Charter for Budget Responsibility
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
It feels like I was in the House only a few moments ago, but I am delighted to be back at the Dispatch Box for this important debate. Sustained economic growth, supported by sound investment, is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country, and, in so doing, the living standards of working people. Growth is the primary mission of this Government.
This debate is timely, as the House knows, given that the Chancellor gave her growth speech only this morning. In her speech, she reiterated that without a stable economy, we cannot hope to attract investment into the UK; that we cannot grow our economy with a black hole in our public finances; and, importantly, that fixing the foundations of the economy starts with the new fiscal rules, which we are voting on here today.
The Chancellor announced in her speech that we are taking difficult decisions in the long-term interests of the country, including, for example, on a third runway at Heathrow airport. As she set out, the Government support and are inviting proposals for a third runway at Heathrow to be brought forward by the summer. Once proposals have been received, we will take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement, to ensure that any scheme is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations. According to a recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase GDP by 4.3% over the next 25 years. It is estimated that over half—around 60%—of that boost would go to areas outside London and the south-east, underlining the fact that Heathrow as a hub airport brings prosperity not just to London but to every region and nation of the country.
The Government have also set out further plans to reform our planning system, to provide confidence to investors and builders, and to show that Britain can get building again and that we can deliver on our promises. Confidence starts with stability. Stability is the precondition to a healthy, growing economy, because it gives UK businesses and households the essential confidence that they need to spend and invest, encouraging innovation and boosting our economy. In outlining our new, robust and transparent fiscal framework, the charter for Budget responsibility that we are voting on today provides a vital and stable foundation from which our economy can grow.
What the instability of the last 14 years has given us is clear: low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services performance. Public sector net debt is 97.2% of GDP, and net financial debt remains close to its highest recorded level as a share of GDP, which was reached in the pandemic. Per capita GDP remains 0.8% below pre-pandemic levels. In contrast, had the UK economy grown at the average rate of OECD economies over the past 14 years, it would be over £150 billion larger than it is today. Public investment in the UK has historically been low and inconsistent. Our public capital stock, as a share of GDP, is the joint lowest in the G7, and more than 10 percentage points below the G7 median.
Underneath all those challenges was a £22 billion black hole of in-year spending pressures that were not disclosed by the previous Government to Parliament, the public or the Office for Budget Responsibility—[Interruption.] My colleague the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), seems to have comments on the £22 billion black hole. I will happily take an intervention from him. [Interruption.] I am told that I cannot take an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very sad. But in that context, I look forward to the shadow Chief Secretary outlining in his speech how that £22 billion black hole came into being.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the record, the Minister can take an intervention if he wishes to. This reminds me of the many years all three of us spent on the Business and Trade Committee, when we could not agree on anything either.
Darren Jones
I was always enamoured of your arguments, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I continue to be today. I look forward to the prospect of many interventions from Members across the House as part of this important debate, and I encourage the shadow Chief Secretary to intervene.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Member knows that the Labour party takes child poverty seriously. That is why we launched the child poverty taskforce at the start of this Government, co-chaired by the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Education Secretary, to do a root and branch review of the long-term structural causes of child poverty and the interventions the Government could take to reverse those growing trends that none of us across the House wants to see. The taskforce will report in the coming months, but he is right to point out that housing costs and insecure housing have become ever more important drivers of child poverty in recent years. That is why, through the Renters’ Rights Bill introduced to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister, we are taking action in the private rented sector to provide additional protections and support for families in rental accommodation—for example, banning no-fault evictions and giving more security of tenure for people who are renting.
Like me, the right hon. Member will have had lots of casework where hard-working families, who are just trying to make ends meet and to provide security of income and a roof over their head for them and their families, are failed by a market in which house prices to buy and rent are out of reach and the rate at which we build affordable and social housing is not meeting the demand of the people who need it. That is why we increased funding at the Budget by half a billion pounds to build more affordable and social housing, which we know can be delivered quickly.
On a visit last week to Erewash, I visited social housing developments supported by Homes England and learned from the company building those homes for emh Homes, the east midlands housing association, that it takes only 14 to 16 weeks from laying the foundations through to giving the key to the person moving in. That reminds us why our reform agenda is so important, because the time involved in building—planning, consenting, infrastructure and financing deals—has been significantly holding back the rate of development of social and affordable housing across the country. Those are exactly the sorts of issues where Government have the ability to make a difference, which is why we are committed to accelerating our plans to build 1.5 million homes a year, but, crucially, to tilting that towards more affordable and social housing to support people across the country.
The Government are resetting the welfare cap, given that the previous one was repeatedly breached, and we are doing so based on the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That will set a new target for 2029-30, alongside our action to control welfare spending and to help people who deserve the assistance. The Government have demonstrated that they will not shy away from doing what is needed to put welfare spending on a more sustainable path—for example, with different decisions such as targeting winter fuel payments to those who need them the most and reclaiming £4.3 billion of public money lost to fraud and error in the welfare system in 2029-30, and £9.2 billion over five years.
We have also announced steps to tackle inactivity through the “Get Britain Working” White Paper and will set out further proposals in the health and disability Green Paper later in spring. Progress against the cap will be monitored by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. That will include a strengthened accountability framework and the DWP publishing an annual report on welfare spending. By strengthening the accountability of the welfare cap, getting more people into work and reforming the welfare system for long-term sustainability, we are taking the necessary steps to keep spending under control. But crucially, we are also serving the people of this country by ensuring that people who for too long have been at home unable to be seen in the NHS or to get access to mental health services, who have been unable to get the training or support they need to take advantage of the jobs available in our country, and who have been unable to find jobs near where they are, see hope in their futures and know they have a Government on their side who will support them to get back into work. That outcome is better for them, their family finances and their futures, but it also supports us in ensuring fiscal stability.
The reforms to the fiscal framework outlined in the new charter for Budget responsibility will ensure a more stable approach to tax and spend, as well as better transparency and accountability for our Government and future Governments. That stability is inseparable from our plans for growth. Alongside that growth, restoring stability means the Government can pay for increased funding to repair, reform and modernise our public services and to invest in the infrastructure needed to rebuild Britain. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To clear up any confusion, this is the debate and motion on the charter for Budget responsibility. The next motion and debate will be on the welfare cap. I call the shadow Minister.
Growing the UK Economy
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The right hon. Member has been down this path before because it was his Government who went down it and blocked all these developments over the past 14 years. This Government are working on reforms to the planning system, looking at national policy statements, thinking about skills and infrastructure supply chains, and unlocking private capital because we are a Government who want to get Britain building again, and not block the projects that were stalled for years under the previous Administration.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Dr Jeevun Sandher, a member of the Select Committee.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Investment is what makes us more prosperous; it produces more work, it gets wages rising and it creates good jobs. I am an East Midlands MP, and we have some of the lowest investment rates in the country, the least transport infrastructure and some of the lowest private investment. That is why I welcome the announcement today of £1 billion going to the manufacturing and logistics hub at East Midlands airport. I especially welcome the 2,000 extra jobs that will benefit my constituents in Loughborough, Shepshed and Hathern. Will the Chief Secretary assure me that this is just the beginning of the investment we can expect in the region and for my constituents?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a strong advocate for the economy in the East Midlands and for his constituency. He will know that I visited the region last week and met businesses and investors with our Mayor, Claire Ward. The region is doing a brilliant job of securing inward investment, and there is huge untapped potential in the East Midlands. I am pleased that the Chancellor was able to make those announcements today, and we very much look forward to hearing about more business cases and more potential so that we can unlock growth in the East Midlands.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I am sure the Chief Secretary knows and admires the plan for growth of Conservative-led Worcestershire county council. It has been working through the plan, and it has built a new train station on the North Cotswold line, which connects Worcestershire to Oxford, but a lot of that line is still single track. Will he urge the Oxford growth commission to look at the extensive work done by Oxfordshire county council and Worcestershire county council to find a way to double the frequency of the train services on that stretch of track?
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about investment and growth. Does he agree with me about the role that new towns will play in tackling our country’s housing crisis and how important it is that, alongside the homes in the new towns, we see the delivery of new social infrastructure? Can he outline how those plans will work?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend. As I informed the House recently, our infrastructure strategy, which will be published in June, will for the first time align social infrastructure plans for schools, GP surgeries and other public service facilities with those for housing and economic infrastructure. For the first time, we will be making strategic decisions about the places where people live.
On the house building target—I met tenants who will be moving into new social homes in Erewash last week—we talk about 1.5 million homes and about economic growth, but in every one of those buildings is someone’s life, their opportunities and the dreams they want to fulfil. This Government are delivering on economic growth, and we are doing so because the people at the heart of all these decisions are the people we need to get the economy moving and Britain doing well in the future.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Among the fundamental enablers of growth in the economy are financial services and opening up markets to invest. I think there was consensus across this House in the last Parliament on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which provided the framework to do that. What concrete proposals have come forward from the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority consideration of changing some of the restrictions that stop the right levels of investment? This week, the Government enabled about £100 billion of surplus funds from defined-benefit pension schemes to be made available. What proportion of that money will be invested and in what timeframe? The concern around these announcements is the delay to tangible, calculable economic impact.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. I think it alludes to the fact that this is the announcement not just of a runway, but of a project which we must make sure is optimised for delivering growth for the whole of the United Kingdom, as I made clear in my statement. That means that we need to work with regional airports and look at how the slots are allocated at Heathrow, to make sure that Heathrow’s business model optimises opportunities for regional airports and the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a commitment that the Government have made very clear today.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The whole House supports a focus on growth, which is good for our prosperity and key to funding our public services. However, growth has not only a rate but a direction, and how we seek to achieve growth is about choices. If we choose to back measures that undermine our net zero targets, we may be going for growth today with severe consequences for tomorrow. How do the Government justify their choice to back Heathrow expansion over more sustainable rail transport projects across the country?
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I have consistently called for new investment in the eastern region, and nothing is more exciting than the proposal to build a Universal Studios theme park—the first of its kind in Europe—in Bedford. The project has huge potential to transform the region. Will the Chief Secretary provide an update and reassure me that progress is being made on turning that plan into reality?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Hopefully the Minister can meet that enthusiasm.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who has campaigned tirelessly for this investment in the region since he has been the House. As he will know, the Government are in negotiations with partners for the development. Unfortunately, I cannot update the House at this stage, but I look forward to doing so in due course.
