The Economy

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, which was crammed with useful facts and statistics. Yesterday, our Committee met representatives of the IMF in private, and we had a very interesting and informative discussion. As for yesterday’s report, the IMF points out that none of this good economic news would be happening had it not been for decisions made in previous Budgets. In particular, it states that the Government

“have delivered several helpful measures over the last three budgets…investment tax reliefs for businesses to boost investment, an expansion of childcare, and active labor market policies.”

This good news is not happening by accident; it is happening because a plan is in place, and the plan is working. Does the Minister agree?

[Bim Afolami]

I do agree, but let me draw attention to a specific point that is often ignored. The Chancellor’s decisions over the last two fiscal events have set the country up for growth in the future. My hon. Friend mentioned the policy on business expensing; that was a £10 billion tax cut for business. She mentioned childcare policies; those have helped millions of working families up and down the country. It is because of the cumulative effect of a series of important measures that we are able to stand up here today and say that while we are not there yet, the economy is starting to turn a corner.

HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I thank the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor for listening to the howl of pain that came from ordinary taxpayers when they saw the announcement yesterday? Those who contact the HMRC hotline are the most law-abiding, tax paying people across this land.

This morning, the Treasury Committee has published more data showing that it is increasingly difficult to contact HMRC by telephone. While I fully endorse what the Minister has just said about the long-term strategy to move people online, it cannot be done by randomly shutting down HMRC’s telephone lines.

The Minister had an excellent digital track record in the private sector before he came into Parliament. May I urge him to use that experience to make this much more of a gradual transition for those law-abiding citizens of ours?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for their work in this area. I know that HMRC customer service has been an area of focus for her and others for some time, and we appreciate the input. I recognise that she acknowledges the potential opportunities and the upside to encouraging more people to go online, but the point she makes is really important. HMRC has taken the feedback with good grace, because it is important that we move at the speed at which the public are willing to move. Of course, some people are not willing or able to move to purely online services.

I am sorry for not responding earlier to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) on whether the telephone lines will stay open. Yes, of course they will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Did the Chancellor see an article yesterday in which the independent director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the average earner in the UK now has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975—lower than in America, France, Germany or any G7 country? Someone on £35,000—the average earnings for those working full time—faces an income tax and national insurance bill of nearly £2,000 less than they would have done on the same real earnings back in 2010. Does the Chancellor agree that now he has changed the rules on residence and domicile, the Opposition’s unfunded spending plans could lead to higher taxes—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are topical questions, and I want to get to the Members who have not yet been called.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

If the Chancellor had an ambition to spend an additional £28 billion a year on something, will he explain to the House what level of tax that would impose on ordinary households?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. I am curious to know where that figure of £28 billion has come from, but as she has asked the question, I will tell her that, if we were to stick to the fiscal rules, as the Labour party claims it will do, to increase spending by £28 billion would mean increasing income tax by 4% or increasing corporation tax, which Labour says it will cap, by 8%.

Finance Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I will not detain the House for long, because I have the feeling that not all my colleagues are here to listen to my remarks. However, I want to make a couple of points.

First, having heard the Opposition complain about the measures in this Finance Bill, one would think that they did not like them, but they are not here this evening, they are not voting against Third Reading, and they have not tabled any solid proposals themselves. The only economic policy anyone has heard from the Opposition is the extra £28 billion that they want to impose in taxes on our businesses and our families.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is almost as though the Opposition do not have a plan?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I would agree with my hon. Friend.

I point out that the 110 pro-growth, pro-supply side measures in this Finance Bill have not stoked inflation. Indeed, inflation has fallen from over 11% down to 4%, and according to the Bank of England’s forecast, it is on track to reach 2%, so one has to commend the measures taken in this Bill, and I look forward to voting for that progress shortly.

I add my thanks to the officials from the Treasury and HMRC who have worked so hard on this legislation, only to hear that in a month’s time there will be another Budget and another Finance Bill. One has to recognise the hard work that has gone into this Bill, but I do worry that HMRC is being asked to do more and more. I worry about the fact that various thresholds have been frozen, and in particular, as the Minister knows, that the high-income child benefit charge is affecting more taxpayers up and down the land.

