National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joe Morris]

My hon. Friend eloquently makes the point that I have been trying to make when I have tripped over my words.

I am extremely proud that the Government are committed to achieving economic stability, being frank with the public about the choices that we face and not simply taking the easy options. We need to implement these tough measures in order to resolve the previous Government’s disastrous economic mismanagement and to restore our foundations. I will finish by saying that traditionally, as far as I am aware, it is poor form for the arsonist to criticise the actions of the fire brigade.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I rise to speak, on behalf of the official Opposition, to amendments 13 to 18 and new clause 1, which stand in my name.

First, it is important to remember the context of the situation we find ourselves in today. Throughout the election, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister promised the British people that they would not raise taxes on working people. They committed specifically to not raising national insurance, but here we are in Committee debating a national insurance tax on working people worth some £25 billion. Each and every Government Member made specific promises to their constituents on national insurance, which they have now broken. We have it here in black and white.

Clause 1 raises the rate of secondary class national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. To compound the impact, clause 2 drastically cuts the secondary threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. This two-pronged attack on business means that while clause 1 squeezes more from businesses, clause 2 simultaneously pushes more businesses into the taxman’s grasp. Taken together, based on data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a staggering 940,000 employers are set to lose out in net terms from the Bill. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that each one will be hit by an average of £26,000 in additional tax.

On Second Reading we heard the same old script from the Government and their Back Benchers. Time and again we hear that the Bill will hurt only the largest businesses, but that is not correct. Most high street hair salons would not say that they are a big business with mounds of profit to give away to the Exchequer, no matter how much hair mousse this Prime Minister buys from them. A village family butcher surely would not regard themselves as profiteering fat cats. Community pharmacies providing vital services to residents young and old surely cannot be put in the same category as a large multinational pharmaceuticals company. Yet they are.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent argument against increasing the employer’s part of national insurance contributions. Yet he himself voted for the health and social care levy, which was an increase of greater proportion on both employees and employers. I have just checked Hansard—he made none of the arguments that he progresses today when his Government were putting that through. Why has his mind been changed now that he is in opposition?

[Gareth Davies]

I find it difficult that the Labour party says that we are irresponsible with public finances, yet when we faced a once-in-a-century pandemic and spent £400 billion or £500 billion to support residents, business and families in Stoke and across the country, we decided that we needed to pay that money back and did not want debt to keep on rising. Yes, we made difficult decisions in the face of a global pandemic. There is no global pandemic today. This is a political choice, and that is the difference.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind in giving way again so quickly. The point has been made about the billions of pounds that were spent during the pandemic. Can he outline how much of that money went to Tory party mates and donors through dodgy contracts?

[Gareth Davies]

The hon. Gentleman was not here at that time, but those of us who were in Parliament then faced an incredibly challenging time in very difficult circumstances. Billions of pounds went to support businesses in his constituency; if he has a conversation with the average business that benefited from the furlough scheme, I am sure he will correct the record.

The problem is that socialists fundamentally do not understand or care what it means to have an idea, to take a risk or to work hard day in, day out to make a business a reality. That is the problem. They think it is all so easy—that profits just flow in. They think it will all be all right, because Government can step in and take us much tax as they want. That is not the case. If Government Members talk to the average business in their constituencies, they will find this out; if they set up a business, they will see it for themselves.

Perhaps most worrying of all, not only do the Government not understand the private sector, but they have completely overlooked the different ways in which the public sector provides for our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) set out. Whether healthcare, childcare or the charity sector, organisation after organisation has warned Ministers that this tax rise will impact the services they provide. That may not have been intended, but the Government have yet to act. That is why we have tabled amendments 13 to 15 and 16 to 18, which seek to protect certain key sectors from both parts of this tax in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, and the Treasury really needs to answer this question. Did it knowingly implement these tax rises on these industries, which would be a travesty in itself, or did it do so by mistake because it does not understand these issues? If that is the case, will the Government look to rectify the matter so that hospices, GPs and childcare providers are protected?

[Gareth Davies]

I could not have put it better myself. These amendments highlight the fact that Labour’s attempt to paint this tax rise as a necessity for public services is nothing but plain politics; Labour has always intended to do this, and now it is hiding behind public services to justify it.

Those working on the frontline of healthcare in and alongside the NHS will be deeply impacted. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the tax bill of each GP surgery will increase by £20,000 a year, likely resulting in a reduced number of appointments. The Nuffield Trust has said that providers in the adult social care sector will face a £940 million increase, dwarfing the social care support announced in the Budget. Community Pharmacy England says that community pharmacists will be hit by an additional £50 million each year, inevitably causing pharmacies to close and services to deteriorate. Hospice UK warns that £30 million will be added to the bill for 200 hospices across the country, which will lead to greater pressure on NHS palliative services.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend is a fellow Lincolnshire MP. In Lincoln we have St Barnabas hospice, a greatly loved local institution where most people would want to spend their final days. We also have the Lincolnshire air ambulance, and we have GPs all over our huge county who are struggling. Can he explain how it is in the public interest to attack these people?