Darren Jones
I am pleased to announce to the House today the Government’s commitment to build, baby, build. We will deliver that for this country. My hon. Friend is right to point out the difference that a change in Government can make. This Labour Government are getting on with the job of dealing with planning regulations and blockers, bringing forward investment and delivering for the country, whereas the Conservative party promised the earth and delivered nothing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Dr Kieran Mullan—I assume you have a lot to say.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Away from Labour’s rhetoric, I suspect that Members on both sides of this House are hearing the reality from our constituents. On Friday, I visited Saxonwood care home in my constituency, and St Michael’s hospice just across the border, which looks after my constituents. I have also heard from Bexhill chamber of commerce, and they are all clear that Labour’s planned national insurance rise will do enormous damage to their attempts to grow, and to employ people. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the OBR’s forecast that the jobs tax will harm growth, not help it?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If Members’ questions are short and if the answers are to the point, I will do my best to get everybody in. To show us how it is done, I invite Kanishka Narayan.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
Harold Wilson said:
“The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”
Today, we can add to that the Tory party. Will the Chief Secretary ditch that Tory past, seize the spirit of Wilson and bring the white heat of technology back to Britain’s shores, including an AI growth zone in the Vale of Glamorgan?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on his upcoming paternity leave. He knows that the Government are committed to protecting the environment but also to cutting red tape. We have shown that that can be done in a win-win way, through the nature fund announced by the Environment Secretary recently. We will be doing further work on this issue in the coming months to ensure that we can deliver for Britain and for the natural economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Chief Secretary has been on his feet for nearly an hour and a half. He has a long visit list, and obviously he will want to visit Sussex Weald first and foremost.
High Streets: Autumn Budget 2024
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call on Victoria Collins to stand so that she can take Mr Shannon’s intervention.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister will consider what I am about to say. I have been asked to go to the Isle of Skye on Saturday for a crisis meeting. There is a group of hotels, which are family-run businesses, not big multinationals, and they face an awful combination of increases across the board, including heating price increases. Their No. 1 issue is national insurance contributions and minimum wage costs. They think that, on average, their costs will go up by between £40,000 and £70,000. They are in a very poor state indeed. Can the Minister give me any encouragement that I could pass on to them on her behalf?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr MacDonald, your intervention was on the Member, so the question goes to her, and she can insist on the Minister responding.
Victoria Collins
My hon. Friend mentioned the rise in energy costs, which I have not covered in my speech but which have been mentioned by many of my local businesses as a matter for consideration. I am sure the Minister will also consider the other comments that he made.
When it comes to business rates, there is a similar story of despair. The Robin Hood pub says that its business rates will double. G. Grace & Son says:
“Our business rates are already a huge cost overall to the business, which seems disproportionate given that our premises are relatively small. And increasing them will put even more strain on our already stretched budgets.”
Mark from Tabure restaurant in both Harpenden and Berkhamsted said:
“There will be yet another increase in the national minimum wage—this time above inflation. Alcohol duty will increase on 1 February. Business rates are set to increase in April, along with various increases in national insurance contributions. And this Budget is devastating.”
Will the Government consider abolishing the broken business rates system and replacing it with a commercial landowner levy? Furthermore, will the Government consider delivering the maximum discount allowed by the Budget to support hospitality or smaller high street businesses?
I wish that I had the time to dive into all the issues raised by local businesses, but I will focus on just two more. Many are worried about high street services such as parking. With the Conservatives having cut local council funding again and again, many services such as parking and investment in our high streets have had to be cut as well. Given the Government’s commitment to local communities, will they ensure that investment in local councils compensates for the increase in national insurance contributions that councils will have to pay, to help them to invest in our high streets and related services?
Several family businesses have highlighted the devastating impact of the proposed changes to inheritance tax. Mike and his wife have worked week in, week out for over 40 years, and in their 70s are still working full time to support the business and their employees. They say that they have taken low dividends and looked after their staff, and hope to hand over the business to their children, but the proposed changes mean that the business may have to be pulled apart. For Charlotte’s family business, the removal of the 100% business property relief will mean that it will not be able to stay in the building that it has been in for two centuries. Will the Government carry out a proper impact assessment on inheritance tax for family businesses, notably where the assets will stay within a business that supports the local community?
I once again thank all the businesses that contacted me; I am sorry that I could not mention them all. Similar issues are highlighted by local charities, healthcare providers and, indeed, businesses beyond the high streets in Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Flamstead, Markyate and Potten End. I suggest that the Minister meets, or continues to meet, with such businesses up and down the country. Carolyn from Almar has invited the Chancellor to come and see at first hand the challenges of running a high street shop, and pleads with the Government to look at measures to mitigate the impact and help our high streets to thrive.
I will end with a message of hope. I would like to envisage a day when people can head to their local high street in Harpenden, Tring, Redbourn or anywhere in the UK; when there is proper public transport investment, so it is easy to pop on the bus; when there is investment in our walkways and cycleways, so people can get down there easily; and when people can perhaps even find a parking space. A day when the high street is a vibrant place, full of thriving local businesses; when people can drop their kids off nearby at the local creche, easily head to the doctors, and relax with friends and family after a busy or sunny day—that is, when the sun comes out in the UK. A day when our high streets up and down the country are a real experience; when they have been invested in, and local businesses are thriving; and when the beating heart of our community is alive, thriving and no longer on life support. With the right investment and incentives, and with adjustments to the autumn Budget, we must start that journey.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 22nd January 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (31 Oct 2024)
Emma Reynolds
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who puts it very well. He will know that there was a different order in the case of Credit Suisse, but the then Government said at the time that that would not be their order of priority. We are seeking to protect the taxpayer in this Bill, and he is right: had there been a cost associated with the transfer of SVB, it would have fallen first to those people before falling to the taxpayer. If we pass this legislation, for which I hope there is cross-party support, we will avoid that eventuality, because if we follow the order of priority and get to the financial services compensation scheme, the cost will be paid through a levy on the banks in that scheme. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.
The resolution regime is a critical source of stability when banks fail, because it ensures that public funds and taxpayer money are protected. This Bill delivers a proportionate and targeted enhancement to the resolution regime to ensure that it continues to provide that important stability. As I said at the start of this debate, it is therefore an important Bill that underpins the Government’s vision for economic growth, and I commend it to the House.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I would like to start by welcoming both the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to their new positions. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West and I go way back, and I am enjoying now being able to address him as a Minister in His Majesty’s Government. I congratulate both of them. I did not quite agree with the shadow Minister’s description of the previous Government as “strong and stable”, but it was certainly worth a try—I mean that in all good spirit, honestly!
I thank the Minister for her speech and for her thorough but accessible explanation of the reach of the Bill. I shall look forward to talking about it with the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme tomorrow on the doorsteps of Town ward, where there is a by-election, which I look forward to the Labour candidate, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, winning. I will make sure that I share the benefits of this Bill with the voters in my constituency when I knock on their doors tomorrow. This Bill has the good fortune of being supported by both sides of the House. We have heard that from the shadow Minister, so I want to reassure all colleagues that I shall speak very briefly indeed.
I have never received an invitation for a prawn cocktail in the City—although all good things come to those who wait—but the Bill and the issues contained in it are important and I am pleased to be here to speak in favour of them today. I have just a couple of points that I would like the Minister to touch on in his winding-up speech. Could he set out in greater detail how the payslips of workers in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be protected by the contents of the Bill? My constituents’ finances and livelihoods are obviously my focus, so I welcome anything and everything this Government do to protect and enhance their lives, or to promote growth across the economy. I would welcome anything the Minister can do to provide reassurance both on the growth agenda generally and on the specific benefits of the Bill.
Ahead of this debate, like all keen newbies, I read the Hansard report of the debate in the other place, and I hope Ministers have ensured that the legitimate points raised by the noble Lords were taken on board. I agree with the noble Lord who noted that small banks play a big role in our economy, and I thank the Economic Secretary and the shadow Minister for acknowledging that.
I echo the shadow Minister’s point about the importance of the City, which is an engine of growth that reflects the success of our country and the strength of our economy. However, my focus as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is on ensuring that the growth, benefit and skill of that powerful engine reach up the M6 to junction 15, so that my constituents in God’s own county of Staffordshire can benefit from all that the City does.
This is a technical but important Bill, and I am pleased to be here today to give it my support.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I, too, enjoy listening to the right hon. Gentleman, but it would really help if he could continue to speak to the Bill at hand, and not make broader comments.
Sammy Wilson
The mentality is that with these national insurance increases we are imposing more taxes on small businesses and on all the sectors I have spoken about. I would ask the hon. Gentleman what spending decreases could have been looked at—have any productivity impositions been put on the public sector, for example? That should be the answer, rather than asking, “Who should we tax to pay for the black hole?” Instead, we should be asking how we can reduce and reprioritise the things that we do; looking at some of the things the Government do at present that they do not need to do, or that they could do better, or that they could save money on.
I listened with bemusement to the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who was relieved by a survey in The Guardian in which more than 50% of those surveyed were quite happy with this tax. If there are so many Guardian readers happy to pay more taxes, I am sure the Scottish National party would love them all to move to Scotland, because it might solve some of the problems they have. These are the kinds of strained arguments that we have had from Government Members.
They know the impacts the Bill will have. I am sure they are having the same conversations with their constituents as I have had with the people who have spoken to me in my constituency office—the small businesses, those in the hospitality industry, the GPs and those in the care sector and the charitable sector, who have come to me and told me the impact it will have on their organisation. I do not believe we can run away from this, despite what will happen when we vote later today.
I do not share the optimism of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) that somehow little cabals will form on the Government Benches—that they will all start whispering, and maybe 10 of them will go to see the Chief Whip, and then next week it will be 20, and then, by the time there are 50 of them going to see the Chief Whip, this will all change. I do not share that optimism. What I do hope, however, is that the predictions that have been made about the Bill will finally resonate with the Chancellor, and we will see a change in policy.
The Chairman
I know that colleagues read about how we manage the Chamber, so they will know that I cannot put speaking limits on individuals contributing in Committee of the whole House. However, if the last two Members speak for around five minutes each, the Minister will have time to respond before we have to conclude business, so please be mindful of that.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I will shorten my speech on your guidance, Ms Ghani. I encourage all Members of the House to follow the example of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and sign up to the Antrim Guardian—a very good local publication from my constituency that carries good articles.
