not do, that I am experiencing criticism from Conservative Members about proposing cutting VAT. I am proposing a temporary measure to help boost the economy in the short term, and I am happy to have a further discussion with the hon. Gentleman about what levels of VAT might look like.

We are seeing an increase in the disparity between unearned and earned income. We are ignoring those who are being pushed into poverty, and we are not addressing the cost of living, which the Chancellor’s statement was supposed to deal with yesterday. Today’s Bill does too little, too late. The measures announced in it will come into effect only in July this year. Payments at the higher rates will remain in place for the next three months. The NI hike will cost employees £2.1 billion in that time. The cost of living crisis is biting right now, today, and the Chancellor must look to implement the changes earlier than outlined. I am not fooled by this Government, and neither is the country. If this is the best the Chancellor can do, they know, as I do, that they deserve another Chancellor.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). Watching today’s debate, I am struck by a sort of parallel universe; on the Opposition side, people are arguing for more and more tax cuts. As a good, red-blooded Conservative, I am always in favour of good tax cuts, but they are arguing this without any recognition of the macroeconomic situation—the £400 billion this Government have spent propping up the economy, saving jobs and lives during the pandemic; and the war in Ukraine, where Putin’s tanks are crushing my ancestral homeland and murdering thousands. Opposition Members do not seem to recognise that.

When I looked at the amendment paper, which was passed to me during this debate, I became very concerned, because it contains no amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers. It is almost as though they do not want to engage with the Bill and make any improvements, so they stand here with their rhetoric about how they are against the Bill and what it is doing, but without seeking to improve it, make any changes or add anything to the debate. Even the Liberal Democrats added a certain je ne sais quoi to this debate, but the Opposition do not and that concerns me. We have a debate where they talk about how awful this is but without any recommendations for improvements.

[Anthony Browne]

I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend mentioned the fiscal background, which is that we have just spent £400 billion on the pandemic and we now have national debt that is the same size as the GDP. One thing concerns me when I listen to the contributions from those on the Opposition Benches; does he agree that Governments always have to live within their means and, like individuals, they cannot carry on living on the never-never and ultimately will have to try to balance the books?

[Alexander Stafford]

Of course, we all have to live within our means: we cannot just keep on spending money. It was right for us to spend £400 billion to save jobs, save lives, prop up our economy and make sure that people have jobs, but we need to pay that back, so unfortunately we cannot have huge, sweeping tax cuts, however much we might like to. The Government need to make and are making the tough but responsible choices.

I also feel we are in a parallel universe when I hear Opposition Members talking about being on the side of working people and saying that they would do more if they were in our shoes. My local council, Labour-run Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, is not only increasing council tax for hard-working people but doing so with the ninth-largest increase, in cash terms, in the entire country. That is despite the council having £58 million in reserve for rainy days. If this is not a rainy day, I do not know what is. Instead of increasing council tax by so much, the council should spend the money it has in reserves and lower council tax for hard-working people.

Let me turn to an even more ridiculous example. Last year, the Labour police and crime commissioner for South Yorkshire underspent his budget by £2 million. That is a big saving. What would a fiscally prudent person do? They could spend it on reopening the police stations on Maltby High Street or in Dinnington, as I advocate, or perhaps freeze or even cut the precept. But no: the precept for the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner is increasing, despite that budget underspend. It is a parallel universe.

The Government are introducing tax cuts for hard-working people. We should emphasise that it is about the working people, because we want to put more money into people’s pockets. The Bill is a good, strong and stable measure, because it will look after people and put pounds in their pockets, where they matter. It is my fundamental belief, shared by my colleagues on the Conservative Benches, that if someone works hard, they will get the fruits of their labour—they will get out what they put in. Under this Bill, the more someone works, the more money they will get in their pocket, and more money in their pocket is better for them and their family, community and society. That is what the Bill does: it looks after people by putting more money in their pockets, because the individual knows best. That has been what goes on since time immemorial.