[Gareth Davies]

My right hon. Friend—a Lincolnshire colleague and Father of the House—puts it perfectly. Labour says that it supports public services and that those services are apparently being trashed, so why on earth would the Government then go and tax them? Why add to their cost base, which they have very clearly said will reduce services across every constituency? Labour Members will all walk through the Lobby tonight and add to the cost burden of those services. It does not make sense. Charities have also signalled the alarm, with more than 7,000 writing to the Chancellor to warn of the £1.4 billion hit that they will face next year.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Back Benchers need to speak to their Ministers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) suggested, the Government cannot have meant to do this deliberately. They could accept our amendments today or move some of the funds for the NHS—the £22 billion or £25 billion, whatever it is—across to this, because the NHS depends on social care and other services. At the moment, the Government risk turning something that could be a triumph for them into a disaster, both for the NHS and, more importantly, for patients and those most in need.

[Gareth Davies]

Once again, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I have said already, I am not sure that this was intended. I do not think the Government understand what these measures will do to our communities, to the sectors I have outlined and to the businesses that I will speak about in a minute. The Minister will have to address my right hon. Friend’s point. What will the Government do to mitigate the damage of the Bill on the communities and organisations that I have highlighted?

A sector I have not yet highlighted is childcare, without which millions of parents across the country could not go to work—including, by the way, many in this House. The Bill will contribute an average of £47,000 in additional costs per nursery next year, according to the National Day Nurseries Association. The previous Government did so much to extend childcare to more families, boosting workforce participation and economic growth, but this tax hike will pull us back from that progress. That is not what people voted for. There is no mandate for this harm. I urge the Government to think again.

Ideally, all employers would be made exempt, which is why the Conservatives voted against the Bill. At this time of year, people should be reflecting on another year gone by all too soon and looking to the new year with hope, ambition and optimism, but so many employers will now enter 2025 with fear. Many will be thinking again about that planned expansion or the investment in new equipment or premises. Worse, some will be thinking about who they need to let go—never mind awarding the pay rises in the spring they once hoped to give.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend is an astute man, and he has picked up on something that I fear. According to S&P Global’s purchasing managers’ index, this has been the third consecutive month of job losses; December has seen the highest number since 2021, in the pandemic. It has said:

“Barring the pandemic, the survey has not seen job losses on this scale since the global financial crisis in 2009.”

That is a direct impact of the choices in the Budget and this NIC increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is something the Government really need to think about?

[Gareth Davies]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend, who has once again made a very astute intervention. It marries very clearly with what we have seen in business confidence. He mentioned the record since the pandemic. Business confidence has tanked to low levels that we have not seen since the economy had to be shut down during the pandemic. A survey by the CBI, which makes for stark reading, says that 62% of businesses have said that they will have to reduce recruitment, while 48% have said that they will be reducing existing staff levels. That is all because this Bill will impact them in ways they never imagined and were never told about. Whether businesses freeze or cut jobs, or, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned, shift employees to a self-employed basis, or, even worse, offshore workers to overseas destinations, the potential impact on employment should absolutely worry us all.

That is why we have tabled new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of this tax rise on the employment rate within a year of the passage of the Act. It is not controversial; it just seeks clarification and an assessment.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

This impact assessment is extremely important, not least because at a macro level—given that the UK is essentially a services-based economy in which human capital is the most expensive fixed cost, effectively—there is no way to escape this tax. Unlike corporation tax, which is levied on profits, this tax is levied whether a business is making a profit or not; businesses that have been marginal but struggling may well be forced into a loss, and may therefore choose to close down. It therefore has to be essential that we look backwards, if this tax goes ahead, and ask what the impact has been from a services point of view.

[Gareth Davies]

That was a classic case of how to make an intervention, because it added to the debate. I had not mentioned that point, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on employers, who will pay the tax whether they are profitable or not, is absolutely right. That is, again, not something I think the Government have fully appreciated.

Finance Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Just before I call the shadow Minister, I remind Members that, in Committee, I am Madam Chair or Madam Chairman.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is always a pleasure to see you in Committee and to serve under your chairmanship.

On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor. Before I do so, let me set the scene for clauses 7 to 12.

When announcing these changes in her Budget, the Chancellor said:

“We need to drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 818.]

She said something similar to the BBC in 2023:

“We want Britain to be the best place to start and grow a business”

and that was why, she said

“I don’t have any plans to increase capital gains tax.”

This Bill corrects the record. Labour wants to increase capital gains tax, so clearly it does not have any plans for Britain to be the best place in which to start and grow a business. Is it any wonder that business confidence is now at the lowest level we have seen since the pandemic?

Clause 7 increases the main rates of capital gains tax from 10% and 20% to 18% and 24% respectively, with schedule 1 making consequential changes to reflect that these rates are now equal to those on residential property. The Office for Budget Responsibility rates the costings on this policy as “highly uncertain”. It says that

“these costings are among the most uncertain in the policy package, reflecting the range of potential behavioural responses.”