I am worried about one of the 110 measures—one that is within HMRC’s bailiwick. It is the measure allowing people to put fractional shares into their individual savings accounts. That was a very welcome announcement in last year’s autumn statement. I tried to put down an amendment to the Bill about it, but it was found not to be orderly because that change has not been legislated for this time around. In fact, the word is that HMRC will not be able to put that in place until at least the next tax year. Can I ask the Financial Secretary to convey the sense of urgency that I think we all feel about making these pro-growth, pro-investment changes?

There is a wide range of measures in this Finance Bill that I welcome, and I look forward to the Budget on 6 March. I think we can pay tribute to all the hard work that the Financial Secretary, his team, and all the Treasury and HMRC officials have put into this excellent piece of legislation.

Financial Advice and Guidance: Consumer Market

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the consumer market for financial advice and guidance.

It is an absolute pleasure, Mrs Harris, that you are in the Chair for this debate on the consumer market for financial advice and guidance. I am very grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate, which follows up on a cross-party amendment I tabled to the Financial Services and Markets Bill a year ago. I am grateful for all the hard work done by officials from the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority over the past year under the leadership of the former Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who championed this cause. I am also grateful to the current Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for taking things forward and for his support.

I welcome the proposals published in December for closing what is called the advice gap and completing the first part of the advice guidance boundary review. This morning, I want to cover three things. Why is this review important for our constituents? How will these changes help them? And what more can we do to help them? I will start with why this is important for our constituents.

Now more than ever our constituents need personalised help and advice about their financial situation, and when I say “help”, I do not mean just the billions of pounds of financial support that was given through the energy price guarantee, the money off electricity bills and so on. I mean the kind of help that will make our constituents more financially resilient over a lifetime.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward, and I commend her for her work on improving facilities for providing financial advice and guidance in the consumer market—that has been noted in the House, and I congratulate her on that. I wholeheartedly support her view that we must give individuals and businesses the best possible opportunities to grow their wealth. Does she agree that we should particularly target help to smaller businesses that are looking to start up locally, to ensure that they can take advantage of high-quality and, most importantly, affordable services and advice to help them make informed financial decisions?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I want to limit my remarks today to consumers and their access to financial advice, but the Treasury Committee is doing an inquiry into access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to share with us any evidence he might have in that regard.

Our constituents need more personalised help to make them more financially resilient over their lifetime. We want them to be more prosperous, better informed and more able to prepare for the inevitable highs and lows of financial life. With the success of auto-enrolment, we now have millions more people taking personal decisions about saving for their retirement, possibly across a multitude of different pension schemes over a full working life. They need an expert hand to help them to make good decisions and yet, despite our world-leading financial services sector, it is surprisingly difficult to get help. That is because of the advice/guidance legal definitions.

Mrs Harris, I want to try out an analogy on you. Imagine a supermarket where, if you pay an up-front fee of several hundred or perhaps even several thousand pounds to join, you will, over your whole lifetime, be allowed to go into a section where you have a full choice of delicious, healthy food and other goods, offered at competitive prices. Someone will ensure that you are buying things appropriate for your age and dietary needs; they will suggest some terrific, easy-to-cook, healthy recipes and wonderful meal plans.

However, to make it worth paying the up-front fee, you have to buy exceptionally expensive goods or sufficient quantities, and only 8% of our constituents would in fact choose to pay the fee; everyone else in the supermarket chooses to avoid it. They wander round the generic aisles of the supermarket. They may see some generic NHS advice about healthy eating or something on the supermarket website. They pay much higher prices for the same range of goods and often choose the unhealthy and expensive options. They even find scam and rogue options that scam them out of their shopping money altogether, because anyone can set out a stall in the supermarket I am describing.

It is a slightly stretched analogy, but I know that you know what I am getting at, Mrs Harris. The quality and cost of financial advice in this country mean that we have created a marketplace where only the richest 8% of the population choose to shop and benefit from the healthy financial choices that our excellent financial services firms can give.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on this very timely and important debate. She is now moving into the important area of providing professional, impartial, independent consumer advice to ensure that people avoid making bad choices and to steer them in the direction of making good, effective choices.