Financial Statement

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

All the people the right hon. Gentleman mentioned will benefit from the proposals we put forward last month, with £9 million to help everybody. The doubling in size of the household support fund is there for his local council and others to use to support those most in need, and he is right to highlight the winter fuel payments, which are payments of up to £300 for those pensioners. Many of those on pension credit will also have access to the warm home discount, which is an extra £150.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As a member of the Treasury Committee and chair of the Conservative Back-Bench Treasury committee, I congratulate the Chancellor on this spring statement’s tax cutting and tax simplifying, with many measures to help hard-working families make ends meet and to promote economic growth. I also very much welcome the publication of the tax plan. Too often, Governments are tactical about their tax policies, leaving great uncertainty for businesses about what will happen next. We now have a strategy for the years ahead. Tax policy must be informed by a strategy; it also needs to be credible and fair. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in all the measures the Treasury has introduced since 2019, it is the poorest households that have benefited the most and the wealthiest that have contributed the most?

[Rishi Sunak]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment and look forward to working with him in both his committees over the coming months, particularly to flesh out the business tax options that we want to finalise by the autumn Budget. He is right to say that the distribution analysis published today, which looks at all tax, welfare and spending decisions, shows that this Government have been highly progressive in their actions and that those on the lowest incomes have benefited the most.

National Insurance Contributions Increase

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

That we are currently experiencing the gravest cost of living crisis in memory should not be in the least bit a controversial thing to say. It has been caused by inflation from a number of fronts: the shortage of labour caused by Brexit and the ending of free movement; the increased trade frictions as a direct consequence of Brexit; covid-19 and all that has befallen us over the last two years; and, most recently, the rapidly increasing costs of energy. Amidst all this it is absolutely extraordinary that any sentient, competent Government would seek to pile on the agony by increasing national insurance contributions for employers, employees and the self-employed.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Thomson]

I will give way shortly but first want to make some progress, because this represents a shattering of the Conservatives’ manifesto promises—and I am sure the hon. Member will want to be fully cognisant of this before he takes to his feet to chide me. On page 2—the inside page—of the Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto, entitled “Get Brexit Done: Unleash Britain’s Potential”, we had an introduction from no lesser a personage than the Prime Minister himself, rather grandiosely titled “My Guarantee”, which said:

“We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or national insurance”.

That was signed off with the Prime Minister’s signature, and it was a statement quite literally not worth the paper it was written on.

[Richard Thomson]

I am spoiled for choice; I give way to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne).

[Anthony Browne]

The hon. Member makes some very valid points about the rise in the cost of living in the UK, which we absolutely accept is a real challenge, but he puts many of the reasons for it down at the feet of the British Government; does he not accept that this is a global phenomenon? Does he not accept that the increase in energy prices is a global phenomenon affecting all countries around the world, that the crunch in the supply chains resulting from the global pandemic is a global phenomenon, and that inflation is higher in America and Germany than in the UK—and in the latest figures UK inflation is below the OECD average?

[Richard Thomson]

For a moment there, I was going to ask the hon. Member if he would give way to me. Yes, I do accept most of those things but, as I also set out very clearly, there are those aspects that are exogenous and global and there are those, such as through Brexit and from the poor response to covid in many respects, that are entirely self-inflicted. I am happy to draw a distinction and I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member might do so, too.

Let us not be in any doubt about the enormity of the crisis facing us. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has warned that the number of UK households classed as destitute could rise by nearly a third to more than 1 million this spring after the Government bring in their national insurance increase. Ofgem recently announced that millions of householders will see their energy bills rise by £693 as a result of the increase in the energy cap from April. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that the energy price cap rise will have a harsher impact on the poorest families, who will spend on average 18% of their income after housing costs on energy bills after April. Energy UK recently warned that household energy bills could rise by another £1,000 by October as wholesale gas prices continue to soar, with households facing the prospect of bills between £2,500 and £3,000 this year. Consumer prices, as measured by the consumer prices index, were 5.5% higher in December 2021 than a year before, the highest inflation rate recorded since 1992. And of course we must not forget that the Bank of England increased interest rates from 0.25% to 0.5% and forecasts that real household disposable incomes are set to fall by 2%.