I rise to come back to the topic of the debate, employers’ national insurance contributions, because we have covered many subjects this afternoon. I support the amendments that look to alleviate the punishing implementation of, and increases to, employers’ NICs, especially for our family health service and social care providers. Unlike other speakers on the Opposition Benches who have looked to blame the Government for the increases, I do not think the Government are to blame. I think this is more about the Treasury than the whole Government.
I want to pick up on a point raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I have a lot of respect and sympathy for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). When he announced his 10-year plan for the national health service, there were three main platforms: to move from analogue to digital, to move from sickness to prevention, and to move from hospital to community. The increases to NICs for community-based health providers will put many of those services at risk and under pressure. This is where there is a disconnect between what the Government are trying to do and what they are actually going to do and achieve. I think that was the point described by the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). If we put the additional charges on our GPs, community pharmacies, opticians, domiciliary care providers and social care providers, that will come back, in a circular route, in how we fund our health service.
On the specifics for Northern Ireland, we are looking to transform and modernise a health service that has been largely underfunded and under pressure for quite a number of years, and trying to exist on single-year budgets since 2016. We are doing that by introducing multidisciplinary teams, where a general practice has a psychologist and a social worker all within its practice. General practices are asking for that to be extended across Northern Ireland, but the increase in ENICs will increase wage bills and pressures on the pharmacies and general practices that have already taken that step.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness also made a point about the introduction of social care within the health service. We already have that in Northern Ireland, and 75% of the provision is done by the private sector. One thing this House needs to address, especially those on the Labour Benches, is that when we talk about private provision, they are not organisations making massive amounts of money. In my constituency they are often family-run social care practices that look after two or three homes. Nearly all nursing and residential care homes are privately owned too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep his contribution to just a few minutes, so that the Minister has time to respond to all the Back Benchers?
Iqbal Mohamed
Everyone in my constituency, and indeed in the whole country, knows that the last Tory Government decimated public services after 14 years of austerity, mismanagement, negligence and a sole focus on the rich, at the expense and neglect of the poor working class and the public sector. I sympathise with the new Government, and I will try to provide constructive support.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcements in the Budget of increased investment in education, the NHS, infrastructure projects and other public services, but, like many other people in the House and throughout the country, I do not agree with the approach taken to the funding of those investments. Members on both sides of the Committee have indicated today that failing to protect key sectors and services such as general practices, care homes, pharmacies, childcare providers and third sector providers may have been an oversight or a mistake on the Government’s part, but I am not so sure. On the basis of the Government’s other blanket policies on abolishing the winter fuel allowance, imposing VAT on all private schools including low-fee and charitable schools and removing business rates relief from all private schools and charities without any announcement of safeguarding or compensatory measures to protect these services and sectors, it appears to have been a deliberate, or negligent, decision.
It is clear that the Government inherited a dire state of affairs that requires huge investment, which must be paid for in a responsible way. I am sorry to say that the way that has been chosen by this new Labour Government is not the right one. Viable and progressive alternatives are available to the Government to raise finances for the necessary investment rather than inflicting the increase in national insurance contributions on the impacted bodies. Let me suggest a couple of easy measures that would support the Government’s investment. One possible solution is the imposition of a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise the amount predicted to be raised by national insurance contributions; another is the closing of corporation tax loopholes that allow corporations to save billions and to offshore profits.
Finance Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 11th December 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 December 2024 - (11 Dec 2024)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 47
Removal of exemption for private school fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 48 and 49 stand part.
New clause 8—Statements on charging VAT on private school fees—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to Parliament about the removal of the exemption for private school fees introduced by section 47 of this Act, and other changes to private school fees introduced by sections 48 and 49 of this Act.
(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—
(a) pupils with special educational needs and disabilities,
(b) small rural schools, and
(c) faith schools.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of this Act being passed, make a statement about the impact of the removal of the exemption on schools that take part in the music and dance scheme.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make a statement about the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.
New clause 9—Pupils with SEND without an Education Health and Care Plan: review of VAT provisions—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every six months thereafter, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in sections 47 to 49 of this Act on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
(2) The review must consider in particular the impact of those measures on—
(a) children with special needs who do not have an education health and care plan (EHCP); and
(b) the number of children whose families have applied for an EHCP.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in the Act on pupils who have special educational needs but do not have an Education Health and Care Plan.
Euan Stainbank
I am surprised that our SNP colleagues are not here, but, again, I welcome their eventual and tepid support for this measure during the general election campaign—something that they have tried to distance themselves from.
I was proudly educated at two Falkirk state schools: Ladeside primary and Larbert high. Neither I nor the 94% of young people in the UK who are educated at state schools should ever feel like our parents or our teachers lacked aspiration for us. From my conversations with parents, pupils and teachers in Falkirk about their concerns about our state education system, I know that their overwhelming opinion is that we must now invest in our state education system as a priority.
If today’s decision is between billions of pounds going into state education annually and having £1.5 billion to £1.8 billion less for state education by maintaining a tax exemption for fee-paying institutions, I know what the people of Falkirk’s preference is. Falkirk does not need tax breaks for institutions that largely serve the wealthiest. Falkirk does need well-funded state schools.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman
No doubt the whole House will join me in congratulating the next speaker on his engagement. How lucky you are. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the entire House for its well wishes.
I rise to speak of how our reforms will raise tax revenues from the wealthiest and use that money to build prosperity for all, because that is at the heart of our governing spirit.
Building prosperity for all means creating prosperity for those who cannot afford a decent life, no matter how hard they work, including non-graduates who cannot earn enough to live and the young who cannot earn enough to afford the homes they need. Today, we are proudly raising money from those who can best afford it to create good jobs and build homes across our nation, to create an affordable life for everyone.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
May I also extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend on this wonderful day for him and his family? He is making an excellent speech. On the specific point about housing, can my hon. Friend say a little more about his vision? [Interruption.] He was coming on to housing. Can he speak, in particular, about the needs of young families? In many medium-sized towns and cities across the country, such as Reading, which I represent, there is a need for more affordable housing, both to buy and to rent.
The Chairman
Order. Can we ensure that the interventions are clearly related to the debate in hand? I have no doubt that the answer will be.
Dr Sandher
By building the houses we need, we get the revenue from the tax changes we see today. Indeed, that is the entire point of our programme, in addition to the planning reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) referred to. From the tax revenue we raise from the measure we are debating and others, we will build a nation where every person has a stake in our society and a nation where working hard makes a difference.
Graham Stuart
Is this what we are supposed to be discussing this afternoon? I obviously fail to follow its relevance to VAT on private schools, which is what I thought we were discussing, but I may be mistaken.
The Chairman
We are discussing private schools and VAT. I do not think that is an appropriate point of order, but, Dr Sandher, there is no doubt that you will bring your contribution very close to VAT and schools. I look forward to hearing that.
Sarah Olney
I trust that that means the Liberal Democrats can look to the right hon. Gentleman to support our new clause today, because the inevitable result of the legislation, if unamended, will be thousands of children with SEND forced into the state sector all at once, which will be enormously disruptive, and not just for them but for pupils already in the state sector. It will be potentially traumatic for those children, as well as being immensely difficult for the state schools to manage. New clause 9 would protect both the children and the schools affected by the impact of these measures—the children who have special educational needs but do not yet have an EHCP, as well as the children of families who have applied for one.
However, it is not just children with SEND who will be affected. The parents of many thousands of other children across the country will find that they can no longer afford to keep them in their current school, and those children will experience enormous disruption to their education as they are forced to change schools. Many will face the upheaval of being separated from their friends and a familiar environment. The Government should reflect carefully on whether the benefits of this policy that they are intent on pursuing are worth the damage caused to these children’s education and wellbeing.
The influx will not be evenly distributed. In my constituency of Richmond Park, more than 45% of children attend a fee-paying private school. In common with other parts of London, demand for state primary places is down, so younger children will be easily accommodated, but secondary schools are experiencing great pressure for places and a rise in requests for in-year admissions will be difficult to meet. There may only be a small proportion of children whose parents are no longer able to meet the fees, but a drop in headcount at private schools could see them closing because they become unviable. That means that the effect of children needing to transfer out of independent schools and into the state sector could be much greater than is currently forecast.
I want to reflect on what the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and others have said about the music and dance scheme. The Royal Ballet school at White Lodge in the middle of Richmond park in my constituency is a world-leading ballet school, and it has expressed great reservations to me about the effect of this policy, and I would very much like the Government to reflect on that.
If the survey done by The Times of private school parents earlier this year is accurate, and 25% of parents have to withdraw their children from private education due to the Government’s proposals, that could have a huge impact on children in communities such as mine across the country. The Government propose that their new tax treatment should be applied only to the provision of private schooling, but taxing some forms of education and not others will almost inevitably create loopholes.
Creative accountants will find ways of delivering education services that fall outside the VAT legislation while other education providers that the Government did not intend to tax will unwittingly find themselves caught up in it. The risks of these distortions increase if legislation is hastily framed with insufficient time for scrutiny. Between parents who cannot afford to pay their children’s fees and schools that cannot keep their doors open, the state will need to find space and resources for an influx of new students.
The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the Government’s plans to impose VAT on private school fees because we believe it is wrong to tax education. Imposing this increase in fees will have a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, which will create not just hardship for those children and their parents but enormous difficulties for the local authorities and state schools that will be required to provide alternative schooling. That is why I join the calls of my colleagues to urge the Government to back new clause 9.
The Chairman
We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, no doubt saving the best till last.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am a Hertfordshire county councillor, and it is that authority that will have to pick up the pieces if parents cannot afford the VAT on private schools or if private schools close. A bit like in the farming debate, I have a specific example from my constituency that tears down the Government’s argument on adding VAT to private school fees.
Turnford was a secondary school in my constituency in decline. Academic standards and behaviour were poor and the quality of teaching was inconsistent, leading to students becoming demotivated and achieving less than the national expectations. Staff suffered from low morale and there were significant recruitment challenges. The school buildings, on a poorly laid-out site, were dilapidated. But thanks to a unique partnership with Haileybury, an independent school in my constituency, the tide began to turn. In 2015 the school was relaunched as Haileybury Turnford academy, with Haileybury as the sole sponsor. A generous annual improvement grant was established worth £200,000 a year; that has gone on for about five years, so more than £1 million has gone directly into that state school in my constituency. That has enabled Turnford to recruit much-needed staff and retain high-quality specialist teachers.