[Harriett Baldwin]

That is exactly right. I am using this analogy to make us realise what a scandal it would be if we had supermarkets like the ones I have just described, but that is sort of what we have in our financial services supermarket. It is a slightly stretched analogy, but the quality and cost of financial advice means that we have created a marketplace where only the richest 8% of the population shop and benefit from the healthy financial choices on the menu that our excellent financial advisers can give.

The remaining 92% of our constituents end up unadvised. If they are lucky, they might find out that there is state-sponsored guidance such as Pension Wise and the Money and Pensions Service, perhaps through a newspaper article or a Google search. A small number do find that advice, but it is very generic. It can be useful and helpful but, more often than not, it leaves them with more questions than answers; it offers some very simple thoughts, which perhaps leaves people not knowing how the advice relates to their personal circumstances. Without urgent Government action to explore solutions for the unadvised, I fear that we are creating terrible long-term consequences for the nation’s savings health and for the prosperity of our constituents in retirement.

At its best, that generic guidance and the personalised guidance available through the Money and Pensions Service and Pension Wise is a bit like the generic advice from the NHS to eat five pieces of fruit and vegetables a day: it is useful but it is not going to help anyone make an informed investment choice. Yesterday, I did some mystery shopping on the Money and Pensions Service website to see what advice my constituents would get if they had received a small lump sum—perhaps an inheritance, a redundancy payment or some tax-free cash they had taken from their pension. I followed a link on the website’s landing page to an article labelled, “Types of investments”, which I thought might be helpful. That page then asked,

“Do you need help making smart investment choices?”

which I thought was probably the right page. I was then directed to the Financial Conduct Authority’s InvestSmart website. On the landing page of that website, the first article is called, “Crypto: The basics”. That is on the FCA’s website. The third article on the landing page is called, “Investing in crypto”. The website then said that, if I wanted advice, I needed to see a financial adviser, so I was back to square one. Those crypto pages are probably there prominently to warn people not to buy those products, but the prominence ends up looking like an endorsement.

There used to be a network of bank branches in this country, where people could go to talk to a human being who might be a bit more helpful, albeit that they would focus on their own-brand products. However, there have been so many bank closures that most people would not know where to start to find anyone to speak to face to face about savings and investment choices. Yet, we have asked millions more people to invest in their own pensions through auto-enrolment and have left them with a default provider—the National Employment Savings Trust—which charges an up-front load of 1.8%. We have given people pension freedoms, which means some very big decisions can be taken at the age of 55 that will have long-term consequences for people’s financial health.

As you can tell, Mrs Harris, I am not happy with this outcome for my constituents, and I am sure you are not happy with the outcome for yours. When I was Economic Secretary to the Treasury in 2015-16, I commissioned the financial advice market review, which tried to make financial advice and guidance work better for consumers. It came up with some good recommendations, including allowing consumers to redeem a small part of their pension pot against the cost of retirement advice in certain circumstances. However, at the time, it was constrained in what it could do by European regulations. Now that we are under way with the Edinburgh reforms and there is scope for a more UK-centric regime, I have been raising the problem once again.

In addition, Parliament has legislated for a consumer duty on financial services firms, which began to be implemented last July. We have a world-leading financial services sector with many excellent firms serving consumers well, but they are held back by regulations from offering their consumers any helpful advice from their own expertise. That could even contradict their consumer duty—if they can see their customers making poor decisions such as leaving long-term savings in taxable, low-interest accounts when they could perhaps be in an individual savings account or earning higher rates. Even Martin Lewis, whom many people turn to for financial wisdom, has told me he feels he is held back from recommending certain sensible things because it might be considered financial advice. So I very much welcome the proposals that the Government and the FCA have published jointly to address the advice gap. I think they go in the right direction.

There are three elements. Further clarifying the boundary between advice and guidance would give FCA-authorised firms greater certainty that they can give more support to consumers without providing a personal recommendation. It would help firms give consumers greater levels of support with more confidence to operate closer to the boundary. That is a necessary element, but on its own it might not surmount the cautious behaviour that we see from some compliance departments.

The second proposal is targeted support. The new regulatory framework will enable firms to provide broader support without up-front charges based on the limited information that they have on their consumer, and enable firms to suggest products or courses of action. That will be a key proposal to close the advice gap.