The UK Government’s “Health and Social Care Levy” police paper claims:

“This levy provides a UK-wide approach which enables us to pool and share risks and resources across the UK”.

In accepting that, we should be absolutely clear about whom the risks are being pooled among. We must be in no doubt whatsoever that the upcoming national insurance hike is a tax on jobs as well as on individuals, when people are already suffering. The increase will not touch property income, pensions or income from savings, but will fall squarely on the shoulders of those who are salaried or whose income is drawn from profits.

We have heard about figures showing that the top proportion are paying higher amounts, but we would expect that. What I am interested in is the marginal rate of tax, because that is the true measure of fairness—how much of someone’s income they are having to give over as a result of a taxation measure. Let us look at one group in particular: our students. This national insurance hike will mean that, if student loan repayments are included, graduates earning just over £27,000 will pay a marginal tax rate in excess of 42%. We have heard that government is about choices and it is clear from the choices this Government are making that the combined effect of their policies will hit the lowest earners, the youngest earners and those with the least economic assets the hardest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

Again, I refer the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) to the concept of the marginal rate of tax and ask him to look at the totality of the impact—if he had been patient I would have happily given way; he had no need to resort to such devices.

On raising additional resources for health and social care, as we are invited to believe this levy is supposed to do, it is surely much fairer as a general principle to spread the burden by increasing income taxes across the board on both earned and unearned income, as well as to look again at areas such as inheritance taxes and capital gains, so that the totality of the wealth of the nation can be taken into consideration in sharing the burden. There is a real danger in my view, particularly as a result of localised property price inflation, that this policy will further widen economic, social, generational and geographical divides, baking that unfairness into the social and economic settlement for decades to come. We have a Government who like to talk the language of levelling up while doing the exact opposite on personal and business taxation. We will be paying the costs of that in reduced growth and lower incomes for many years to come.

That is the problem from a social justice perspective, but it is almost every bit as bad from a policy making perspective. Apart from moneys going to the NHS in England and an unspecified amount eventually trickling through to social care in England, we still have only the sketchiest idea of what this resource will be invested in. There are significant whole-system problems in health and social care in England which predate covid. That is not to say things are great everywhere else, but I get absolutely no sense that the UK Government have started to embrace the systemic issues that cause the blockages and poorer outcomes that are there and that money will only go so far to solve, including the high levels of unmet need, staff shortages and poor workforce pay and conditions, as well as the fragile provider market. In that sense, the Government are doing what they routinely like to criticise others for and focusing on inputs rather than outcomes, and surely outcomes for people in health and social care should be driving the reform that is needed.

It is not in doubt that there was a pre-covid pandemic crisis in health and social care, let alone the post-covid one, but that will not be remediated either by this policy or by the Prime Minister’s utterly bogus repeated claims about building 40 hospitals. Reform requires thought as well as resource, but surely fairness demands that the resource for that reform comes primarily from those with the broadest shoulders and an economy that is able to and is growing sustainably and productively.

I support Scottish independence and want full tax powers for Scotland, and I have no doubt in my mind that an independent Scottish Government would not be using the equivalent of national insurance in such a way for this purpose. Until that changes, we are stuck with and reliant on the Conservatives—out of all character—prioritising the interests of those on lower and middle incomes over the most wealthy.

[Anthony Browne]

rose—

[Richard Thomson]

Go on—give me one last chance.

[Anthony Browne]

The hon. Member stresses the importance of a sustainably growing economy. Would he like to congratulate the Government on their economic response to covid, which means that we had the fastest growing economy in the G7 last year and are predicted to do so this year? Groups from the International Monetary Fund to the OECD have congratulated them on their response.

[Richard Thomson]

I do not think that is true, but, even if it was, those economies that fall the furthest rebound the fastest.