This Government are far too quick to ask others to explain how they would pay for Labour’s policies, when they are clearly failing to explain convincingly how their own policies would pay for themselves.

I wish to take this opportunity to highlight an issue raised with me by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. First, let me place on record my thanks to the organisation for its invaluable support. It has been informed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that it is too late to change the format of the relevant 2024-25 tax return pages to accommodate this in-year change. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister could provide the following assurances to HMRC: first, that it will be properly equipped to implement this measure; secondly, that the changes will be published as widely as possible; and, thirdly, that an appropriate level of understanding will be shown to taxpayers contending with these complications.

Clauses 8 and 9 increase the rates for gains that qualify for business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. From 6 April 2025, the 10% rate will increase to 14%. From 6 April 2026, it will rise again to 18%. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted, because the increase to the main rates of capital gains tax is effective immediately, this leaves a window where people selling their business can save up to 14% in capital gains tax until April 2025. In other words, the tax changes in this Bill do not cultivate a start-up Britain; they incentivise British business owners to sell up and sell up soon. This could have been avoided—along with the administrative complications that I have already outlined—had measures in clause 7 been implemented from the start of the new financial year.

Will the Minister explain why the timings of these provisions appear to be so untidy, and, for that matter, how exactly they drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation? I simply say that if hon. Members are not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, I encourage them to vote for new clause 5, which would require a proper assessment of the impact of this perverse incentive.

Clause 10 reduces the lifetime limit for investors’ relief from £10 million to £1 million, while clause 11 and schedule 2 bring in transitional rules and anti-forestalling provisions. On those anti-forestalling provisions, the Chartered Institute of Taxation notes that the anti-avoidance measures risk being “unfairly retrospective”, capturing those who entered into commercial contracts in good faith before the Budget, on the grounds that they do not satisfy the stringent requirement put down by the Treasury to be “wholly commercial”. Will the Minister tell the House why the wording is so tight? Widespread concern over being hit with “unfairly retrospective” taxation would have a chilling effect on parts of the economy. It would exacerbate uncertainty among those who already feel that they have been blindsided by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the Front-Bench wind-ups. Does the shadow Minister wish to speak?

[Gareth Davies]

indicated dissent.

[The Chairman]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining all the things she has just set out, but I did not quite get an answer to the specific question of why it costs HMRC £4.5 million to execute this tax rise, which will not raise any money in the next year or the year after. Could she explain why this specific measure that only affects 3,100 people costs HMRC £4.5 million, but other tax increases cost hundreds of thousands of pounds?

[Tulip Siddiq]

If the shadow Minister looks carefully at the documents we have published, he will find all his answers written out very clearly there.

New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an impact assessment of the changes to business asset disposal relief, and to compare the impact of those changes with the number of claims that would have been expected if the rate had not been changed. Every year, the Government publish capital gains tax statistics, which include the number of business asset disposal relief claims for the most recent tax year with available data. The number of claims in 2024-25 compared with upcoming tax years will therefore become public information in time. Meanwhile, the fiscal impact of the changes are is out in the tax information and impacts note for this measure, which has been published online.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies]

I rise to speak on behalf of the official Opposition on new clause 3, which stands in the name of the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride).

Clauses 15 to 18 concern the taxation of the oil and gas industry, which meets 75% of the UK’s household and industrial energy needs, with 50% of that need being met by the North sea. The sector supports more than 200,000 high-skilled jobs in this country, and that talent, along with the rest of the supply chain, will be crucial to our domestic energy transition. These realities underscore the imperative of a smooth and efficient transition and a fiscal regime that facilitates that, not least because the timeline for investment in the oil and gas industry is so long. If the fiscal regime is not calibrated correctly, the damage may be irreversible and the costs will be significant.

To recap the measures in the Bill, clause 15 increases the rate of the energy profits levy from 35% to 38%, bringing the headline tax rate on the sector up to 78%. Clause 16 removes the 29% investment allowance and reduces the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66%, so that the cash value of that allowance remains the same. Clause 17 extends the energy profits levy to 2030, at which point the Government are committing to implementing a successor regime to respond to price shocks once the levy expires. Clause 18 and schedule 3 legislate for certain payments into decommissioning funds to be treated as decommissioning expenditure so that they can attract tax relief.

The question that many are asking is this: do these measures add up to a fiscal regime that facilitates a smooth and efficient energy transition? Not according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which concludes that on average over the forecast period, capital expenditure will be 26% lower, oil production 6.3% lower and gas production 9.2% lower compared with our March forecasts. Those are dramatic movements. The University of Aberdeen has warned:

“A rise in the EPL and loss of investment and capital allowances may have the unintended effect of accelerating decommissioning and decelerating the energy transition as companies face an additional cost burden.”

The Government have thankfully carried out a partial U-turn, retaining the decarbonisation allowance and the 100% first-year allowance introduced by the Conservative party, but if they were persuaded of the importance of those investment allowances and that removing them would do more harm than good, why persist with removing the main 29% investment allowance? What was it about that relief compared with the others that made them want to scrap it?