The third proposal is for simplified advice for consumers with smaller sums or simpler needs at a price that is commercially viable for both consumer and firm. With the development of technology, more powerful artificial intelligence tools and more data out there, innovators will find ways to give consumers more customised, less generic, financial advice—something like coaching or help—at a commercially viable price. Whatever we call it, such changes will help our constituents by giving them better and more personalised information to make their choices.

Some consumer groups worry about allowing our financial services firms more leeway to help their customers. To go back to the supermarket analogy, there are some bad apples even in the premium aisles of the supermarket. Last year the Financial Services Compensation Scheme paid out millions to those who were badly advised, but doing nothing about the advice gap is also a choice. I believe consumers are being harmed much more in the generic aisles of the supermarket, where often there is no regulatory redress.

The proposals are to be welcomed and should be brought in as quickly as possible. Let us also agree to do more for our constituents by making sure there ia much higher awareness of services such as Pension Wise and the financial advice money that people can take from their pension to pay for financial advice at key moments. I wish my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary well in implementing this important change. It will cost taxpayers nothing. It will harness the expertise of a range of excellent financial services firms and get much more personalised advice to our constituents when they take key financial decisions. I give power to the Minister’s elbow in bringing the changes forward.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for securing today’s debate. I recognise her long-standing commitment to the issue that she has outlined to the House. I am mindful that, as one of my predecessors and Chair of the Treasury Committee, she is watching me keenly to make sure that I do the right thing. I am very glad that she broadly supports the proposals and strongly supports the Edinburgh reform. I want to make it clear that I, as Economic Secretary, share her ambition to ensure that consumers can access the support they need to make good financial decisions. I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to outline how I intend to achieve that.

My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the timing of this debate and the proposals. This has never been more important. Too often, people in this country, particularly younger people, feel as though they do not have enough of a stake in our economy and society. They want to make their money work hard, but they do not know where to start.

On the changes to our pension system, she mentioned the success of auto-enrolment. Advances in technology and the cost of living instabilities abroad are just two of the reasons why we increasingly need a financially savvy population. She also mentioned pension freedoms for older people, which give them a lot of economic freedom to make these financially important decisions.

Before I get on to the changes, it is worth recognising the support that current guidance and advice services can offer consumers; those should not be ignored. The Government established the Money and Pensions Service in 2019 to simplify the financial guidance landscape and provide support to consumers on important issues such as benefits, budgeting and pensions. The Government work closely with the FCA to ensure that the financial advice market works well for both firms and consumers. There is always more to do, but I believe that we have made significant progress.

In 2012, the retail distribution review drove up the quality of financial advice, and in 2016, when my hon. Friend was the Minister, the financial advice market review helped firms to support more consumers. However, she is right that further action is needed. Despite the progress made, I share her concern that many consumers still struggle to make critical decisions about saving and investing or accessing their pensions, and to access the right help and support. That is why, in 2022, the Chancellor announced that the Government and the FCA would commence a joint review to examine the regulatory boundary between financial advice and guidance. The review provides a key opportunity—probably the greatest opportunity in the last decade—to rethink the way support is delivered for consumers and to help close the advice gap.

In December, as part of the review, I was pleased to announce that the Government and the FCA had published a joint policy paper setting out the three initial proposals, which it is worth saying can be taken either alone or together. We are still thinking about these proposals. We are developing them and we hope to get them delivered as best we can. They represent real regulatory reform, and we need to act.

First, the paper considers whether changes to the FCA’s regulatory guidance or new rules would allow regulated firms to move closer to the boundary and provide more support for their consumers. One difficulty is that we need to be able to, within the existing rules, give firms more confidence that they can move closer to this boundary and give advice and support in ways that do not require legal changes; they just need to be given the confidence to do that. For example, we need to give greater certainty to firms that want to contact a customer holding savings in cash to warn them of the detriment of inflation, and to pension providers that want to proactively warn customers at risk of receiving an inadequate income in retirement. We need to help firms to give better support to customers in such ways.

