Finance (No. 2) Bill

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Let me begin by paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who was a great female trailblazer. We should do all that we can to remember her as an inspiration to all of us in this place.

I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. The Budget was a chance for the Government to unlock Britain’s promise and potential, but instead they decided to continue papering over the cracks of 13 years of economic failure. As my hon. Friends have illustrated so powerfully and persuasively today, the Government’s economic record is appalling, and the Finance Bill does nothing to fix that.

I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who expressed concern about the baffling tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said that the Chancellor had chosen the wrong thing to prioritise, and I could not have put it better myself. However, it is not just Labour Members who think that. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire pointed out, Sir Steve Webb, the former Pensions Minister and a partner in Lane Clark & Peacock, has raised concerns as well. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham also expressed concern about the abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification, which was announced in the disastrous mini-Budget. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain to him the justification for that decision.

My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about the Government’s childcare proposals. They represent a welcome ambition, but all of us on this side of the House know that the devil is in the detail. Parents will be waiting until September 2025 to see the real benefits when it is fully implemented.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that the Bill could have gone further on the economy. My hon. Friend the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) spoke about the impact of the current business rates system and the cost of living crisis on their constituents, a problem with which we are all too familiar in our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised his concerns about the Government’s failure to invest the levelling-up fund fairly.

The headline offering in the Budget was a blanket change in tax-free pension allowances, which benefits only those with the biggest pension pots and will cost about £1 billion a year. The Government claim that it will fix the NHS crisis, but let us be clear: this is not a targeted scheme to address pension issues affecting NHS doctors. It is a tax cut for the well off—a permanent tax cut for the richest 1% of earners that might even see workers retiring earlier, not later.

As several hon. Members have already mentioned, a former Pensions Minister has said that these changes could backfire and enable some people to retire sooner than expected. The Government could have designed a targeted scheme at a fraction of the cost, but they chose not to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out, that would have ensured value for money for the taxpayer. Perhaps the Minister can provide an explanation today for this blanket giveaway. Let us not forget that the only reason the Government have introduced a policy like this is to fix their own mess—the mess that 13 years of Tory failure has wreaked upon our national health service. Labour will continue to oppose these measures.

Let me turn to the wider economic climate facing people up and down the country. Under the Tories, growth has plummeted, leaving working people’s living standards squeezed. Since 2010, the UK has grown more slowly than its peers. Out of the 38 countries in the OECD, our average growth of 1.4% is ranked 29th, behind countries such as Mexico, Germany and the USA. UK productivity grew by just 0.4% on average between 2010 and 2019, the second slowest in the G7 after Italy, and wages are lower in real terms now than in 2010.

Labour understands the scale of this challenge and is ready to fix the failings of this Tory Government. I think that Conservative Members recognise this, given the number of policies they appear to have taken from us, including the extension of the energy price cap, addressing the scandalous treatment of those on prepayment meters, cancelling the planned fuel duty increase, introducing investment allowances to reward firms for investing, and a narrative on getting people back into work. These are all areas where Labour is leading the way and generating ideas to grow our economy.

With our mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, we will create good jobs and productivity growth across every part of the country. Our plan is to replace business rates to support our high streets; to implement a modern industrial strategy to help businesses succeed; to introduce start-up reforms to make Britain the best place to grow a business; and to fix the holes in the Brexit deal so that we can export more. That will be complemented by our green prosperity plan, which will create jobs across the country. We will deliver greater self-sufficiency in renewable energy by doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and quadrupling offshore wind, thus reducing people’s energy bills and guaranteeing our energy security. We will create half a million jobs in renewable energy, and an additional half a million by insulating 19 million homes over 10 years—[Interruption.] Members may laugh, but this is more ambitious than what this Conservative Government have been delivering for 13 years.

We will make Britain a world leader in the industries of the future and ensure that people have the skills to benefit from those opportunities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North said, the world economy is changing and Britain is not grasping the opportunities to get ahead of the game. We see developments across the US and Europe that highlight the scale of the opportunity, and we see just how much Britain might miss out if we do not grasp the nettle. I know that this issue is serious, having met businesses up and down the country, including this morning. We should be at the forefront of the race to net zero, and there are individuals and innovative businesses across the UK who are working hard to play their part, but their question is: when will the Government back them and give them the tools they need to succeed? Labour’s economic plan would do just that and put the UK at the head of the pack.