Haileybury also gives additional financial support for Turnford’s SEN students and provides opportunities for a wide breadth of academic and extracurricular activities, such as supporting programmes for gifted and talented pupils. Because of that partnership between state and private schools, academic standards have been transformed. We have had new classrooms constructed, and in 2022 Haileybury Turnford was judged by Ofsted to be “good” for the first time in the school’s history.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Clauses 51 to 53 stand part.
New clause 6—Sections 50 and 51: impact on private rental sector—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the cost of private rent in each region within England and in Northern Ireland,
(b) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the supply of private rental properties in each region within England and Northern Ireland,
(c) any other implications of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact increased rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings are having on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.
New clause 7—Review of effects of sections 50 and 51 on housing market—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act, on the housing market in England and Northern Ireland.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the demand for houses in each region within England and Northern Ireland, and
(b) the implications for the housing market of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact increased rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings are having on the housing market in England and Northern Ireland.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
This is a Budget to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change by protecting working people, fixing the NHS and rebuilding Britain. The Government are achieving this by taking difficult decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair the public finances and increase investment in public services and the economy, to rebuild Britain and unlock long-term growth. This Finance Bill delivers on a number of the Government’s priorities for tax reform, prioritising stability for businesses making investment decisions and ensuring fairness and sustainability in the long term. We will discuss the full range of manifesto commitments delivered in this Bill throughout its passage, but today, I will talk about an area in which the Government have decided to go further than our manifesto commitment.
The clauses we are debating increase the higher rates of stamp duty land tax on purchases of additional dwellings by individuals and of dwellings by companies from three percentage points above the main residential rates of SDLT to five percentage points. These clauses also increase the single rate of SDLT payable by companies and other non-natural persons when purchasing dwellings worth more than £500,000 from 15% to 17%. They will support home ownership by ensuring that those looking to move house or purchase their first property have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords and companies purchasing dwellings. These changes will raise £310 million per year by 2029-30, which will be used to support the Government’s first steps and other priorities.
One of our manifesto commitments was to increase the non-resident SDLT surcharge by one percentage point. The Government have decided to go further than that commitment and increase the higher rates of SDLT, known as higher rates for additional dwellings. This will raise more money than the manifesto policy, helping to restore economic stability and address the £22 billion-worth of unfunded pressures, as well as supporting delivery of the Government’s first steps. Increasing the higher rates for additional dwellings will also go further to rebalance the housing market in favour of first-time buyers and those moving house.
Finance Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker.” When addressing the Chair, please use our name. “Madam Chair” or “Chair” will also suffice.
Clause 7
Main rates of CGT for gains other than carried interest gains
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Clauses 12 stand part.
New clause 1—Impact assessment: capital gains tax—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in clauses 7 to 12 and schedules 1 and 2 of this Act, on—
(a) long-term investment;
(b) disposable income across different income deciles, and
(c) tax revenue.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of changes to Capital Gains Tax made in this Act on investment and the disposable income of taxpayers across different income deciles.
New clause 4—Section 12: review—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in section 12 of this Act on—
(a) the timing of asset disposals or transactions;
(b) shifting between different assets;
(c) shifting between gains and income;
(d) tax planning;
(e) migration; and
(f) non-compliance by non-payment, misreporting or underreporting of chargeable assets, gains or income.”
New clause 5—Business asset disposal relief: review of increase in rate—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of the provisions of section 8 on the number of Business Asset Disposal Relief claims involving the sale of a business.
(2) The assessment must compare estimates for the number of claims involving the sale of a business in the tax year 2024-25 with the number of such claims in the tax year 2025-26.
(3) The assessment must compare the impact under the provisions of section 8 with what impact could have been expected had the rate remained unchanged”.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
Since 2010, the UK has experienced low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services. Public sector net debt is at its highest since the early 1960s, at 98.5% of GDP. Per capita, GDP remains lower that before the covid-19 pandemic.
In July this year, the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance, with a £22 billion in-year pressure in the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s review into March’s spending forecasts concluded that had the information that has since been shared by the Treasury been made available to it at the time of the March Budget, there would have been a materially higher departmental expenditure limits forecast for 2024 to 2025. This was the result of the previous Government not factoring in the impact of a series of new, challenging pressures on the public finances, not taking the difficult decisions needed to address these pressures, and instead making a series of commitments that they could not fund.
This Government are committed to fixing the foundations and delivering a decade of national renewal. To do so, we must turn the page and take a different approach. In the autumn Budget, the House will have heard the Chancellor set out the Government’s first steps to repair the public finances, by taking the tough decisions needed to address the £22 billion in-year pressures to avoid further damage to our public services, including securing £5.5 billion of savings.
We are also putting in place significant reforms to strengthen our fiscal and spending framework that will improve certainty, transparency and accountability, and ensure that the situation can never happen again. This Government are taking the tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare that are necessary to repair the public finances and restore economic and fiscal stability. Those choices are not easy, but they are transparent, they are responsible and, with such a difficult position, they will ensure that the Government can deliver on our commitments not to increase taxes on working people.
The changes to the main rates of capital gains tax in clauses 7 to 11 will help to address the gap in public finances while retaining the UK’s internationally competitive investment climate. The new rates are revenue-maximising in the current design of the tax system, generating an additional £8.9 billion over the forecast period. The UK’s headline CGT rates will remain lower than those of France, Germany and Italy, and the highest rate is still lower than it was between 2010 and 2016. The new rates will mostly affect people who earn income from selling financial assets. The Government are taking the difficult but responsible decision to ask that group to pay a little bit more tax in order to restore economic stability.
Clause 12 represents the first step in a package of reforms to the taxation of carried interest by increasing the applicable rates of capital gains tax to 32% for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025. The reforms will put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.
I will begin with clauses 7 to 9, concerning the capital gains tax package. CGT is charged on individuals’ annual capital gains, net of losses and allowable costs. Less than 1% of adults pay CGT per year. There are lower rates available for reliefs, including business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. CGT has an annual exempt amount of £3,000 for individuals, which keeps people with lower levels of capital gains out of the system.
To repair the public finances and help raise the revenue required to increase funding for public services, the Government are increasing the main rates of CGT. The clauses will increase the lower main rate of CGT from 10% to 18% and increase the higher rate from 20% to 24%. Those changes affect disposables made on or after 30 October 2024. The clauses also increase the CGT rate at which business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief are charged in a phased way from 10% to 14%, effective from 6 April 2025, and from 14% to 18%, effective from 6 April 2026. Phasing in the rate increases for those CGT reliefs demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a predictable tax system.
The Government accept that for some entrepreneurs, a lower CGT rate will be factored into their plans for exiting the business, which can be a once-in-a-lifetime event. Although it is right to increase CGT rates to raise revenue, it is also fair to give business owners some time to adjust. The changes will raise £2.5 billion per year by the end of the forecast period, while ensuring the UK’s headline CGT rates remain below those of France, Germany and Italy.
Turning to clause 10, investors’ relief offers access to the lower rates of CGT on the disposal of qualifying unlisted shares. Its objective is to provide the financial incentive for individuals to invest in unlisted trading companies over the long term and help companies in accessing other forms of investment. The lifetime limit for investors’ relief was previously £10 million, compared with business asset disposable relief’s lifetime limit of £1 million. We feel that that disparity in lifetime limits is unfair towards entrepreneurs and could encourage harmful tax planning strategies. The changes made by clause 10 will reduce the lifetime limit for investors’ relief to match that of business asset disposal relief at £1 million of qualifying gains per person. Investors’ relief has received little take-up since its introduction in 2016, and so the Government expect that the measure will affect a very small number of individuals.
Turning to clause 11 and schedule 2, which introduce transitional arrangements and anti-forestalling rules, the transitional arrangements are consistent with similar rules put in place when CGT rates were charged in-year in 2010. The anti-forestalling rules draw on the approach taken when changes were made to business asset disposal relief in 2020. Transitional arrangements are needed for a small group of taxpayers in some specific circumstances. Those taxpayers will have capital gains that are ascribed to the 2024-25 tax year in general and not to any particular point in the year, and because clause 7 makes in-year changes, the Government have a legal responsibility to clarify the capital gains tax liabilities of those taxpayers. To avoid taxing those individuals retrospectively, the legislation puts in place transitional arrangements. The relevant capital gains are treated as arising in the earlier part of the year and are therefore subject to the previous rate schedule. From April 2025, there will be no need for those arrangements to remain.
I now turn to anti-forestalling rules. Some taxpayers will have tried to lock in the old rate by entering into various artificial arrangements and specific anti-forestalling rules are needed to prevent abuse. The anti-forestalling rules target disposals entered into before 30 October 2024 but completed after that date for the main rate change and the investors’ relief lifetime limit reduction. They also target disposals entered into on or after 30 October 2024 for the phased rate changes applying to business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. The provisions ensure that such people can still access the previous rates and the previous investors’ relief lifetime limit, but only where the disposal has not been artificially structured for the purpose of securing a tax advantage.
I now turn to clause 12, which concerns CGT on carried interest gains. Carried interest is a form of performance-related reward that is received by a small number of individuals who work as fund managers and, unlike other such rewards, carried interest can, where certain conditions are met, be subject to capital gains tax. Hon. Members will have heard the Chancellor announce at the Budget that the Government will reform the way carried interest is taxed, ensuring that that is fairer and in line with the economic characteristics of the reward. From 6 April 2026, a revised regime will tax all carried interest within the income tax framework with a 72.5% multiplier applied to the amount of qualifying carried interest that is brought into charge. The Government are also consulting on potential new conditions of access to the regime. Legislation to implement that revised regime will be included in a future finance Bill.
In advance of the implementation of the revised regime, the Government are acting now to increase the rates of capital gains tax that apply to carried interest. Clause 12 therefore increases the rates of capital gains tax for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025 from 18% and 28% to 32%, and from that date, the single CGT rate will apply to all relevant carried interest, subject to the same conditions as currently.
To conclude, the increases to the main rates of CGT to 18% and 24% represent a balanced and responsible approach to revenue raising, which will help the Government to improve the UK’s public finances and services while remaining competitive for investment. The clauses phase in the rate increase for business asset disposal relief over 18 months to mitigate impacts where the previous level of relief was factored into anyone’s plans to exit their business in the short term. That underlines the Government’s commitment to supporting entrepreneurs and recognising the vital role that small businesses play in our economy. In addition, the move to a single higher rate of CGT on carried interest at 32% demonstrates the Government’s commitment to decisive action now, while we rightly take the time to undertake technical consultation on the revised regime.