Secondly, the paper explores a new and innovative type of support that would allow firms to suggest a product or course of action to their customers. That suggestion would be tailored to targeted group of customers and would be presented as appropriate for “people like you”. Take again, for example, a customer who is saving into a pension at a low rate that could lead to an inadequate income in retirement. Under the second proposal in the paper, based on simple and limited data points such as age and size of the individual pot, the pension provider could offer a straightforward piece of advice that the customer could increase their contributions to a specific rate, depending on their personal circumstances. I am glad that my hon. Friend said that this second proposal was a key proposal.

The final option explores a simplified advice regime that would allow consumers with a specific need to access low-cost financial advice. It is worth saying again that the cost of advice is prohibitive for a lot of people. What we are proposing is not just a regulatory change; we need to make sure that all the options are commercially viable for more people. This final option would provide consumers with a recommendation personalised to their individual circumstances, based on a more limited approach to fact-finding than full holistic advice.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the Minister for summarising the three proposals again. Could he clarify which of them would need a vote in Parliament, and will he commit to bringing forward any necessary legislation with urgency?

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I recognise the important role the household support fund has played. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, no decisions have been made about what will happen going forward. There were a lot of anti-poverty measures in the autumn statement, including increasing benefits next year by double the rate of inflation, increasing the full-time national living wage by £1,800 a year and increasing the local housing allowance, providing an average of an extra £800 to 1.6 million households.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T7.   Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, to you, your team and the Treasury team. Between now and the next Treasury questions, millions of our constituents will be required to file a self-assessment tax return, yet this week we learned that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has suddenly shut down its hotline for the majority of people and their advisers. Our most law-abiding citizens are trying to get their taxes right, so what advice can my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury give to them as to how they can contact HMRC?

Finance Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

What an extraordinary experience that was. I have just listened for nearly 20 minutes to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) ranting on about tax hikes, but at the same time not proposing a single concrete economic policy. Indeed, Opposition Members have gone entirely AWOL. Where are they? There is no one on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. They are not going to oppose a single measure in this Finance Bill. I have scoured Wikipedia for any policy they might have come up with on taxation, and all I have found is that they are proposing an additional £28 billion in borrowing. That is simply more taxes for our children and grandchildren to pay in the future.

I have also spotted that the Opposition have two additional new taxes that they think would be a good idea. Those two taxes are the ones that were outlined by the shadow spokesman. The first is the non-dom taxation, which analysis shows would actually result in a net subtraction in tax revenue to the UK economy. Furthermore, they are proposing that we should be the only country in the world that taxes education, with a tax that would increase the cost to the state and again fail to pay for itself. So that was my scour of Wikipedia. I am now going to move on from discussing the Opposition rant to talk about the excellent points that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) has made.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am standing in part to illustrate that I am here, because the hon. Lady just said that there was nobody on this side of the House. Well, here I am, and I have been intervening on both the opening speeches, so I hope she will take that back. Also, could she clarify what she was talking about when she mentioned a tax on education?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady is the honourable exception that proves my rule. She is indeed engaging thoroughly in the debate from the void that is the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The tax on education is her party’s Front-Bench policy to add VAT to school fees. She may not be aware of that policy, but it is not a good one and I recommend that she use her influence to get her Front Bench to drop it.

Let me turn to the excellent remarks made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is the view of the Treasury Committee that the tax system in the UK is far too complicated. We were concerned earlier this year, as we mentioned in our report, about the abolition of the Office for Tax Simplification, because we want to see the Treasury team look at more ways in which it can simplify the tax system. We also published a report on tax reliefs that identified more than 1,000 tax reliefs in our tax system, many of whose impacts or costs to the Exchequer the Treasury does not even know. They really should be thought of as expenditure lines, and they should be looked at a bit more carefully. Some of the steps announced in these measures, and indeed in last week’s National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, will do some good in that regard, and I want to highlight those.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

In relation to what the hon. Member was saying about national insurance, would she like to comment on the fact that, overall, the richest fifth of households will be £1,000 better off on average by 2027 whereas the lowest fifth are set to gain only £200. Does that make it the progressive autumn statement that has been claimed?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I can also attest to the fact that the hon. Lady is the second Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber. That brings the total to the two who are visible to me at this time on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) is also providing the shadow Parliamentary Private Secretary role. National insurance is indeed a terrible regressive tax as it stands and I wholeheartedly endorse any measures that reduce that burden and simplify things. The hon. Lady has pointed out that this is work in progress, but I think she should welcome the abolition of class 2 national insurance. That has simplified the national insurance system, and in the spring Budget we had the welcome simplification of the lifetime allowance charge. We also had a great simplification in childcare entitlement with the announcement of a much wider offer of free childcare. These simplifications have been broadly welcomed.