The Government talk about closing loopholes—we saw how well that went with carried interest—but these measures will contribute just 1% of the new revenue raised by the Budget across this Parliament. Does the Minister really think it is worth jeopardising some 50% of our domestic gas supply for that? The measures in the Budget essentially throw a massive spanner in the works for oil and gas, and it is unclear exactly what the Government’s rationale is for doing that.

When we brought in the levy, it was to tax extraordinary profits in extraordinary times. The revenue that we raised contributed to our efforts through policies such as the energy price guarantee and the energy bills support scheme to reduce energy bills for the British people. Today, as those extraordinary circumstances subside, Labour is ratcheting up the levy. That sends a mixed message to the industry ahead of the consultation on a successor regime. The terms of that regime will supposedly be set by the need to respond to price shocks, yet the Government’s justification for these measures has nothing to do with price shocks. Instead, they are all dressed up in language about the sector making a “fair contribution”, as the Minister said, to the Energy Secretary’s environmental ideological ambitions. What is the Government’s vision for the taxation of oil and gas in this United Kingdom—temporary windfall taxes or permanent climate levies? The Bill suggests the latter. I would be grateful for the Minister specifically commenting on that when he responds.

One way in which the Minister could give an indication and provide some long-term certainty would be to confirm further the future of the energy security investment mechanism, which he mentioned. As he kindly said, we introduced the ESIM so that when prices returned to normal levels, the energy profits levy would end; no more windfall profits would mean no more windfall tax. Will he confirm that the ESIM will remain in place up to 2030? I think he said so at the Dispatch Box, but I would be grateful for his reconfirming its end date. Will he go further and confirm that it will remain in the same condition as today? Will the price floor continue to be consumer prices index-adjusted?

The Treasury and the Minister have said that the ESIM will be retained, but the industry would like further confirmation, as I have set out. Will he also write to me with the Treasury’s latest modelling of future oil and gas prices to prove that the expected revenues are not at the expense of the ESIM? That modelling will be important for us to understand and get that reassurance and certainty on the ESIM. Having been in the Treasury, I know that that modelling is continually reviewed and produced; I would be grateful if he would write to me with that.

These are not purely academic questions. Our concern is for the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the UK oil and gas industry, for the UK’s energy security and for the efficient and smooth energy transition that we all care about. The Government should be not ideological but empirical in their approach, which is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require a review of the impact of these measures on employment, investment, production, demand and the whole Scottish economy. If the Government have already made detailed assessments on those specific areas, we would be grateful for the Minister publishing them.

On every measure, the Budget has not survived contact with reality. Growth has been downgraded, real incomes depressed and business investment reduced, with broken promises and credibility completely shattered. It is not so much that the Labour Government take a different view on economic matters; it is that they take the wrong view. Labour is the party of the tax rise that loses money. We are the party of the tax cut that raises revenue. That is why Labour Governments always leave office with more unemployment, larger debt and higher taxes. They always run out of other people’s money, and this Government are set to do so in record time.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson once again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Later today, the House will vote on the Government’s £25 billion national insurance tax hike. To avoid any uncertainty when we vote, will the Minister confirm exactly which public sector organisations will be compensated?

[James Murray]

If the shadow Minister would like to know which public sector organisations will be compensated, he could look at what his Government did with the health and social care levy, because the definition of public sector organisations—it is a regularly cited definition—is set out through the Office for National Statistics. We will reimburse Departments and other public sector organisations.

[Gareth Davies]

There was so little information in that response—the civil service will be very proud of the Minister. He will not say who will be spared by the Chancellor’s tax raid, but we know that working people will be made to pay—the Office for Budget Responsibility has said so; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said so; even the Resolution Foundation has said so; and working people know so. Why is it that Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it entered office?

[James Murray]

I do not think the shadow Minister listened to my response to the previous question, in which I set out very clearly the definition of the public sector for the purposes of national insurance contributions. Look at what the OBR has said: yes, it recognises that we are asking businesses to contribute more and that this will have an impact, but it also says that the employment level will rise from 33.1 million to 34.3 million by 2029, meaning an increase in the employment level over this Parliament.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I pay tribute to and thank all colleagues from both sides of the House for their contributions. I will try to touch on some of their points as I go through.

Just nine months ago, I opened the Second Reading of a Conservative national insurance Bill that cut taxes for millions of working people across the country. Today, we have before us a Labour national insurance Bill that will take the tax burden to the highest levels in history on the backs of working people. That is the stark difference that a Labour Government make, but it is not the change that people voted for.

Nine months ago, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the House that the then Opposition supported our tax cut, but barely three hours later, she and her Labour colleagues remarkably failed to vote for it and back up their words with actions. Now we know why: it is Labour’s playbook to say one thing as loudly as possible and then do the exact opposite as quietly as it can.

[Stuart Anderson]

On the Government’s tax policy, does my hon. Friend think it is concerning that the Chancellor today refused to rule out further tax rises in future Budgets?