So—low growth, stagnant wages and no plan for growth. That is what the UK is facing with this Government, and for precisely that reason, as our amendment today sets out, we will decline to give this Finance Bill a Second Reading. It is time for a Labour Government: a Labour Government who would get us on the path to growth; a Labour Government who would enable the United Kingdom to reach its full potential; a Labour Government who would support people and businesses to thrive and succeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) just said, the Institute of Directors has warned that

“the UK will find itself left behind in the accelerating race to lead the green economy.”

The Confederation of British Industry says that we are investing five times less in green industries than Germany—five times less. Meanwhile, the United Nations issues warnings of a climate disaster. Where is the urgency and action from the Conservatives to decarbonise our economy and win the global race for green jobs?

[James Cartlidge]

What the IOD actually said about the Budget was that it was “hugely encouraging”, and I strongly agree. We have an extraordinary track record—the fastest-falling emissions in the whole of the G7 and extraordinary success in offshore wind—but we want to go further. That is why we have announced £20 billion for carbon capture and storage, and we will soon announce many more positive measures.

Digital Pound

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I also want to put on record that my thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria.

Labour welcomes that the Bank of England will be exploring the potential benefits of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC. With the rise of digital payments, and with the European Union, the US and China all exploring the use of CBDCs, we recognise the growing case for a state-backed digital pound to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the Bank of England and the UK’s financial and monetary system.

We fully support the Bank of England’s work on this area, but there are important questions that must be addressed before we decide whether the potential benefits of implementing a new payments infrastructure outweigh the risks. First, how will the Government ensure a digital pound guarantees the privacy of the public? Will people be able to freely access a digital pound from trusted institutions such as the Post Office, and not be forced to pay or hand over their data to tech companies? The take-up of a future digital pound will depend on public trust. People must know that their privacy will be protected.

Secondly, what work are the Government going to do to ensure that the potential CBDC does not accelerate financial exclusion? Millions of people are already cut off from the goods and services they need because of the decline of free access to cash. We need a cast-iron guarantee that the CBDC will not distract from work to promote digital inclusion or undermine protections for cash infrastructure. A digital pound must never replace physical money. We also know that around 5 million people are put off by digital banks. How will the Government ensure that those individuals are included in the Government’s joint consultation with the Bank of England?

The Economic Affairs Committee in the other place and officials at the Bank of England itself have warned that a digital pound could pose a risk to households and companies if they all withdrew money from commercial banks at once to put it into a Government-backed digital pound. What work will the Government be doing to put measures in place to protect against that?

I now turn to some of the inconsistencies between today’s announcement and the Government’s wider approach to cryptocurrencies. As the Bank of England made clear in its statement yesterday, one of the potential benefits of a state-backed digital pound is that it would have intrinsic value and not be volatile, unlike unbacked cryptoassets. That approach is welcome and contrasts with the Conservative Government’s promotion of the crypto wild west. I know that the current Prime Minister likes to see himself as a bit of a Californian tech bro, but in reality this is naive. This out-of-touch Government continue to waste taxpayers’ money and time on an NFT gimmick, and to promote dodgy stablecoins, despite millions of UK consumers’ savings being put at risk by scams and scandals in the crypto sector, and by the collapse in the value of cryptocurrencies.

I hope today’s announcement marks a break with this disastrous approach. The Government should be focusing on returning the economy to growth and dealing with the cost of living crisis, not chasing crypto fantasies. Only Labour has a serious plan for growth. A Labour Government will attract fintech companies to the UK by safely harnessing the potential of new technologies and through our ambition to make Britain the home-grown start-up hub of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

Of course it is important that we are cognisant of the challenges facing small businesses. The hon. Lady describes our support as “pitiful”. In the current period—the last six months—the available support for businesses with energy bills has been worth up to £18 billion. That is an extraordinary level of support, but we were absolutely transparent that that was not sustainable, that we would review it and that we would then have a less generous scheme but one that was still significant. To underline that, we will still have a scheme worth up to £5.5 billion. That remains a significant intervention and is worth, for example, up to £2,300 for a pub, or up to £400 for a small shop.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Many will have heard the appalling stories of the forced installation of prepayment meters, which is precisely why Labour had called for a ban. But there is another scandal: the fact that those using prepayment meters pay more for their energy than those paying by direct debit. Why should those with the least pay the most? Labour will end this—will the Conservatives?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I know this will be an important matter for the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. As for the Treasury position and our assistance in this matter, we should remember we have given the greatest support with energy bills to those with the greatest need. In the current financial year, we have given a cost of living payment of £650 for those on benefits, and in the next financial year there will be £900 of support. It is significant and it is comprehensive.

Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2023 Draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2023

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 General Committees

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins, and to consider these regulations in Committee.

I thank the Minister for her comments. As we have heard, the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2023 give effect to the annual rerating of a range of national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds, for the purpose of calculating liabilities for the tax year beginning in April. This process, as the Minister mentioned, occurs annually and is primarily designed to take into account the rate of inflation, which is at a record high, causing much concern and hardship across the country.

The Chancellor announced at the autumn statement that most national insurance rates, limits and thresholds would be fixed at their 2022-23 levels for the coming tax year. The only rates that will increase in line with inflation, measured at 10.1% for the year to September 2022, is the flat cash rate of class 2 and class 3 contributions. This change is expected to bring 55,000 individuals into paying national insurance by the tax year 2027-28. Given the pressures facing households across the country, this rise will be alarming for many, as I am already seeing in my constituency cases. The explanatory memorandum to the instrument states:

“Increasing the rates of Class 2 and 3 NICs will be a small tax increase in cash terms for individuals.”

Will the Minister take this opportunity to let us know the exact figure or estimate that the Treasury has produced for the rise?

The instrument also allows for payments of a Treasury grant to be made into the national insurance fund. Could the Minister set out why this year’s figure, which must not exceed 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for the tax year, has significantly decreased from last year’s figure of 17%? What is the significance of that difference?

The second instrument sets out the annual rates of working tax and child tax credit, and the weekly rates of child benefit and guardian’s allowance for the coming tax year, which I note is also an annual process. This instrument looks more promising, as the rates have been increased in line with CPI. Labour welcomes the increase and will support the instrument; we welcome any help for people struggling in the face of soaring energy bills and inflation.

I have one question for the Minister, on which I hope she can shed some light. Published alongside the instrument was a review of tax credit monetary amounts, as required by section 41 of the Tax Credits Act 2002. It sets out each element of the various tax credits discussed today, listing the 2022 rates and 2023 rates and making it clear whether they have been adjusted in line with inflation. Almost all the rates are rising by CPI, or 10.1%.

However, the family element of child tax credits and the income disregard element of tax credits do not appear to be rising with inflation, with the proposed 2023 rates unchanged from those in 2022. The report states that if inflation is taken into account, the former should be set to £600, but instead it will be £545, and that the latter should be set at £2,755, but instead it will be £2,500. Will the Minister inform us why these rates are not being adjusted for inflation?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead for her thorough examination of the regulations. It is a pleasure to respond to her; this is not usually her portfolio, but it is very nice to be appearing with her.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. I hope she will forgive me, but it is taking a little time to get the technical answers to those. In particular, she asked for the exact figure for the class 2 and class 3 increases. I am told that for class 2, it is 30p a week per person. For class 3, it is £1.60 a week per person. I hope that helps her.

The hon. Lady also asked why we are paying less into the fund this year. The Committee may recall that the Government Actuary’s Department predicts that we will not have to use the fund; none the less, as part of prudent housekeeping, we will set some money aside. The Government Actuary’s Department forecasts that a Treasury grant will not be needed for the relevant tax year, as I said, and the 17% figure was set due to the uncertainty around the impact of the pandemic on the economy.

We know how successful Government interventions were in supporting more than 11 million jobs in our economy and keeping millions of businesses afloat in each of our constituencies, but, of course, that comes at a price, which is one of the factors that we in the Treasury must grapple with as we plan for the future. This year, we do not believe that such a high rate is required, because of some of the steps that we have taken to set the economy back on the right track, so 5% has been set on a contingent basis. As I said, however, we do not expect to have to use it.

The hon. Lady asked about a review of tax credit monitoring. She rightly asked why the family element of child tax credit is not rising. The family element is an additional amount paid on top of an individual child element. It has never been uprated in the same way, and it is more sustainable, we say, to handle it in this way. None the less, I know that we all welcome that element as part of our efforts to support families with their finances—at any time, but particularly with the cost of living crisis.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

rose—

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I thank the Minister for clarifying those points; it is helpful to find out why the family element is not increasing. Could the Minister clarify whether the case is the same for the income disregard element?