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.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I will talk mostly about new clause 5 on capital gains tax, but, given the remarks by the shadow Minister, I will make a few points on the broader matter and on incentives to start a new business.
My constituency of Earley and Woodley in the Thames Valley is one of the hottest destinations for business investment and for new start-ups in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. I have met a number of those inspiring entrepreneurs to talk about their start of the business journey. As is widely known, when entrepreneurs start passionately with a project, they are thinking not about the disposal and taxation regime at the end of their journey, but about the infrastructure and the support that they will have around them that brings their idea to fruition. For the tech and pharmaceutical entrepreneurs in Earley and Woodley, that is about a transport infrastructure, a skills base, and schools, colleges and universities in the area that can produce the kinds of graduates who will then staff their company. It is about a regime that is welcoming to entrepreneurship and is welcoming for people to live in and to prosper in. For all those reasons, I very much support our Budget and the Budget that brings more investment to infrastructure across the UK.
First, I welcome the measures on capital gains tax introduced in new clause 5. Let me remind Conservative Members that it was Chancellor Nigel Lawson who, in a much more dramatic measure than that proposed today, equalised the rate of capital gains tax with income tax in 1988. That equalisation was proposed because of tax avoidance. To many people listening to the debate, capital gains tax will not be familiar because, like me, their main means of taxation will be income tax and they will not have come into contact with CGT.
For the purposes of understanding, let me illustrate what I mean by “tax avoidance”. The issue was raised with me by a retired consultant when I was canvassing in the summer in the north of my constituency. When I knocked on his door, he said, “What are you going to do about capital gains tax? I want you to ensure that this doesn’t happen any more.” He then proceeded to illustrate the means by which he had paid less income tax than he otherwise would have done through the capital gains tax system. It was a principled and honourable admission for him to make to his then parliamentary candidate on the doorstep.
Many of us pay income tax, and we are all familiar with the way that it is structured. Among those of us who do not receive income from payroll—that is, who do not work for a company—but have the ability to structure it as self-employed or consultancy income and funnel it into a business of our own creation, that is a channel by which many people avoid paying income tax on activities that are arguably income-like. That happens, as I said, for a minority of people in the UK. The vast majority do not have access to that route because they earn through working for other people through companies, and they are on the payroll and not able to structure their own companies. When those companies holding the—arguably—income revenues are disposed of, that is when capital gains tax comes into the picture. Of course, the rate of capital gains tax is much lower than the rate of income tax, and that is where the gap comes from that was illustrated by my retired constituent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that the tax system is efficient in raising revenues, which is what our Budget sets out. The tax system must also be principled in ensuring that the tax purposes to which we have allocated certain measures raise the right taxes and are targeted towards the kinds of activities that are meant to be taxed. All of us in the Committee would probably agree that we should pay tax through a progressive system that distinguishes between different forms of revenue-raising activities, but that allocates people fairly and proportionately to those right and relevant activities.
I am reminded of the announcements that came out during the last Government regarding the tax affairs of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who paid 23% in average tax on his £2.2 million in earnings. That was of course possible because of the relatively low rate of capital gains tax that he was paying on the vast majority of his earnings, which came through capital and not through earned income.
Again, to the vast majority of people listening to the debate, I am sure that that is a reality far outside their understanding. The vast majority of people in the UK earn income through going out to work and working hard every day. It is for those people—the working people of this country—that this Budget has been made, so that we can lift livelihoods across the country by properly funding our public services and by closing the significant in-year overspend that the previous Government made of £22 billion. Through those measures, and by ensuring the financial stability of our tax system and the economic stability of our country, we will start to raise living standards across the UK. For those reasons, I very much support the measures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
As colleagues will notice, the Speaker’s Chair is vacant, so I remind Members that the Chair should be addressed as Madam Chair or Madam Chairman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I commend the Government for looking at capital gains tax as a potential source of revenue to get public services back on their feet, but we Liberal Democrats believe there was a better way of doing it. Right now, capital gains tax is unfair for everyone. Most people already pay too much capital gains tax when they sell a property or a few shares because the system does not account for inflation over the time they have owned them. At the same time, a tiny number of super-wealthy individuals—the top 0.1%—are able to exploit the capital gains system as effectively one giant loophole to avoid paying income tax like everyone else.
According to the latest HMRC statistics, 12,000 multimillionaires used the loophole to pay less than half the top rate of income tax on their combined £50 billion of income. Instead of raising capital gains tax across the board, we Liberal Democrats would have liked to see the Government properly reform CGT to make it much fairer. To provide a comparison, under the Labour Government’s proposals, the main rate of capital gains tax for basic rate taxpayers is being increased from 10% to 18% and, for higher and additional rate taxpayers, from 20% to 24%. According to the Government’s own statistics, the change will raise about £2.5 billion per year by 2029 to 2030. Under the Liberal Democrat proposal, we would have separated out capital gains tax from income, raised the tax-free allowance, provided a new allowance for inflation and had three different rates of capital gains tax. That would have raised £5.2 billion, more than twice the Government’s proposals.
As colleagues will hear, key to our proposal is the reintroduction of indexation—effectively, an allowance keeping people from paying tax on gains that are purely the result of inflation. That would be fair for ordinary people selling a family home or a few shares, but it would also incentivise long-term investment by ensuring that taxpayers are not penalised due to inflation if they hold their assets for a long period of time.
To summarise, the Liberal Democrat proposals for reforming capital gains tax would be fairer and would raise twice as much. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said our proposals would move CGT in a “sensible direction”. Our new clause 1 is incredibly simple. It would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of the changes to capital gains tax under the Bill on investment and on the disposable income of people in different income brackets. The objective behind the new clause is to illustrate to the Government that there is a fairer way to reform capital gains tax and to encourage the Government, in the spirit of constructive opposition, to look at our proposals in future years.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We in the SNP and the Scottish Government believe in progressive taxation. I think that is evident from the changes we have made to income tax since those matters were devolved. We would like a more progressive influence in the changes before us, rather than simply clawing at allowances and increasing the rate. Nothing in clauses 7 to 12 is designed to make matters better in Scotland, but at least the Labour party is consistent on that.
Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are increasingly out of step with modern activity in the UK economy. As the IPPR points out, since the 1980s, household wealth in the UK has risen from three times the national income to more than seven times, yet over the same timeframe wealth taxes have not risen at all as a share of that income. Taxing unearned wealth more fairly and efficiently is a legitimate long-term ambition in a state where the economy is on life support. Taxpayers are left wondering from this Budget whether more tax rises are on the way, after a substantial lack of clarity from the Chancellor, who said a week or so ago that the Government would not come back for more tax rises, or indeed more borrowing, but has since refused to echo those rather injudicious remarks. If she does not have the confidence to stand by her own statements, it is hard to imagine the effect on business and investor confidence across the UK.
The Chancellor should have worked with economic experts, such as those at the IFS, to create a fairer and more growth-friendly capital gains tax, but instead she has been captured by the same old Treasury dogma that has served the UK so badly over recent decades. Capital gains tax raises a growing amount of revenue—about £15 billion last year—partly reflecting the increased role of wealth accumulation in the UK, but it is still less than 2% of all tax take, and although CGT is paid by about 350,000 people each year, two thirds of receipts are from just 12,000 people with an average gain of £4 million.
CGT rates vary significantly across assets, and are almost always significantly lower than income tax rates. That rate differential is unfair and creates undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how long they choose to work. The IFS has criticised the Chancellor for choosing simply to increase CGT rates with no effort to carry out what it describes as much-needed reform. It also describes the whole design of CGT as “flawed”, adding:
“There are steps the government could and should take to make the tax fairer and less harmful to economic growth and well-being.”
Moreover, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation proposes further changes to CGT, including aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax to prevent individuals from dodging UK taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. It estimates that that package would generate £14 billion, but none of those measures is in the Bill.
The IFS says that if the Chancellor chose to raise CGT rates while leaving the flawed tax base unchanged, she would be choosing to raise some limited revenue at the expense of weakening savings and investment incentives, and of further distorting which assets people buy and how long they hold on to them. The IFS says that that would not be the decision of a Chancellor who is serious about growth. Well, what a portent that turned out to be. She did not reform CGT, and look what happened to growth: forecasts were down immediately after first contact with this inverse Midas-touch Chancellor. It is clear that, in preparing for the Budget, she could have done with a full hour or more with the IFS, but I doubt that she would have listened.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, and have saved the best until last. I call Bobby Dean.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Before I address capital gains tax directly, I will make a few short remarks about the state of the national conversation about tax more generally, which I think is highly relevant. I note that tax is always something to be “hit by” in politics—it is violent; we are “hammered” by it—so the debate ends up focusing on who is deserving or undeserving of such punishment. As a result, few organisations are viewed as legitimate targets for taxation. Very rarely do we in politics have the bravery to talk about the virtue of paying tax—what it pays for, how it benefits us all, and why collectively contributing to schools, hospitals and physical infrastructure is sensible investment that we should be proud to make.
That is where the political conversation falls slightly out of step with the mood of the public. Believe it or not, I have had conversations about tax on the doorstep, and I mostly meet people who are proud to make that contribution. Let me be clear: this is not some special plea to talk about tax in a warmer, fuzzier way in order to improve the civility of public discourse. Nor should it be confused for advocacy of a high-tax based economy. I raise that point because our distorted public conversation means that we end up with a dysfunctional tax system that is neither efficient nor equitable. Where we are with capital gains tax is a good example of that.
Decades of wrangling over whether capital gains tax stifles entrepreneurship or is merely a ruse for the rich often results in a pretty reductive focus on rates. It seems that that happened again in the Budget, and I fear that we have missed an opportunity to make that tax better. As others have explained in putting capital gains tax into context, it is paid by around 350,000 people and raises around 2% of total tax revenue, and 12,000 people account for two thirds of that revenue. That tax does not necessarily affect a broad section of society, but it does play an important role in investment in the economy and in the overall sense of fairness in our system.
Let me start with the economy. It makes no sense to me for the Government to make changes to capital gains tax without sorting out the tax base. If we do not index capital gains for inflation, we are not really taxing the thing that we say we are taxing. We should be focused on the real gains—otherwise, we risk taxing those who simply hold on to an asset for a long time, and ultimately we end up discouraging long-term investment.