[Gareth Davies]

Absolutely. We all heard what the Chancellor said at the Confederation of British Industry conference. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister will not back up her words, and even more remarkable that the Chancellor herself would not back up her words today at Treasury questions.

The British people see the Bill for what it is: the biggest broken promise of them all, and there are plenty to choose from. It is a good job the Chancellor has experience on a complaints desk, because, quite frankly, there are quite a lot coming in at the moment—not least from the business community, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) highlighted so well in his speech. Before the election, the Chancellor embarked on what she referred to as the “smoked salmon offensive” with British business; now the election is over, she has dropped the smoked salmon and is focusing on just being offensive.

Today’s Bill will introduce tax rises on working people in business that were never declared before the election. It is a double whammy, as the Federation of Small Businesses has said in Lincolnshire: it introduces not just the rate rise, but a reduction in the threshold. This tax is the only major tax that is paid exclusively by working people. It is a £25 billion tax rise on jobs. The OBR makes it clear that by 2027, 76% of the total cost of this tax increase will be passed on to working people through lower wages and higher prices, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) said in what I thought was a very thoughtful speech for the SNP.

As I said at Treasury questions this morning, the OBR says this is a tax on working people; the IFS says this is a tax on working people; even the Resolution Foundation says this is a tax on working people. By anyone’s measure—be in no doubt—this is a manifesto breach the public will not forget. That is clear.

What is not so clear any more is what this Labour party stands for. The Budget was an attack not just on working people, but on the very lowest paid working people, according to the IFS. This is a fundamentally regressive policy, leaving many out in the cold and giving businesses no choice but to freeze hiring and freeze wages. It will hit others, too. It will hit the doctors and the nurses working in general practice and social care, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set out in his speech. It will hit charities and voluntary organisations, with Marie Curie expecting that it will cost the charity £3 million next year alone—all part of a £1.4 billion bombshell to hit all charities next year. It will hit hospices, homeless support groups and disability charities, which are all warning they face reducing headcount and limiting services. This is not what the British people voted for.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as many of my colleagues are, that the Government will not give the full details on compensation for the non-core public sector activities that are the lifeblood of the NHS because, if they gave them the compensation that they need, the net benefit from the tax would be so risibly small as to demonstrate that it is utterly pointless and a concoction that could come only from a dysfunctional Treasury like this one?

[Gareth Davies]

There is really nothing to add to that. The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech and at Treasury questions—it is a very important point.

In just six months, we have hit the highest tax burden in history. Debt is up, with debt interest payments above £100 billion—for the first time ever—in every year of the forecast. Today’s Bill will result in lower wages, higher prices and a tougher employment market. I urge this Government to reverse course, but I will not hold my breath. Instead, I think I can predict what the Minister is going to say. She is going to say three things when she stands up to speak. First, she is going to try to blame the Conservative party—blaming everybody else for this clear political choice. She will not explain the £8 billion on GB Energy—an energy company that will not actually reduce bills or produce any energy—or the £10 billion on public pay splurges that come with no reform on productivity, or £7 billion on rebranding the national infrastructure bank. Perhaps if the Government dropped those pet projects—which will not actually grow the economy—they would have a little more money and would not have to screw with small businesses and make people unemployed.

Secondly, the Minister will forget that she is in government and that I am in opposition. She will ask me what my party would do instead. To that, I simply say that we would fund the NHS well, but we would also reform it.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Would the shadow Minister increase borrowing or increase a different tax, or are there some public spending cuts that he would like to announce?

[Gareth Davies]

I hope the British people are listening to this: none of those things. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although he was not here, that NHS spending increased by 45% in cash terms in the last Parliament under a Conservative Government. The issue is not spending—the Labour party will never get this—but reforming the NHS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said. It is about growing our economy faster than the Labour party would grow it, according to the OBR, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said. We would tackle the welfare bill—£12 billion of savings that we set out in government—and we would boost productivity, because if public sector productivity returned to pre-pandemic levels, £20 billion would be saved.

Finally, the Minister will try to suggest that she is bringing stability, even though businesses and consumer confidence have plummeted ever since she and her colleagues took office. Let us remind ourselves of what she means by stability. In just a few months, we have seen a Downing Street chief of staff sacked, a Cabinet Minister resign, a Back-Bench MP quit the party, key manifesto promises like cutting energy bills by £300 completely dropped, a delayed spending review, fiddled fiscal rules and, just this week, complete confusion about whether the Prime Minister will drop his economic growth pledge. It is all so predictable, yet so damaging to our economy. The Bill breaks Labour’s manifesto. We cannot back it. We will not vote for it. We urge the Government to think again

Draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 General Committees

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Sir Roger.

It is worth remembering that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was founded in 1991 to support the transition to market-oriented economies in central and eastern Europe following the collapse of socialist and communist regimes. Since then, the bank has invested more than €200 billion in more than 7,000 projects across three continents.