There are further welcome simplifications in this Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was kind enough to write to me yesterday to summarise his principles for the simplification of the tax system. He wants tax rules that

“have a clear consistent rationale”.

He wants it to be

“easy for taxpayers to get their tax right”.

He wants taxpayers to be able to understand what they need to do “at key life cycle points”, and he wants a tax policy that

“does not…distort the decisions of taxpayers and result in poorly informed choices.”

In summary, the Government want

“the tax system to be simpler, fair and to support growth.”

The Financial Secretary’s letter, which we will be publishing on the Treasury Committee website this afternoon, also outlines further simplifications, which were in the remarks he made earlier. They include expanding the cash basis for small businesses, improving the design of Making Tax Digital, simplifying research and development tax credits, which we welcome, and simplifying capital allowances and making them more permanent. I will draw to the House’s attention to other measures for individuals that he did not highlight. There is an increase in

“the threshold for individuals with income taxed through Pay As You Earn to file a Self Assessment return to £150,000”.

That is important because more and more people would otherwise be caught by the freezing of the thresholds. From April 2024, that threshold will be abolished altogether. There are also simplifications for individual savings accounts in this Finance Bill, as well as measures to simplify customs processes. I think the Financial Secretary’s heart is in the right place on simplification, and there is no question but that R&D tax credits were being abused.

I draw the Financial Secretary’s attention to future opportunities for simplification while welcoming the fact that venture capital tax relief is being extended to 2035, as the Treasury Committee called for in our report. I would love to see the Financial Secretary focus on the unintended disincentives to taking on additional work and additional hours that exist throughout the tax system, at all sorts of income points. We have made huge strides on simplifying it for people on universal credit, making every extra hour of work pay, but once people get into the tax system, there are cliff edges and high marginal tax rates that deter them from working more. I will highlight two in particular.

First, the Treasury Committee is currently holding an inquiry on “Sexism in the City,” and we have had evidence on how we could improve some of those marginal tax rates. The child benefit taper was introduced 10 years ago with my wholehearted support. It was the right thing to do in 2013, but it is now time to look again at how it interacts with the free childcare offer. We should consider the opportunity for simplifying the tax system by getting rid of the taper altogether, as it is a terrible deterrent to the families who get caught.

A person with a lot of children, earning between £50,000 and £60,000, can have a marginal tax rate of over 100%. It has become far too complex, and it is deterring many women from taking on more work. With the childcare offer we now have, it is time to look again.

I also want to throw the evidence from our “Sexism in the City” inquiry into the mix. The City has the highest pay and, indeed, the highest pay gap in the country. Some of the best paid careers for women are in financial services, but we hear time and again that, because of the tax-free childcare cut-off at £100,000, some women are choosing to work less than a full week. The freezing of the thresholds is having side effects. As the Financial Secretary thinks ahead to next year’s fiscal events, I urge him to consider those two potential simplifications.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a landmark moment: the economy has turned a corner. Having rightly supported people through covid with £400 billion of spend and then £100 billion over the winter to support people with energy costs, we on the Government side of the House know that we have to pay back what we have borrowed. The Labour party opposed every single measure to do that, and every difficult decision, but because of those difficult decisions, we are in the position we are in today. Because of those difficult decisions, the Chancellor can put forward an autumn statement that focuses on growing our economy, supporting businesses and, crucially, cutting taxes, and that is what we are here to talk about today.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell the House, for the record, how many Labour Back Benchers are here for this milestone debate?

[Laura Trott]

I think by my count none, which is unfortunate and I think speaks to their lack of the commitment to cutting tax that we have on this side of the House. The Bill will cut taxes for 29 million working people. It has three measures: the reduction in national insurance contributions in class 1 primary main rate; the reduction of the NICs class 4 main rate; and the removal of the requirement to pay class 2 NICs. We are prioritising national insurance for two key reasons. First, we want to put more money in the pockets of working families, and NICs are the most targeted way to do that. Secondly, better reward for work makes working more appealing, and the more people work, the more there is a boost in growth.