We seem to be reliant on the better nature of the Conservative Government—one that sadly is often lacking—with them somehow going against all their instincts to protect the interests of lower and middle-income earners over those of the highest. I shall not be holding my breath on that front.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I suggest that a very good use of public money was emergency funding for PPE when we most desperately needed it in a national lockdown. It was inevitable that there would be a trade-off between speed—everyone in the House was cheering the Government on at the time—and maximising the effectiveness of every single contract. I hope that the Government make no apology for the speed with which they dealt with the crisis. They should be commended for that.

It has also been suggested that we should crack down on fraud. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) referenced a £4.7 billion headline in covid-related fraud, but she failed to give the Government credit for the actions that they have taken to address that. We have the Taxpayer Protection Taskforce, which has recruited 1,265 staff. We also have the work done on powers for the Insolvency Service and Companies House to link company directors directly to their bounce back loans, which has been used on 61,758 companies, catching loans worth £2.1 billion. The combination of those two factors means that the new estimate, which she did not find time to refer to, is not £4.7 billion but £3.3 billion. Fraud is therefore reduced to an estimated 7.5% of contracts, which is at least within spitting distance of the average for Government programmes of, I am sorry to say, as much as 5%.

[Anthony Browne]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the need to increase spending to pay for social care and has raised the different ways of doing that. Does he agree that if we are to increase spending sustainably, we need a sustainable source of money and that a one-off windfall that occurs in just one year cannot fund long-term commitments? Cutting back on fraud in one particular year cannot fund long-term commitments.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even if we recovered all of that £3.3 billion, that would be for a single year only. The great mistake that the Opposition have made is to conflate single events—a windfall tax is another example—with ongoing revenue needs.

The next option is to borrow money. Of course, that is the easy response, and that really is the Opposition’s position, even if they cannot bring themselves to admit it from the Dispatch Box. However, that is not free money, because we have to service the debt and, eventually, we have to repay it. So we are passing the responsibility on to our children and our grandchildren for tax cuts now, which is essentially what the Labour party is arguing for. Our servicing of debt already cost an estimated £64 billion last year, which is £955 for every single member of the population. Because of inflation, which is a global phenomenon, and the likely rise in interest rates, that is forecast to rise to £75 billion for this financial year. The hon. Member for Leeds West says that the Government have a policy of buy now, pay later, but what could be a better description of Labour’s response to this pressing need? We want to improve social care, and we need to have a covid fightback, and we have got to pay for it.

There is the option to borrow, but, as I said, it is our children and grandchildren who will pay that price. I therefore believe that the Government are quite right to balance the increased social spending that we want to achieve with the tax necessary to pay for it. If we look at the total measures that the Government have brought in, we see that they are deeply progressive. Treasury analysis shows that they are net positive for 80% of households, whereas Labour’s plan to remove the national insurance contribution would actually help the top 10% the most—by more than £1,000. Surely that is not Labour’s policy.

No Conservative Government want to raise tax, but it is our duty before cheap popularity to be responsible custodians of national finances. That is a lesson that Labour has never learned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion from my right hon. and hon. Friends. We all remember too well that during the 2019 general election campaign, just over two years ago, the Prime Minister said to voters:

“Read my lips, we will not be raising taxes on income or VAT or national insurance.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was also keen to point out that his plan was to cut taxes for the lowest paid through cutting national insurance. It is clear that the Government have blatantly broken their promises to the country on national insurance, as they have on international development and the pension triple lock.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, mentioned, things have changed in the six months since the national insurance contributions increase was announced back in September. It is clear to many Opposition Members that the Government need to rethink the planned rise in national insurance contributions. In these extraordinarily difficult times, if the rise goes ahead, it will see people’s incomes squeezed even more. People are finding it more and more difficult just to survive and that is before we see the increase in national insurance contributions and the huge increase in energy bills that will have a heavy impact from April.

In my constituency and across the country, we are all hearing stories of huge sacrifice. Families are facing a real cost of living crisis, with energy bills set to rise again in April—

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gerald Jones]

No, I will not. Given that oil and gas producers in the North sea have posted huge profits during the pandemic, why do the Government not halt their unfair tax rise, back a windfall tax to help to fund a cut in VAT on home energy bills and ease the burden on working people?