As a founding member of the EBRD, the UK is a generous contributor to the bank’s work. It was one of the first donors to contribute to the bank’s Ukraine stabilisation and sustainable growth multi-donor account and, in October 2023, it signed a statement of intent with the bank to help UK companies do business in Ukraine. The draft order enables the Government to make a payment of €343.6 million to the EBRD for the purchase of additional capital stock. As the Minister rightly said, this follows a decision by the EBRD’s board of governors in December 2023 to increase the bank’s capital by €4 billion.

The Opposition fully support the Government’s decision to purchase additional stock in the EBRD. Alongside ensuring that the UK maintains its stake and voting power in the EBRD, the capital increase is vital to sustaining the ongoing work in Ukraine and ensuring the bank’s ability to meet the needs of other countries in its portfolio. However, given the size of the UK’s investment, it is right that the Opposition should seek clarity on three specific, simple points, which I hope will be straightforward for the Government.

First, can the Minister tell us whether other member countries of the EBRD are increasing, decreasing or maintaining their stock shares in the bank? Secondly, as she mentioned, the EBRD has green objectives, so is support for Ukraine subject to the EBRD’s target for at least half of its business volume to be green and does that allow for Ukraine’s most urgent funding needs to be prioritised? Finally, does she believe that this capital increase will be sufficient for the EBRD to fulfil its overall mandate, or should we expect further capital requests in the future? We support the draft order, but we would be grateful for clarification of those points.

Draft Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024 Draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 Draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 General Committees

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in your place and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I also welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her place. I have spent many hours with her in these rooms, and that may or may not continue—we will find out soon.

The UK is one of the world’s leading financial centres and our financial services sector is one of the great engines of our economy. We should never forget that the sector employs some 2.3 million people, two thirds of whom are based outside of London—a slightly underappreciated fact about the sector.

Investment trusts are currently subject to disclosure requirements under the EU-inherited packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regulation—or PRIIPs, which is much easier to say—regulation, alongside other assimilated EU legislation. Ensuring that retail investors can make informed investment decisions is crucial for maintaining healthy capital markets. Industry leaders widely agree that the single aggregated figure currently produced under these EU-inherited rules fails to accurately reflect the true cost of investing in shares of an investment trust. The previous Government recognised those concerns completely and launched a consultation on a proposed alternative framework for retail disclosure in the UK. This consultation was designed to ensure that, following the repeal of the PRIIPs regulation, the new framework would be better aligned with the UK’s dynamic capital markets and foster more informed retail participation.

As the Minister quite rightly set out, the draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024 replaced assimilated law relating to PRIIPs regulation, establishing a new legislative framework for the regulation of consumer composite investments. Replacing those assimilated laws was a crucial part of the previous Government’s plans to develop a smarter regulatory framework.

The draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 extend a temporary arrangement, granting preferential prudential treatment for EU origin STS securitisations, and the draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 make amendments to primary legislation in connection with the revocation by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 of the EU capital requirements regulation, which currently forms part of assimilated law on financial services.

All that is a long way of saying that His Majesty’s Opposition welcome these draft regulations, and hope that they will provide listed investment companies with the long-term regulatory certainty that they need. However, I will end by saying that the financial services sector thrives on stability and predictability, and I am deeply concerned that such certainty will be undermined by the recent Budget of broken promises and betrayal, though I am happy to leave those discussions for another day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Clearly, the Chancellor is desperately trying to raise old ghosts, along with debt and taxes, but her own broken promises are coming back to haunt her and are frightening investors. It does not have to be Halloween for socialists to spook British business. Why does she think that business confidence has fallen faster in the past three months than at any point since the pandemic?

[Rachel Reeves]

I would judge this Government on their record: we secured £63.5 billion of investment right across the United Kingdom, creating nearly 40,000 jobs in constituencies up and down our country—good jobs that pay decent wages. That is more than twice the investment that the previous Government secured at their international investment summit. That shows how important it is to return stability to economy and work in partnership with businesses—something that the Conservative party might want to learn a lesson from.

Fiscal Rules

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I wondered whether the Chancellor’s announcement of changes to the fiscal rules would survive the weekend, given the five fictitious freeports that came and went. It was a cautionary tale about the uncertainty and confusion that can be created when policy is not announced in the proper way in Parliament. I welcome the delayed statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am grateful for advance sight of it.

Making a £50-billion announcement at an overseas conference, and not at a fiscal event in this House, has understandably and notably moved markets, creating further uncertainty for an already nervous business community. Although the Chancellor announced change last week, she did not provide any details about what that change would be—a common approach by Labour that is now coming back to bite them as the realities of government set in. The Prime Minister has admitted as much in recent days, speaking of the need to “embrace…fiscal reality” by adopting measures that were never listed in Labour’s manifesto. In fact, the Chancellor explicitly said before the election that she would not change the fiscal rules because that would be “to fiddle the figures”. By going ahead with this latest U-turn and broken promise, she has compromised trust and credibility ahead of her first Budget.

That joins the long list of promises already broken by the Labour Government in such a short time: the promise to cut energy bills by £300—broken; the promise that their manifesto was fully costed—broken; the promise to be on the side of pensioners—so obviously broken; and we know that their promise not to raise taxes on working people is about to be broken, too. Try as they might to sell a different story, just like Government bonds right now, people ain’t buying it.