Let me take the House briefly through the measures in the Bill. The first is the reduction in the employee class 1 NICs main rate, which the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement. By reducing the main rate by two percentage points, from 12% to 10%, on earnings between £12,570 and £50,270, we will cut taxes for more than 27 million employees. That will save the average worker more than £450 a year, and they will see the benefit in their payslips right at the start of the new year, as this legislation will come into effect on 6 January.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am not sure that I have ever heard a more grudging shadow Front Bench speech on measures that the Opposition support. They support them so wholeheartedly today that none of their Back Benchers has shown up to speak to them.

I endorse the measures in the legislation. The Chief Secretary is right to point to the turning point that the UK economy has reached this year, thanks to the steps taken a year ago to ensure that fiscal policy did not cut across the central bank’s aim to reduce inflation to its target. Thanks to that, inflation, which might have been as high as 13% last year, has fallen to 4.6%. That means that today, the earnings of the average UK worker are rising faster than the rate of inflation. We are seeing real earnings growth. That is the turning point that I am talking about.

The shadow Minister and the Chief Secretary both talked about the choices that the Chancellor could make on this occasion. In the evidence that the Treasury Committee took this week on the autumn statement, we saw the clear impact of the Chancellor’s choices on two long-standing challenges for the UK economy: slow productivity growth and the fact that not everyone has returned to work since the pandemic. When we get to the Finance Bill, I will expatiate further on the supply-side measures on the labour market and permanent full expensing, but today I will focus on the national insurance contributions element, which the Office for Budget Responsibility also considered to be a supply-side measure.

In the evidence that we took, we heard from the member of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Professor David Miles, that the choice to go for the national insurance contribution reduction in the autumn statement created a “definite positive” as an incentive to work. The OBR forecast that it will bring close to 100,000 full-time equivalent extra workers back into the workforce. That is so important. Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted in his evidence that, compared with a similar cut in income tax rates, a cut to national insurance is more progressive. It benefits people in work, but only on their earnings up to £50,000. That is important context for the choice that the Chancellor took.

I also welcome the simplification of taxes—a concept our Committee is committed to. Far too many things in our tax system act as disincentives to doing an extra hour of work. There are too many complicated withdrawal rates. The steps taken on class 2 and class 4 contributions represent a simplification of the tax system. Interestingly, we were told in our evidence session that the changes to class 2 and class 4 reduce

“the incentive for people to incorporate to gain a tax advantage.”

We should have a tax system that is broadly neutral on those two things.

Professor Miles told us that he thinks that the national insurance cuts are “unambiguously” a more positive incentive to work. The Office for Budget Responsibility does not see the measures as inflationary. He also said that

“some people at the margin who thought it perhaps was not worth working might now be persuaded to actively try to get a job”,

and that the measures will help retain people in the labour force.

To conclude my short remarks on the narrow measures in the Bill, I wanted to focus on the evidence that we have received on the choice that the Chancellor took on national insurance, and how that is very much focused on the structural challenges that the UK economy faces.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Autumn Statement

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the Chairman of the Treasury Committee to ask a question, I want to make it clear to the House, because there is some confusion, that this is not the procedure we use for a Budget. This is the autumn statement; it is, therefore, a statement. Right now, we are taking questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Once that has concluded, we will go on to the debate. I have a list of people who want to make speeches—there will be some overlap and I am paying attention to that.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

What a difference a year makes. We have seen a reduction in the rate of inflation from 11.1% this time last year down to 4.6% this month, and we heard yesterday from the Governor of the Bank of England that he expects inflation to return to its target over the course of the next year or so. I was interested to hear that there are 110 measures in the announcement today which will drive growth in the UK economy. I welcome the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility is now forecasting that this year we will see growth in the UK economy, in contrast to its forecast this time last year of a recession. The Committee looks forward to examining the 110 growth measures in detail next week, when we hear from both the OBR and the Chancellor himself. Can the Chancellor tell the House overall how much his measures will improve growth and how much they will help to drive down inflation over the course of next year?