Government Members have also called on the Government not to go ahead with the rise. They have urged Ministers to make tackling the cost of living their No. 1 priority and noted that this year will be exceptionally hard for families, so why are the Government still not listening?

The Government claim that this situation is down to the pandemic, but in March last year—a year into the pandemic—the Chancellor promised that national insurance would not go up, saying:

“We’re not going to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance, or VAT.”

He added:

“Nobody’s take home pay will be less than it is now”—

another broken promise.

Analysis from the New Economics Foundation shows that 2.5 million working households will be hit by the Tory double whammy of cuts to universal credit and the increase in national insurance, losing out on as much as £1,170 next year. That is all at a time when we know that the price of food, the price of petrol and the cost of rent are going up and families are genuinely fearful about making ends meet.

There are other ways to raise that money, but the Chancellor wants the country to believe that this is the only way to do it. Half of Britons say that they could not afford an additional £50 a month on their cost of living. The Government should halt the national insurance rise so that people see their cost of living concerns ease. Surely the Minister recognises that stopping the rise would provide immediate support and help families at this really difficult time.

We know that citizens advice bureaux have seen a huge increase in debt advice services and that is before we reach April, when there will be the national insurance rise and the increase in energy costs. Labour has long called for the national insurance rise to be halted so that it does not make the cost of living crisis worse.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gerald Jones]

No, I will not. The Federation of Small Businesses warned that

“this increase will stifle recruitment, investment and efforts to upskill and improve productivity in the years ahead.”

The trade unions have joined the FSB in that regard. The FSB stated:

“The Government’s regressive jobs tax hike will put jobs at risk, stifle start-ups and prevent new jobs from being created…It could mean 50,000 more people out of work after it takes effect in April. That means 50,000 livelihoods harmed—50,000 people who would otherwise be at work in our economy.”

The TUC also says that it is wrong to hit young and low-paid workers while “leaving the wealthy untouched”.

Surely the Government must recognise that we are in a totally different situation from when the rise was announced six months ago. The economic outlook for thousands of families across the country is much bleaker, so I urge the Government to change course, support today’s Opposition motion and help to ease the pressure on families in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and right across the country.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Opposition are right that the rise in the cost of living is a crisis causing pain for many households across the country, particularly those on low incomes. As I said in an intervention, this is a global issue. The inflation afflicting the UK afflicts almost every country around the world. The energy price rises and the rise in food costs are as a result of global phenomena that are affecting countries such as US and Germany, where inflation is far higher than it is in the UK. In fact, if we look on an international basis, we see that inflation here is pretty middle of the road, although it is very concerning.

I will tell the House what else is very serious, as well as the cost of living crisis: the waiting list crisis that we have after the pandemic, with 6 million people waiting for elective surgery. There is also the social care crisis, which has bedevilled Governments for decades. They have always put it in on the “too difficult to do” pile and not done anything about it. We need to tackle those really serious issues and they require a serious, sustained increase in funding. The question is: how do we do that? How do we get that amount of money?

The national insurance increase will raise about £12 billion a year, when we do all the sums and cut out the costs. We can raise that amount of money only from three sorts of taxes: national insurance, VAT or income tax. If we put this on VAT, there would be an increase in the cost of living. That would go straight through to inflation.

The windfall tax that the Opposition propose would raise £6 billion or so, which is half the amount and would just be for one year. That cannot pay for a sustained increase in social care funding and the waiting list backlog. The question that I was going to ask if I had been allowed to intervene earlier, including on the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—I notice that she has disappeared from her own debate, which is interesting—[Interruption.] It is the Opposition’s debate, not ours. I was going to ask how the Opposition would sustainably raise £12 billion a year to pay for the NHS. As I understand it, the Labour party has no solution to or proposal for that. Labour’s proposal to cut national insurance therefore basically amounts to a tax cut to starve the NHS of much-needed funding. I am astonished that the Labour party, of all parties, which likes to see itself as the party of the NHS, is proposing to do that.

We could ask, “Why choose national insurance rather than income tax?” There are various reasons for that. One of the most powerful is that it would be half paid for by businesses—there would be 1.25% for employees and 1.25% for businesses—whereas income tax is paid directly by earners.