We are left in the ludicrous position in which the UK—the sixth-largest economy in the world—does not have an operative definition of public debt. Quite understandably, markets have responded to this latest uncertainty by applying a premium to UK sovereign debt at a time when they have been discounting the sovereign debt of our international peers. The markets are also perplexed as to why these changes were announced without an accompanying OBR report. In the words of the Chancellor,

“Never have a Government borrowed so much and explained so little.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 941.]

The Government may think that this will all go unnoticed, and that most people do not know enough about the fiscal rules to know what is really going on here, but let me be very clear: the people will know about this. They will know it and feel it when interest rates stay higher for longer. Treasury advice to us was consistently clear: interest rates would stay higher if the rules were changed. What advice did Treasury officials give the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the impact on interest rates? Does he agree with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that the change will mean

“more debt, more debt interest”,

and that it is “no free lunch”?

Of course, we all want to see investment in our public services and infrastructure. We oversaw the largest ever increase in funding for the NHS, we increased defence spending to the highest levels since the cold war, and we attracted the second-greatest foreign direct investment in the world, but we sought that investment with a view to boosting productivity by investing in technology—that approach has now been scrapped by Labour—and spreading opportunity around this country through freeports and investment zones. This Labour Government are quick to spend but unwilling to explain.

Finally, on behalf of the British people, and the markets, which are watching this statement so very nervously, I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: what definition of public debt is the UK offering to lenders today, and how much do the Government plan to borrow under an expanded definition? He will say that we have to wait for the Budget, but the Chancellor did not wait last week, so why should we?

[Darren Jones]

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but he has some brass neck to stand up in this House and tell this Government how to behave after his party’s maladministration over the last 14 years. May I politely point out that he might be getting slightly ahead of himself? The Chancellor has not set out the detail of the fiscal rules in advance of the Budget; she will do it in this House, in the Budget on Wednesday, and I encourage him to wait for that information. He painted a picture of the country performing so well under his party’s leadership, but he may want to reflect on why he lost the last election so badly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

During the general election, the Labour party committed to bring down energy bills by £300. Now that the election is over, energy bills are going up by some 10%. On behalf of the British electorate, especially the 10 million pensioners who are having their winter fuel payment taken away, I ask the Minister to confirm to the House that the £300 cut is still Labour policy. If it is, specifically how is the £300 calculated, and when will it be delivered?

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comment and welcome him to his new place. He referred to the cost of energy. As we know, the cost of energy is substantially lower than it was this time last year, but we are under no illusions about how much more we need to do to make sure that energy bills are truly affordable and that we tackle the cost of living crisis. That is why we have set to work straight away in establishing Great British Energy, alongside our national wealth fund, which will help to invest in the clean energy sources of the future and bring down energy bills for good.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your election. Let me take my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. and hon. Members in the new Treasury ministerial team, who have taken up some of the best jobs in government. I loved every minute of my time in the Treasury, even when I had to come to this place to face my shadows. I will always be grateful to the officials who so ably supported me and the team.

As the Member of Parliament for Grantham, the home of our country’s first female Prime Minister, I congratulate our country’s first female Chancellor. It is right that we highlight that. While the two are not politically aligned, we can all recognise when a ceiling has been shattered and no matter who is breaking it, we certainly recognise that on this side of the House.

The Bill before us seeks to amend the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011—a Bill, introduced by a Conservative Chancellor, that created the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Bill should be understood in that context, building on a previous Bill that replaced the system where His Majesty’s Treasury would produce its own forecasts and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would essentially mark their own homework. Back then, that was an essential piece of legislation, given what had gone on before. Between 2000 and 2010 the then Labour Government’s so-called forecasts for growth in the economy were out by an average of £13 billion and their forecasts for the budget deficit three years ahead were out by an average of £40 billion. Their forecasts therefore lacked any credibility at all.

It was not just their forecasts that led to the creation of the OBR; it was their management of the economy. Much has already been said by the shadow Chancellor about the higher inflation, higher deficit and higher unemployment that the Conservatives inherited from Labour in 2010. What is, however, sometimes forgotten is that total public spending accounted for almost half the national income when Labour last left office. Welfare spending ballooned by a staggering 45%, and that runaway spending meant that we inherited the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe with the sole exception of Ireland. The idea that Labour has an unblemished record when it comes to the public finances is, therefore, plain wrong. We Conservatives created the OBR, in Parliament, to guard against Labour’s fiscal unaccountability and recklessness with the public finances. We continue to support the role of the OBR in providing open, fully transparent, independent forecasts for all to see, no matter who is in government.

It was genuinely good to hear that the Chancellor recognised the importance of the OBR when she said that because of the OBR, in her words,

“You don’t need to win an election to find out the state of public finances.”