[Victoria Atkins]

I know that the answer will come to me quickly, because we in the Treasury pride ourselves on reacting and responding quickly to the circumstances. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was also trying to catch my eye, so now may be an appropriate time for him to intervene, then I can try to answer both questions at the same time.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I was going to make my points through interventions, but as so few Members want to speak, I thought I would take the opportunity to make a speech. I will speak very briefly to new clause 2 and amendment 5—which stand in the name of the official Opposition, and deal with the need to ensure that the geographical investment is spread across the UK, which is of course is something we all support—and amendment 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), which deals with the constitutional challenges created by these post-Brexit agencies and frameworks. The right hon. Gentleman made his points very eloquently, and I fully support what he said.

In my speech on Second Reading, I highlighted how I thought some of the challenges outlined in these amendments could be dealt with. In my view, that is primarily by ensuring that post-Brexit frameworks and agencies such as the UK Infrastructure Bank have a formal role for the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments within their constitutions and their administration. When I made that speech on Second Reading, the Welsh Government were withholding consent; they have now decided to offer consent because the UK Government have given an element of a concession by outlining that a director of the UK Infrastructure Bank will be responsible for liaising with the Welsh Government—I suppose the same will be true for the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments. That does not go quite as far as I was calling for on Second Reading, when I made the case for the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments to be able to appoint their own individual directors.

That concession is a step forward, which I of course welcome. However, the Minister might be aware that the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee in the Senedd, which was responsible for scrutinising the legislative consent mechanism, advised the Welsh Government against awarding legislative consent because of that lack of a formal role—indeed, there was no role whatsoever for the Senedd. I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on my Second Reading speech, where I made the case that it would be very helpful if the UK Infrastructure Bank had to be scrutinised by the relevant Senedd committee, as well as by the Welsh Government.

In conclusion, this really comes down to the Labour party. We expect that it will form the next UK Government; how is it going to Brexit retrofit the UK constitution in light of all these frameworks and agencies that have had to be created since the Brexit referendum, and since we left the European Union and the single market in particular? In Labour’s response to this debate, I very much hope to hear that it is looking at a radical realignment of the British state when it forms the next UK Government, giving the Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where appropriate, a formal role in these post-Brexit agencies and frameworks.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

A lost decade of broken Tory promises has left much of the UK with second-rate infrastructure, which is why we support the establishment and the strengthening of the UK Infrastructure Bank and will not be opposing the Bill. The bank is much needed. It will invest in projects that support our net zero targets and contribute to local and regional economic growth. However, we will go further than the Government and harness the full potential of the bank to provide good jobs and opportunities across the country. I will speak to our amendments a little later.

I wish to start by saying how much I welcome the Government’s U-turn in relation to their amendment 1. I see Ministers on the Front Bench who were with us when the Bill was debated in Committee. I am sure that they notice how similar their amendment is to the one that Labour tabled at that stage. Indeed, it is identical to our amendment—an amendment that they voted against. As Labour has repeatedly emphasised, reviews of the bank’s performance will be essential to ensuring that it meets its objectives to invest in the industries of the future. It was shocking that the Government wanted an initial review in 10 years with subsequent reviews every five years. The bank needs momentum and drive behind it, and I am glad to see that the Government have now realised the error of their thinking and committed to reviews of the bank every five years.

[Richard Fuller]

I commend the hon. Lady for holding the Government to account on this particular issue of the review period. This is where we are setting the bank free to go on its mission. As she and I agree—I think we agree—the initial few years are really very important. I notice that the Minister has restricted to five years subsequent assessments, as both the hon. Lady and I thought would be wise, but there is still that initial seven years. She did not table an amendment on that, so I wondered what the Opposition’s thinking was on that initial period?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He might remember that we tabled amendments in Committee and again on Report on that issue, but because the Government announced a U-turn, we decided to withdraw our amendment.