National insurance is also progressive. I find it alarming when Labour Members keep saying that it is not. I wonder what understanding of economics they have. A progressive tax means that those on higher incomes pay more. That is clearly the case with national insurance. The top 14% will pay 50% of the whole tax. It is a tax that Labour increased in 2003 to pay for healthcare.

There are problems with national insurance. It does not normally go on dividends or on pensions, but this increase will, and it addresses a lot of the inequities of normal national insurance. Unlike income tax, national insurance can also be—and indeed, is—ringfenced legally and operationally for the NHS, so that we can be sure that this money is going towards the systemic problem of healthcare and social care that I mentioned earlier.

It is clearly important to tackle the cost of living. I completely understand Opposition Members’ concerns about raising taxes. I see myself as a low-tax Conservative, and I do not vote for tax rises with any joy in my heart, but what the Government have done is give support on household bills directly through the £200 energy bill support scheme—the rebate—and the £150 off council tax for houses in bands A to D. Eighty per cent. of houses will benefit from that, and the total package is about £9 billion a year. That goes directly to people’s pockets from April onwards. They will notice it straight away, and people want immediate support, not long-term aspiration.

I find this whole debate quite beguiling. I have spent my adult life watching the Labour party argue for higher taxes to fund the NHS. Today, in this debate, Labour Members are arguing for lower taxes in order to starve the NHS of money. This whole debate is about not the opportunities for the NHS but political opportunism, and I do not think it brings any credit on the Labour party to be so flagrantly opportunistic and economically illiterate as it is being today.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I place on record my dismay that the Government have chosen to hit working people and businesses with a national insurance rise at the worst possible time—when one in six working households cannot make ends meet, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research; when the number of jobs that pay below the national minimum wage and the living wage is still more than two and a half times higher than at pre-pandemic levels; when inflation is forecast to reach 7.25% next month, the highest level since August 1991.

We already have the highest level of inflation for three decades, but I am afraid that everything we know about the implications of Ukraine tells us that it will only get higher in the next few months. Everywhere we turn, prices are going up far faster than anyone can keep up with—at the supermarket checkout, at the petrol pump, in gas and electricity bills. Adding in mortgage rises, rent rises and council tax rises, we face a perfect storm of inflationary pressures that we have not seen for an entire generation.

I do not think that anyone has really levelled with the public about what the implications of a protracted war in Ukraine will be for prices. Things are going to get a lot more difficult before the pressure eases off. Just look at how the mere suggestion of a boycott of Russian gas and oil has pushed trading prices sky-high. That resulted from comments from the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, that conversations about a boycott were taking place—one can only imagine what would happen if people moved beyond conversations and a boycott actually took place.

It is not clear to what extent the price spikes are being exacerbated by speculators who are seeking to take advantage of the situation. Nor do we know whether a real effort by OPEC countries to increase production would mitigate it, or what impact the conflict will have on food prices over the medium term. The reality is that western Europe, trapped by its reliance on Russian energy, is forced to buy fuel that pays for the war that pushes up the price of energy further still. I fear that until more home truths are spoken about what it will take to break the cycle, we will continue to see prices rise and the war continue.

I recognise that addressing the issue is not solely within the Government’s gift. Grasping the nettle will be a continent-wide effort, but we must look at what the Government can control. There is an opportunity today to act on the national insurance increases. It beggars belief that we are looking at tax rises at the same time as prices are rising and bills are skyrocketing at levels not seen for a generation. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry, but the hon. Member has just spoken. If he did not get his point in then, he has missed his opportunity.

The tax rise was wrong back in September when it was first proposed, and even more wrong now. That is not just the view of Opposition Members; the cross-party Treasury Committee has highlighted that the increase in national insurance contributions for employers will lead to higher costs being passed on to consumers. If we speak to anyone in social care, they tell us that that is pushing them into unviability.