She was absolutely right about that. That is why yesterday’s supposed revelations simply won’t wash. In fact, if she is so supportive of the OBR, I ask a simple question: why was yesterday’s statement based on internal Treasury analysis, not OBR analysis? Surely if they are very supportive of the OBR they would have asked the OBR to conduct the analysis. The OBR has always said that it would be ready to produce analysis at any time, on short notice.

That was yesterday, and today we are here to talk about the Bill before us. While we are supportive of the OBR, we think it is right that the House should consider a number of concerns that we have, on which we will seek clarification. First, the Bill will require the Treasury to request, and the OBR to produce, a report on fiscally significant measures announced by the Government, with the exception of temporary, emergency measures. The definitions of these terms—"fiscally significant”, “temporary” and “emergency”—will be set out in a charter for budget responsibility as the Chief Secretary outlined. The draft charter text, published alongside the Bill, deems measures to be fiscally significant if they cost the equivalent of 1% of GDP in any financial year. It defines as temporary any measure intended to end within two years, and the draft charter text gives the OBR discretion to reasonably disagree with the Treasury’s interpretation of what constitutes emergency.

Despite some of the rhetoric, we note that nowhere in the Bill or the surrounding documents is the OBR empowered to prevent a Government from taking fiscally significant action of any kind. The effect of this Bill is to ensure that an OBR costing accompanies any fiscally significant action the Government take—nothing more, nothing less. The way in which the Chancellor described this Bill as a so-called lock to prevent certain activity is—to be generous on my first outing—overly ambitious. The Bill is described as introducing a fiscal lock, which the Chancellor promises will prevent large-scale unfunded commitments, but that is not what it does. There is no fiscal lock, and if anything, it is a forecast lock. The potential impact of the Bill is so limited and specific as to lead some to wonder whether, for all the animated hyperbole of the Chancellor yesterday, this is the prioritisation of gimmicks over governing, despite what the Prime Minister said on the King’s Speech.

Secondly, and I say this genuinely constructively, the Government need to be better prepared to clarify what is meant by “emergency”. The draft charter gives the OBR the power to reasonably disagree with the Government’s interpretation of what is an emergency, but this raises questions about whether the OBR is equipped to make such a decision in the first place. What counts as an emergency should mostly be clear-cut, but what about instances that are less obvious, or when unforeseen circumstances come down the track? The OBR would then be straying into political decision making, which would rightly raise constitutional issues. Even if it is ultimately for Ministers to decide on such matters, any resulting disagreement between the Government and the OBR about whether the circumstances amount to an emergency could undermine the credibility of the Government, the OBR or both.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am genuinely perplexed whether the hon. Gentleman is with the former Member for South West Norfolk, who wanted to see the OBR abolished and not part of any decision making, or feels that the Bill does not go far enough. Either way, does he recognise and accept, as thousands of mortgage payers in this country now do, the disaster of the previous Conservative Prime Minister’s Budget, the impact it has had and the need never to go back to those days?

[Gareth Davies]

We support the OBR. I have been clear on that. We created the OBR, so to suggest that we do not support it is incorrect. I would just pull the hon. Member up on some economic facts. The reason interest rates were so high and mortgages went up is that we faced a global challenge, which this Government will now experience. In office, the Government have to deal with events, and what caused inflation around the world was two things: the war in Ukraine, which pushed up wholesale gas prices to record highs; and the fallout from a once-in-a-century pandemic that the Labour party seems to have forgotten about. Those two factors resulted in 11% inflation, which resulted in the Chancellor and Prime Minister at the time prioritising bringing down inflation, which we did, to 2%. We have now handed this Government 2% inflation, half the deficit we inherited in 2010, half the unemployment and the fastest growth in the G7, so it is a little bit rich to suggest that we take lessons from the Labour party on economic performance.

Our third and final concern—we have others, but I am in keeping this short on Second Reading—is that, in the event that the lock is triggered, the OBR does not need to produce one of its standard reports, even though the Treasury, under the Bill, is required to request such a report to avoid breaking the lock. The Bill creates, therefore, the possibility of an entirely new OBR report, which is not envisaged by the original Act. I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary explained that and what it means in practice when he sums up. Although standard OBR reports must be published, it is not clear whether that applies to other reports that the OBR may prepare. If this requirement does not apply, are the Government happy to give the OBR the power to decide whether its costings are published? That is potentially very concerning for transparency.

The official Opposition look forward to more detailed scrutiny of the Bill and its practical implications. Be in no doubt: we support the OBR, which we created to bring in much-needed transparency to our fiscal framework after years of fiscal folly and false promises by the Labour party. At the same time, let us not pretend that the OBR should be the ultimate judge of good policy, that nothing bad can happen under its watchful eye and that nothing good can happen beyond its gaze. Labour Members know this: it is precisely what they argued 15 years ago when we first debated the Bill that led to the OBR’s creation. The OBR should not become too political. It should be a referee, not a player, in the fight for fiscal accountability. In the end, we stand by the principle that the British people, through their elected representatives, should always have the deciding say on public policy. We look forward to debating this further in the months ahead. We will not be voting against this Bill on Second Reading. I look forward to the debate.