Secondly, we ought to be targeting capital gains tax at those making the larger gains—if large gains are to be had, those investments will be made anyway. Smaller gains, however—the stuff at the margins—are where investment decisions could be at risk. Raising the CGT allowance a bit would go a long way towards addressing that, as would designing better-targeted reliefs that more precisely encourage investment.
Finally, we come to capital gains tax rates, whose alignment with income tax rates is often called for. The Government have of course moved a bit on that, but a focus on rates alone means that an inherent unfairness remains. There would still be the sense that there is one rule for small businesses and another for the giants. When he appeared before the Treasury Committee, Paul Johnson of the IFS remarked on another unfairness: someone can simply leave the country for a few years and dispose of an assets overseas—somewhere like Monaco—and they are then no longer responsible for capital gains tax. That is another inherent unfairness.
Ultimately, with the proposed changes only, the system will continue to disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest. It is for that reason that I cannot support the measure. If it passes, I hope the Government will consider carefully the impact of the change in isolation, and whether further reforms are necessary in future. Our tax system needs to ensure that everybody pays their fair share, and I do not think the Government have quite got this one right yet.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the Front-Bench wind-ups. Does the shadow Minister wish to speak?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I will take a few moments to respond to some of the points, and will then give the Government’s views on the proposed amendments. If there are questions that I do not answer, I will write to hon. Members.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for his important speech and agree with his points about much-needed reform to our tax system. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for her powerful speech and wholeheartedly agree with her constituent, who seems very principled and knowledgeable.
To respond to the points made by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), about the revenue impacts of the carried interest measure, the OBR-certified costings demonstrate that this measure raises revenue over the scorecard period. The Budget does deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on tax: estimated revenues for these policies have been adjusted for final policy decisions and to account for underlying changes in the OBR’s forecast, but overall, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the tax measures raise over £1 billion more than was in the manifesto.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about why the changes are being made in-year, the in-year rate changes were made to protect Exchequer revenues from the impacts of forestalling. It is common practice for tax changes to take effect from the date of the Budget. As for anti-forestalling, we would not expect the anti-forestalling provisions to apply to an ordinary commercial sale of an asset where the contract was entered into prior to 30 October. Those provisions target those who enter into artificial arrangements to lock in the pre-Budget tax treatments.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), talked about inflation indexation of CGT. Indexation previously existed when CGT rates were charged at income tax levels with a top rate of 40%. A rate schedule of 18% and 24% is significantly below those levels, so for the important reason of simplicity, indexation is not a part of the system.
New clause 1 would require the Government to present to Parliament a review of the capital gains tax package’s impacts on long-term investment, disposable income across the distribution, and tax revenue. In deciding on these changes to capital gains tax, the Government have already considered all three factors. On long-term investment, the OBR assessed the CGT package to have no measure-specific macroeconomic impact. On impacts across incomes, distributional analysis for all Budget measures combined is set out in the “Impact on households” publication. The Government do not normally publish the impacts of individual measures. Finally, the Government’s projection of the revenue raised by these CGT changes has been certified by the OBR and published in the Budget document. Every year, the Government publish the amount of CGT paid in the most recent tax year with available data, where table 3 breaks down gains by income. For those reasons, the proposed report is unnecessary, and I implore Members to reject the new clause.
New clause 4 would require the Government to publish a review within three months of the passing of this legislation covering various issues in connection with our reforms to the tax treatment of carried interest. As set out earlier, the CGT rates applicable to carried interest will increase to 32% from April 2025. This is a first step in advance of moving to a revised regime fully within the income tax framework from April 2026. The Government believe that their reforms will deliver increased fairness and place the tax rules on a more sustainable footing, while preserving our country’s position as a global fund management hub. We will also be undertaking extensive technical consultation ahead of legislating for the revised regime in a future finance Bill, which the House will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise. We therefore do not consider that new clause 4 is a necessary addition to the Bill that is before us today.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 16 to 18 stand part.
Schedule 3.
New clause 2—Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.
New clause 3—Changes to energy (oil and gas) profits levy: review—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in sections 15 to 18 on—
(a) employment in the UK oil and gas industry;
(b) capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry;
(c) UK oil and gas production;
(d) UK oil and gas demand; and
(e) the Scottish economy and economic growth in Scotland.”
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
New research published in the last few days has found that fossil fuel companies reported profits of nearly $0.5 trillion during the 2022 energy crisis. By contrast, people struggled with fuel poverty and had to choose between heating and eating. One in seven households in my constituency is in fuel poverty. Does the Minister agree that the ability to extend and increase the energy profits levy is a key lever for addressing this imbalance and supporting households?
The Chairman
Order. That was neatly done, but interventions have to be very closely related to what we are debating here and now.
James Murray
I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from lower bills as a result of the investment that we are ensuring, by the public and private sectors, in the clean energy sources of the future.
We knew, when the Conservatives introduced the energy profits levy, that the extraordinary oil and gas profits were driven by global circumstances, including resurgent demand after covid-19, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Households in the UK, however, were particularly badly hit by higher oil and gas prices, as the Government at the time had failed to invest adequately in energy independence, or in measures such as home insulation. When the energy profits levy was introduced, an 80% investment allowance was also introduced, and this was later reduced to 29% when the levy rate increased from 25% to 35% in January 2023. An 80% decarbonisation investment allowance was later put in place for decarbonisation expenditure, which is money spent on the reduction of emissions from the production of oil and gas. The levy was initially set at 25%, but the previous Government increased it to 35% and extended it beyond 2025, first to 2028, and later to 2029.
As I mentioned, the Government recognise the continued role for oil and gas in the UK’s energy mix during the energy transition. We are committed to managing the transition in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries, recognising that our offshore workers have the vital skills to unlock the clean industries of the future. I put on record my thanks to the offshore workers I met in Aberdeen in August for giving me some of their time and their views when I was there for a meeting with Offshore Energies UK and representatives of the sector. As I mentioned, it is essential that we drive both public and private investment in the transition to clean energy. Clause 15 therefore increases the energy profits levy by three percentage point—from 35% to 38%—from 1 November 2024. The clause also sets out the rules for apportioning profits for accounting periods that straddle the start date. As I have made clear, the money raised by these changes will help to support the transition to clean energy, enhancing our energy security and providing sustainable jobs for the future.
Clause 16 concerns allowances in the levy. The clause removes the 29% core investment allowance for general expenditure incurred on or after 1 November 2024, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Government have been clear about our intention to end unjustifiably generous allowances, and that is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance. We are bringing the level of relief for investment in the sector broadly in line with the level of capital allowances available to other companies operating across the rest of the economy through full expensing, which we have committed to maintaining. The energy profit levy’s decarbonisation allowance will be retained to support the sector in reducing emissions.
Qualifying expenditure includes money spent on electrification of production, or on reducing venting and flaring. The retention of the decarbonisation allowance reflects the Government’s commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy. However, in the light of the increase to the levy, clause 16 also reduces the rate of the decarbonisation allowance to 66% in order to maintain the same cash value of the tax relief per £100 of investment.
Clause 17 extends the sunset of the levy by one year from 31 March 2029 to 31 March 2030. To provide the oil and gas industry with long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime, we are retaining the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism.
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.
Daisy Cooper
At the heart of the debate is a stark injustice, understood by every man, woman and child on the streets of Great Britain. In the last few years, oil and gas giants have made eye-watering profits—in many cases, they are profits that they did not expect to make—and they have made them off the back of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues that caused energy prices to soar. At the same time, people have seen their living standards drop and their energy prices soar. In too many cases, people have had to choose between heating and eating.
We Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021, but it was not until May 2022 that the previous Government eventually introduced the energy profits levy. It was half-hearted and woefully late. If it had been brought in when we had called for it, there would have been additional revenue to reduce people’s energy bills and launch an emergency home insulation scheme, reducing energy consumption, which would have been good for the climate, and reducing people’s bills, which would have been good for their pockets.
The previous Government effectively let oil and gas giants off the hook, by initially setting the energy price levy at just 25% and putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. That allowed the oil and gas giants to get away with vast sums at taxpayers’ expense, with the excuse of investments that they would have made anyway. In essence, the Conservatives gave them tax relief on polluting activity when they should have been doing everything to raise funds to reduce people’s bills and urgently insulate homes.
Thanks to the investment allowance—the big loophole—in 2022, Shell admitted that it had paid zero windfall tax despite making the largest global profit in its 115-year history: a profit of £31 billion. As some colleagues in the Committee have referred to, energy prices have come down since those record levels of 2022, but the oil and gas producers have still seen huge profits. In 2023, Shell saw its profit come down from £31 billion, but it still made £22.3 billion.
Harriet Cross
Exactly. There must be a balance between production and demand—I will come to demand later. There is no point reducing our domestic production while our demand stays the same, because we will only fill the gap with oil and gas from abroad, which is produced with a higher carbon intensity in poorer working environments, where overseas jobs and investment will take precedence over investment at home. It makes no sense that while we are using oil and gas—the Minister himself confirmed that we will be for a while—we do not prioritise taking it from our own North sea domestic basins.
New clause 3 also asks for a review on capital expenditure and investment in the UK. In Scotland alone, oil and gas contributed £19 billion of gross standard volume. In the UK, it contributed £27 billion. A 2022 report by Experian showed that for every £1 million of investment by the oil and gas industry, 14 jobs and £2.1 million of GVA are added. This industry is blatantly a net benefit to the UK and the Exchequer, and one in which we should encourage investment and capital expenditure, not an environment where the returns do not justify the risk of investment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the OBR’s own figures show that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, and therefore production of oil by 6.3% and gas by 9.2%, because of these changes. We must ask, can the UK afford this? Maybe those were the parameters that the Exchequer and the Treasury are looking for, if they see them as allowable. But if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact on the economy and jobs across the UK?
The OEUK has put the projected drop in production down to a rapid decline due to underinvestment over the decade. Under new clause 3, we can assess the impact of the changes to the EPL and head this off to begin with because, as I said, it is important that while we have demand, we have production. It has been confirmed that we will need oil and gas in the UK for years to come, but through the changes to the EPL in the Bill, in particular clauses 15 and 16, which increase the EPL by 3% and remove the investment allowances, the Government are choosing to make our homegrown domestic energy sector so uncompetitive that current investment falls away and future investment is no longer on the cards.