Data from the Institute of Directors in January demonstrated that more than a third of businesses would respond to the increase by raising prices and passing on the burden to customers, yet again increasing inflationary pressures. The same report also said that nearly a fifth of businesses would consider employing fewer staff as a result of these rises. Almost three quarters of companies in manufacturing say that they are also very likely to pass on the costs to customers, so it is no surprise that Make UK has said that the proposal is “illogical” and “ill-timed”.

We know that some areas will be worse hit than others. Analysis shows that the north-east and the midlands—areas that rely on wages rather than income from investment and properties—will be hardest hit. That is not levelling up, is it? Trapping the country in a low-growth, high-tax cycle and hitting working people with tax rise after tax rise is the opposite of levelling up.

Within four years, the average household will be paying £3,000 a year more in tax than when the Prime Minister first came to power. There is nothing to give families the security that they would get from the fully funded measures that the Opposition have proposed to keep energy bills down, which would be paid for by a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producer profits. In my constituency alone, 12,500 families would be £400 better off as a result of the tax, and our plan would mean almost all households making savings on their bills. Nor would an extra £40 charge be hidden away and come out of people’s bills in a few years’ time, regardless of whether they had benefited from the scheme in the first place.

We see the effects of the current crisis playing out every day. One example in my constituency relates to housing affordability. Housing is a basic right, but with affordable and council housing in short supply, reliance upon the private rented sector has increased. However, a recent search of properties available in Ellesmere Port showed that of the 13 properties available—a minuscule number to start with—only two came within a rental liability level that would be covered by the local housing allowance, while the rest ranged from £30 to £225 over the rates. In Neston, the results of a search are even worse: all the properties were well over the LHA. In fact, it is now incredibly rare to see any properties offered at a rental value equivalent to the LHA. How on earth can we expect people to put a roof over their head in that situation, let alone pay for energy bills, food or council tax bills?

This will be an ongoing crisis, and there is no solution from the Government. Everywhere we turn, from housing to heating to eating, prices are going up. People face some really tough times ahead unless something is done now. Let us not add to that impossible burden. Let us scrap this national insurance increase right now.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

I have said many times in this place that I represent the oldest demographic in the entire country. Hon. Members might expect me to say that North Norfolk is beautiful; it is my home and it is where I grew up. People come to live there all their lives, retire there or come back for years and years. If I knock on a door, there are two things that my constituents say they care about. They care about their health, and they recognise that with the dreadful situation we are in, the conflict we are seeing and the shifting of geopolitical plates, we have to have a competent Government looking after the economy. In pretty much any polling across the country, the most important factors that people care about are their health and the economy.

As I said in my intervention on the Chief Secretary, we have spent £450 billion, an eye-watering amount, on safeguarding the jobs and livelihoods of millions and millions of people—working-class, everyday people whose jobs have been saved. As a consequence, we are now in £2.2 trillion or so of debt. I find it staggering that the Opposition think that we can just amble out the other side of a global pandemic and everything will be normal. It simply cannot be, and we must and should be honest about it.

The health and social care levy is needed. We have heard all the statistics that show why: to repair the backlog in elective surgery and repair the social care system that we need in this country. According to reports, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said, £12 billion a year is needed—a colossal amount of money. We cannot raise £12 billion a year by making savings or cuts to other services that have been ravaged throughout the pandemic that we have just come through.

Social care is a subject that I have spoken about many times in this Chamber—obviously I would, with the demographic I represent. We should not underestimate the herculean efforts of our carers. It is completely right that we hail our nurses through the pandemic. Imagine the care and patience someone needs to be a dementia nurse or a palliative carer. It is about time we fixed that—it is about time we grabbed the nettle and did it. This is a Government who are finally gutsy enough not to be derailed, no matter how difficult the situation. They will not be pushed off track; they will deal with it.

Before I came to the House I was a finance director, and I remember that when automatic enrolment came in, the situation was very similar. The initial levy was 1%, and what was being said then was what is being said now—people would be desperately worried about the cost, they would not pay for it, and they would opt out. What happened? Ninety per cent. of people stayed in the scheme, because they saw the value of what it was doing in the context of the marginal extra amount that they were paying.