We cannot afford to lose investment because, as I said, it will drive the transition. It is so important that it is protected now, to help us bring the transition forward quickly and efficiently into the future. Clauses 15 to 18 were introduced without adequate consultation on the impact assessment. New clause 3 simply asks for proper scrutiny of their impact. If the Government are confident in their approach, why resist a responsible request for transparency? My Gordon and Buchan constituents, and people in Scotland working in the oil and gas sector and across the UK, deserve to understand how these changes will impact their livelihoods.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call Dave Doogan, I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they need to be bobbing consistently—I cannot read people’s minds to put together a speaking list.
Dave Doogan
The changes to the EPL, particularly those set out in clauses 15 and 17, will have a hugely damaging effect on jobs and the Scottish economy. This is also an inauspicious day for Scotland in this so-called United Kingdom as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund records a €1.7 trillion breakthrough, while Scotland’s oil wealth has been squandered by successive Westminster Governments. Norway gets financial security in perpetuity; Scotland gets Labour’s bedroom tax, cuts to winter fuel payments for our elderly and the highest energy prices in the G20—that is the Union dividend wrapped up and served on a plate right there. More than £400 billion has flowed from our waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back in the other direction. Rather than reverse the train, the Labour Government have, with this increase to the EPL, chosen to accelerate it.
The cumulative effect of clauses 15 to 18 will sound the death knell for Scotland’s hydrocarbon production in advance, crucially, of the transition—economically illiterate, fiscally incompetent and with industrial suicide as the result. A windfall tax is supposed to be a tax on extraordinary profits, yet the extraordinarily high global oil and gas prices that preceded the introduction of the tax have long since abated. Through these changes, the Labour party jeopardises investment in Scotland’s offshore energies and risks the future of our skilled workforce and our ability to hit net zero while employing those workers. Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase and extension of the EPL risks costing the economy £13 billion and putting 35,000 jobs at risk.
The analysis from OEUK also shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. It is increasingly apparent that the Government do not really understand how investment horizons work offshore. They are not on a month-to-month basis; they take years to work up. This loss of economic value impacts on not only the core sector, but domestic supply chain companies, many of whom exist in my constituency, which have an essential role to play in the just transition.
The Labour party promised that there would be no cliff edge, yet it has concocted one for the 35,000 workers whose jobs this EPL change puts at risk. Labour had claimed that these changes would keep the UK in line with Norway, but the regime after Labour’s changes cannot be compared to that of Norway, which allows companies a maximum £78 of relief per £100 expenditure —in the UK, this relief would be £46.25. After these past couple of weeks, I am given to wondering if those on the Treasury Front Bench can actually count.
Changes to the EPL will hinder the just transition. The Government argue that the reduction in the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66% will maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure following the rate increase, reflecting the fact that this relief will increase in value against a higher levy rate. However, the policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation. Rather than allowing more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has striven to ensure that there is absolutely no silver lining to this fiscal attack cloud on Scotland’s energy industry.
Wera Hobhouse
Indeed. I could not agree more and I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the figures. That is why something needed to change and something needed to give. I repeat that I hope Government Members can support our new clause 2, because it matters. It will lay open what has been squandered and what difference we could make if we close the loophole.
Yuan Yang
Thank you, Ms Ghani. I apologise for my inconsistent bobbing. I am still learning when to stand up, but what has gone up and stayed up are the record profits of the oil and gas majors. I will start my speech on that topic, and will go on to speak about where those profits have come from and, finally, what the proceeds of our EPL will go to fund.
First, on those record profits, I think all Members of the Committee agree that the record profits in the oil and gas industry in 2022 were excessive. In 2023, however, the profits for Shell, the largest oil and gas major in Europe, barely decreased from the previous year. In fact, if we take its profits from the first half of this year, Shell looks likely to eclipse even those of last year. In the first half of this year, Shell has had profits of $14 billion. Half of that went to share buybacks, which do nothing to fund the decarbonisation that is so necessary to secure the future of energy production here in the UK and around the world. Those record profits, much of which have been handed back to shareholders, are going in the opposite direction of what ordinary families and working people need. Rather than reinvest in the transitions of the future, I would argue that the Conservative party is looking at the industries of the past and clinging on to a past that is quickly fading from reality.
Secondly, let us look at where those profits have come from. The House of Commons Library states that generally lower wholesale prices in the last year led suppliers to start offering fixed tariffs, as of summer 2023. However, they have been far more cautious in pricing those tariffs, with prices close to the level of the energy cap. Any return to competition in the market is expected to be slow. That reflects the state of affairs we face today. The wholesale prices of oil and gas—as an example, look at the price of Brent crude in the market today—are back below the levels they were pre the Russian invasion of Ukraine, yet the retail prices facing ordinary working families in the UK are still far above those levels. What happens in the middle? The profits are being taken by the oil and gas companies. Largely, they are not being reinvested in the productive sectors of the future, but being paid back to shareholders.
In any market where the return of competition is expected to be slow, there is a role for the Government to regulate the fair share of proceeds—who gets the surplus from that market. Here I pause and say that when we look across the Committee to who is arguing for the interests of working people and who is arguing for the interests of the oil and gas profit-making giants, the political divisions are clear. There are schools in my constituency that are fundraising to insulate themselves. The Maiden Erlegh school where I live is asking its parent association to provide better wooden frames for its windows, because they leak in winter. That is the public estate that our Government have been elected to fix and repair. We will set about doing so with the profits from the levies set out in the Bill we are discussing today.
Farming and Inheritance Tax
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Given that he appears to be leading for the Government on this issue, rather than the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, can the Minister tell me how many farmers he has met personally over the last three months? He seems very confident about how this will affect them. The exact number, please, of the farmers you have met personally over that period.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Lady should ask how many farmers the Minister has met, rather than how many I have met.
James Murray
I have met members of the National Farmers Union, representing the farming industry, a number of times since the Budget for detailed discussions. That has helped us to understand the impact that this policy will have and to ask for their support in communicating how it will work.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Farmers in my constituency tell me how much they are struggling to see a GP and to get public transport—the buses just are not there. The rural economy has been ruined by 14 years of Conservative Government. Can the Minister reassure us that the necessary actions that we are taking in the Budget will get our public services working again for our farming and rural communities?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions should relate to the debate in hand.
James Murray
I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I feel that my hon. Friend’s intervention relates to the debate in hand, as we have had to take a tough decision on taxation policy in order to fund our public services. Those public services are, of course, enjoyed by people across the country, including farmers and those in rural communities.
James Murray
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the record of the Opposition parties. In our Budget, we made sure to protect the payslips of working people by not increasing income tax, employee national insurance or VAT.
Our approach to reform strikes the right balance between providing significant tax relief for family farms and fixing the public finances in a fair way. As such, I commend the Government’s amendment to the motion before us today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
This debate is already oversubscribed. To point out a simple fact, if you were not here for the shadow Minister’s opening speech, you will not be called. That is basic etiquette.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
At some point, speaking limits will be introduced, so please think about editing your speeches. Before then, I call Andrew Pakes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
After the next contribution I will impose a time limit of five minutes on speeches. I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Carmichael
“Working people” hardly does justice to farmers. Some of my young constituents told me they were working for returns of about £6 an hour. There is a reason I chose not to become a farmer at 16 and why I thought law was a more attractive career opportunity to pursue, but I bow to no one in my admiration for those who make that choice.
Of course, there is the question of those who have made their estate planning decisions on the basis of APR being available. Others have pointed to that, but it is absolutely critical, and it goes beyond estate planning. I wonder how many farmers over the years decided in a divorce settlement to take the farm as their part of the capital, because they have a familial and emotional connection to the land, and are now finding that what looked like an equitable settlement a few years ago risks being much more inequitable.
The particular opportunity I fear we have missed is that in relation to tenant farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association came up with an excellent proposal, which would reward landlords who grant leases in excess of 10 years with exemption from inheritance tax liability. That would be good for the very people who everybody on both sides of the House says they want to help: the small family farmers. There are multiple reasons why people might buy up agricultural land. I do not know anybody who takes an agricultural tenancy thinking that it will make them a member of the super-rich as a result.
The idea that is being mooted of a clawback—something on which we could see a bit of a sensible discussion and a consensus between the Front Benches—or the idea of a suspended inheritance tax liability which would crystallise only at the point of the land sale after the death of the owner, would both work to keep land in active food production. The irony of the way in which the Government have structured the measure is that, by allowing a 50% relief on farmland above £1 million, the purchase of agricultural land will probably remain an attractive proposition for the super-rich.
We have reached a point in the debate where we need to broaden it out beyond just inheritance tax, and look at the wider question of farming finance and ask ourselves how we can build a consensus that puts farming and food production at the heart of the countryside, where it truly belongs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Now, with a speaking limit of five minutes, I call Matt Bishop.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I must admit that, as a new Member and a novice when it comes to the fine details of parliamentary procedure, I am surprised that we are debating this issue in this way today. As the Opposition know, the agricultural property relief measures announced in the Budget were not included in the Budget vote last month. They also know that the measures will be included in a future Finance Bill alongside other measures that will be subject to the technical consultation in the new year. This decision is simply not being made today, despite the disingenuous social media posts that imply otherwise.
This detail matters to me, because I have spent the last few weeks speaking to farmers in Penrith and Solway to try to understand the full impact of the inheritance tax proposals, knowing that I have months left to engage with DEFRA and the Treasury and to seek important amendments. Let me be clear: if today was the real vote, I would vote against the Government’s plans. I am no rebel—I am a moderate—but during the election, I read what I thought were assurances from my party that we had no plans to introduce changes to APR. On that basis, I reassured farmers in my constituency that we would not, and now I simply am not prepared to break my word. I am told that there is no Labour MP in the country with as many farms as I have in Penrith and Solway, and I hope my colleagues will understand my feelings on this.
Today, however, we are debating a frankly irrelevant motion from the Conservatives. The motion fails to acknowledge how they failed to deliver for my farmers, how they failed to deliver on trade deals after Brexit, and how they set budgets for new rural payment schemes, but could not make the schemes accessible. They made manifesto commitments for the public sector to buy British that never materialised, and they failed to spend flood prevention money that is desperately needed by my farmers on the Solway plain. They failed to deliver reforms of inheritance tax rules that farmers know were being abused by non-farmers at their expense. I simply will not walk into a Lobby with people who talk a good game on farming but do not deliver. Their motion starts with the words, “That this House regrets”, yet 14 years of failure do not even get a whisper.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I listened to the Member’s speech very closely. Paragraph 20.13 of “Erskine May” states:
“Formerly, the House strictly observed a rule against anticipation”.
That was designed to restrict debate on a subject to the type of proceedings deemed to be the most effective. As the word “formerly” suggests, the rule is no longer strictly observed and has not been for many years. The principal provision in the Budget relating to agricultural property relief is not contained in the Finance Bill currently before the House, so the question of anticipation does not arise. In any case, I am firmly of the view that any absolute rule should not prevent Members, whether acting individually or as parties, from holding the Government to account. I hope that that satisfies the Member; it is not a point for him to respond to right now.
Esther McVey
It would be good if Members listened to what I said. I said it is not too late for Labour to reverse this policy; even their own tax advisers are saying, on closer inspection, it needs to be reversed. That is what I am asking those on the Government Benches to do.
We have heard today that farmers are asset-rich, but in reality they are cash poor, and that is the crux of the matter before us today. In the time I have left, I will mention a couple of farmers from my constituency. A seventh-generation farmer told me she was hoping to pass her farm on to the eighth generation, but that now does not seem possible because if they have to sell a proportion of the land, which they will, that will make the whole farm is unviable.
Another farmer of mine, Richard Shepherd, a few years ago built a state-of-the-art cow cubicle shed for their dairy herd, a piece of modern technology he believed would prepare the farm for the challenges of the 21st century, investing in methods to produce high-quality, affordable and nutritious food—the type of innovation this country will come to rely on for food security in the future. However, now, with this change from the Labour Government, he will owe between £600,000 and over £1 million in inheritance tax. He has said that, “Like any other business, we need confidence to invest in our farms. That’s what we wanted to do: we wanted to grow our farm, invest in it, and this will destroy this.”
Richard Barnett, an accountant who works with many farmers in my constituency, has warned of two immediate consequences of these proposed changes. First, there will be an increase in the number of individuals seeking to acquire farmland up to £1 million to mitigate inheritance tax, resulting in a reduction in the amount of tax that the Treasury can expect to generate from this policy, as well as an increase in land prices. Secondly, he expects a consequence of these changes to be that the financial industry will enter the land market with individuals investing up to £1 million in farmland, acquiring it and then we will see farmland being lost—
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have just calculated how to get everybody in before we run out of time, and I will have to drop the time limit to four minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already taken two interventions, and the clock will now continue to run for every subsequent intervention that he takes, just in case he was not aware of that and wants to take this intervention from Mr Hinds.
Dan Tomlinson
Maybe I will take further interventions when I speak in tomorrow’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that many Members still wish to speak.
In my final 13 seconds, let me conclude by saying that the risk for the Conservative party is that it forgets the importance of managing the public finances, which gives us the economic stability from which growth can come. By voting against the Government, Conservative Members will make that more difficult, and will signal that they do not wish to have economic stability and growth.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Government Members have talked about difficult choices. Not taking away the winter fuel payment from people, or voting to remove the two-child cap, might also have been difficult choices, but instead they have been easy targets. This Bill adds to those easy targets.
The Bill, presented under the guise of fiscal responsibility, is a thinly veiled austerity measure that will disproportionately burden Scotland and undermine our ability to deliver vital services to our citizens. The increase in employer national insurance contributions is touted by the Government as a necessary step to bolster public finances. However, closer examination reveals the stark reality: the increase will lead to a significant shortfall in Scotland’s public sector funding. We will be left grappling with the fact that the UK Government undervalued the cost of the measure by at least £200 million.
Scottish Government figures, corroborated by independent analysis from reputable institutions such as the Fraser of Allander Institute, paint a grim picture. The national insurance hike will cost Scotland more than £500 million, including a staggering £191 million burden on our already stretched NHS. That figure rises to an alarming £750 million when we factor in indirect employees in sectors such as childcare, GP practices and social care—sectors vital to the fabric of our society.
In Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, a local firm with a number of care homes across the north of Scotland faces an £800,000 bill. It provides vital services to the community. To give another example, a local dentist has said that the increased cost of employment as a result of the Bill may force them to go private to recoup those costs. Finally, the Bill is a double whammy for GP practices. They face the national insurance hit, but by dint of being designated a public service, are not eligible for employment allowance.
The UK Government’s paltry offer of £300 million in Barnett consequentials is simply not enough to bridge the gap, and it fails to account for Scotland’s proportionally larger public sector, which employs 22% of the workforce, compared with 17% in the UK as a whole. Among other reasons, that is because in Scotland, we already have a publicly owned and managed rail service, and a publicly owned and managed water service. The funding disparity is a clear indication that the UK Government have given scant consideration to the unique needs and circumstances of Scotland. That includes the disregard demonstrated in the winter fuel payment debacle, which exposes a pattern of neglect, regardless of which party occupies the Government Benches. It is exactly this pattern of neglect and lack of understanding of Scotland by successive UK Governments that strengthens the case for Scottish independence, and for our ability to take decisions for ourselves, like every other normal country, on the delivery of public services and taxation that impacts us.
The impact of the Bill goes far beyond mere budgetary concerns. It will have a ripple effect across our economy, harming businesses, stifling growth and ultimately hurting the very workers it purports to protect. The Office for Budget Responsibility has cautioned that the increase will likely lead to lower wages and higher prices; effectively, the burden will be passed on to consumers, and the purchasing power of hard-working families will be eroded. We urge the UK Government to reconsider this damaging Bill, to fully fund the cost of this tax hike to public services in Scotland, and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Scottish Government, so that Scotland’s interests are protected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have two remaining Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should consider making their way back to the Chamber before the wind-ups.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I have previously raised in the Chamber the impact that increased employer national insurance contributions will have on GPs, dentists, pharmacies and care providers in my constituency of Eastleigh. I have also been contacted by many owners of small businesses who are hugely concerned about the impact that changes to employer national insurance contributions will have on their businesses. That includes the early years sector, which plays a crucial role in supporting working families and the wider economy. Providers who operate on tight margins and with a limited ability to adjust income face unique challenges. For a sector that is already under immense financial pressure, this added burden feels short-sighted and risks undermining the stability of a service that families rely on so heavily.
Crestwood pre-school in my constituency serves local families by providing care and education for children aged two to five. As a charity-run pre-school, it is already stretched to its limits, despite huge fundraising efforts. Clare, the manager of Crestwood, wrote to me explaining how the increase in employer national insurance contributions will add tens of thousands of pounds to its annual costs. Those are funds that it simply does not have.
I have also heard from Forest Footsteps Childcare in Chandler’s Ford, another early years provider in my constituency. Erin, who opened the centre in 2022, is worried about how she will manage the extra costs. She calculated that the new national insurance plans for employers’ contributions along with the rise in the national minimum wage will cost her approximately £13,000 a year more. While she is showing remarkable resilience, she told me that some providers have been less fortunate and already closed their doors.
The YMCA Eastleigh nursery and community centre has also shared its concerns. It told me that the combined impact of these changes will cost the nursery and community centre an extra £95,000 a year. This is a problem being acutely felt across the whole sector.
These stories are not unique. Across the country, nurseries, pre-schools and childminders are warning that rising employer national insurance contributions coupled with inadequate Government funding will lead to higher fees for parents, reductions in staff pay and closures in those essential early years settings, which would not only harm working families but risk deepening the staffing crisis in the sector. What reassurance can the Minister give early years and childcare providers in Eastleigh and across the country that they will not be adversely affected?
Raising employer national insurance is a tax on jobs that will hurt small businesses and essential services. The Government must reconsider their approach. The early years sector, primary care and small businesses are not staffed by those with the broadest shoulders. This weekend we have Small Business Saturday, a chance to celebrate the incredible work of small businesses, who do so much for our communities. They need our support. The Government must think again and support working families. They must rethink this unhelpful policy.
Finance Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsWednesday 27th November 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
I regret giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. I invite him to return to the Chamber next Tuesday for the Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, when I will also be speaking. We can have a full debate on national insurance then, which I am sure he and his colleagues are looking forward to. I hope they will support it in the Lobby because, no doubt, they support the extra investment in the NHS which that decision funds. I thank him in advance for signalling his good grace and support for our measures.
After we were elected, we said that we would take the difficult decisions necessary to fix the public finances. We said that we would close the tax gap, implement our manifesto pledges and protect working people. We said that we would deliver economic stability, fiscal responsibility and the certainty that businesses need to invest and grow. This Bill plays a central role in achieving those goals and I commend it to the House.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
I wish to reflect on the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. Looking at chart 4.5 in the OBR’s document, I can see a big rise in the tax to GDP ratio, but from the right hon. Gentleman’s indignant tone, one would think that there had never been a tax rise under the previous Government. What the chart shows is a significantly larger rise in the tax to GDP ratio, because of the decisions taken by the previous Government, so is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman’s tone does not reflect the facts of the decisions he took?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the shadow Minister responds, may I caution him against using the word “deceit” in the Chamber? No doubt he will now want to respond to the intervention.
Mel Stride
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will of course be guided by you on that matter. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, there is no doubt that, as we went into the last general election, the analysis of the manifestos of the three major parties showed that Labour’s manifesto would have by far the greatest increase on the tax burden. What Labour has done is to break its manifesto and go still further to take us, as the OBR has said, to what will be the highest tax burden in the history of our country. It is as simple as that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) has twice used the word “you” when heckling. I will not let him off in the future.
Mel Stride
I take it as a familiar mark of respect from the hon. Gentleman.
The fact of the matter is that the ONS’s figures for the third quarter of this year show growth of 0.1%. That is one seventh of what has been achieved in the United States. In September, the third month of the quarter, there was negative growth. The reason for that is very clear. When this Government came to office, the first thing that they did was talk down the economy, and talk about black holes and what a terrible mess everything was in, as cover for what they intended to do all along. That had an impact on purchasing managers’ index surveys. We can see the slump in business confidence in the data, and the Government are now reaping the whirlwind. We have now had a Budget that will do even more damage to growth.
What will happen to inflation? Let us go back to our friends at the OBR. In every single year of its forecast, inflation is higher than in every single year of the forecast based on our last Budget back in the spring—a fiscal splurge up front that will translate into higher prices and higher interest rates for longer, meaning higher mortgage rates. Before Labour Members start jumping up and down at the M-word, the Government now own mortgage interest rates, and they are being affected in the wrong direction as a result of their policies. What about living standards? They are down and flatlining. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that by October 2029 the average family will be £770 worse off in real terms than they are today.