The same will happen in this case. No one wants to see tax rises—we all agree on that—but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If we end up funding services properly and taking care of our elderly people properly—and we have the opportunity now to reform the social care sector and fund the NHS in this way—the 1.25% about which Members are so concerned today will dissipate, and for that reason we have to be entirely sensible.

[Anthony Browne]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the need to increase spending on health and social care in the long run. Does he share my concern about the fact that, while proposing a cut in national insurance, Labour Members have no answer to the question of how they would fund ongoing health and social care services, and the fact that cutting national insurance would inevitably lead to their cutting those as well?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Any member of the public hearing that the Government were today voting their Finance Bill through the House of Commons might expect such a Bill to do something to help with the cost of living crisis facing families up and down this country. Our new clause 6 makes this simple point. It asks the Government to set out how the measures in the Bill will affect household finances, the amount of tax working people are paying, and the rate of growth in the economy in the coming year.

I suspect that Ministers will want to avoid our new clause 6 because they know what the answers will be. The truth is that whether through this Bill or any other means, the Government are letting energy bills soar, refusing to cancel their national insurance hike, and failing to set out a plan for growth. The Conservatives’ failure to grow the economy over the last decade, and their inability to plan for growth in the future, has left them with no choice but to raise taxes. This low-growth, high-tax approach to the economy has become the hallmark of these Conservatives in power.

Let me make it clear why our new clause 6 might make such difficult reading for Conservative Members. People see their energy bills going up and about to soar, inflation at its highest rate in decades, and their wages falling in real terms—and what do the Tories do? They raise national insurance by £274 for a typical full-time worker. It is the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time. We warned that it was wrong when the Government pushed it through Parliament last year. Our arguments have only got stronger since then, so instead of digging in, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister should do the right thing and scrap this tax hike on working people and their jobs. Despite calls on the Government from all sides, they are so far refusing to budge. In this Bill, they offer no relief to working people, who face soaring prices and tax bills. They have managed to find time, however, to put into law a tax cut for banks, as we see in clause 6.

Clause 6, which our amendment 35 seeks to delete, would see the rate of the banking corporation tax surcharge fall from 8% to 3%, with the allowance for the charge raised from £25 million to £100 million. That will cost the public finances £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has used smoke and mirrors desperately to pretend that the Government are not cutting taxes for banks. She has tried to hide this tax cut under a separate change to corporation tax that may never even come to pass.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Including corporation tax and the surcharge, the taxation of banks is currently at 27%. After this legislation, it will be 28%. Does the hon. Member agree that 28% is higher than 27%, and therefore taxes on banks are actually going to rise, not go down?

[James Murray]

It is the same tired doublespeak by Government Members trying to hide this tax cut for banks. However they try to present it, in this Bill the banking surcharge is cut from 8% to 3%; it is there in the policy costings from the Treasury that the measure will cost the public purse £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. If Government Members do not like this tax cut, they can simply vote with us to delete it at the end of Report, rather than pretend it does not exist.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James Murray]

No, I am going to make some progress.

The truth is that this tax cut is going ahead at a time when bankers’ earnings are on the rise, with investment banks’ profits soaring off the back of a wave of takeovers and mergers caused by the pandemic. The UK arm of Goldman Sachs—a business that the Chancellor will know well—boosted its pay by more than a third last year, Barclays is set to raise bonus payments by more than 25% in its corporate investment bank, and boutique banks in the City are expected to do especially well, as they are exempt from rules that limit bonuses.

These measures show just how out of touch this Government and this Chancellor are: they are championing a tax cut for banks while ignoring calls from the TUC, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, Labour MPs, some on their own side, and the British public, to abandon their tax cut on working people and their jobs. If Ministers are still refusing to listen, today we are giving their Back Benchers an opportunity to say, “Enough is enough.” They can vote with us tonight to cancel the banking tax cut and make the Government think again.

The national insurance hike is wrong because it threatens people’s financial security. I will now turn to other aspects of the Bill that relate to wider economic security and the threat of economic crime.