Yesterday’s dreadful IMF forecast makes it very clear that Britain has so much potential but that the Conservative Government are holding us back. The UK is the only G7 country forecast to see negative economic growth. Let us look at the Government’s record on infrastructure: a green homes scheme closed just six months after its introduction, with a £1 billion cut from its budget; an energy system that sees fossil fuel companies making record profits while hard-working people’s bills soar; and just a fortnight ago, a crucial gigafactory, Britishvolt, went into administration, leaving the future of the British electric vehicle market in jeopardy. According to the Government, the purpose of the UK Infrastructure Bank is to provide access to money, particularly where there is an undersupply of private financing. Britishvolt, a UK battery start-up, was expected to support new jobs and green technology with a factory in Blyth. Now it is being sold by administrators, with the Government seemingly abandoning their promises of levelling up and supporting a green economy.

Just this week, the British electric van start-up “Arrival” announced that it is cutting 800 jobs, as it moves for extra funding and green subsidies in the US. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that Labour has no faith in the Government harnessing the potential of the UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in the high-skilled jobs of the future. A Labour Government will use our green prosperity fund to invest in wind, solar and nuclear energy; insulate 19 million homes; grow our economy; and get Britain winning the race to net zero. We have tabled new clause 2 and amendment 5 to ensure that the UK Infrastructure Bank can play its role in this mission. New clause 2 would require the bank to publish an annual report setting out the geographical spread and the ownership of businesses and bodies that it invests in. It would also require the bank to publish a good jobs plan for every project it invests in, to ensure that the project will improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by failing to commit to Northern Powerhouse Rail, the Government have failed on their levelling-up promises to the north? Would she, along with me and other Members who have expressed opinions earlier in the debate, suggest that the Minister needs to offer the House some assurances that the UK Infrastructure Bank will distribute its benefit to every part of the country, with the geographical spread she just mentioned?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend makes strong points about what the Government should be doing, and I hope the Minister takes them on board. We have all seen the allegations of favouritism that have beset the Government’s levelling-up funding, with nothing in the Bill to guarantee that the bank will distribute its funds to the areas that need them the most. Our new clause would ensure scrutiny and transparency over bank investments. Given the Prime Minister’s now famous boast—I quote it in case Members have forgotten—about reversing Treasury formulas that

“shoved all the funding into deprived…areas”,

I hope the Minister can see why we think transparency is necessary. His party, after all, is the party responsible for the loss of £6.7 billion to fraud and mismanagement.

I hope, too, that the Minister is paying attention right now and agrees that we want the UK Infrastructure Bank to create high-skilled, well-paid jobs. With a good jobs plan for every project that it invests in, we can ensure value for taxpayers’ money. That approach has been taken with previous significant infrastructure projects in the UK. For example, the Olympic Delivery Authority worked with trade unions and others to ensure that the project delivered good quality local jobs, and a similar approach was taken with High Speed 2. If the Government are as committed to their levelling-up agenda as they claim to be, I am sure that they will vote for our new clause today.

Amendment 5 would strengthen the bank’s objectives. It would make it clear that the bank’s target of boosting regional and local economic growth includes reducing economic inequalities within and between regions in the UK. Despite the Government’s assurances to the contrary, the Bill contains only a watered-down commitment that could result in the bank’s resources being poorly targeted and ineffective.

We want a further objective for the bank to contribute to the UK’s supply chain resilience and industrial strategy. I have mentioned the collapse of Britishvolt and the warnings of green investment moving abroad. Those are serious concerns. The importance of supply chain resilience has become particularly clear in the wake of the pandemic and as concerns over energy security have come to the fore with the war in Ukraine. We want the benefits of the UK Infrastructure Bank to be seen here in the UK, with home-grown renewables such as offshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and tidal power.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, and I am grateful to her. I want to probe her thoughts a little further on amendment 5. The Bill, as I have said, has the benefit of being quite precise in its current objectives. As parliamentarians, we know that when we take something from statute and leave it to regulators, the House’s ability to hold them to account in the public interest is somewhat weakened. Does she accept that additional objectives would give an Executive a lot more discretion to say, “I didn’t achieve that because I was focusing on this objective”? We have created some primary objectives about climate change and so on. Adding others would leave us somehow disempowered, because those Executives could move and shake around where they said their priorities were. As I said earlier, I am concerned about the balance between laudable objectives and ensuring that, when we have put the Bill into statute, we parliamentarians retain the ability to control what is actually happening on the ground in one, two, three, four and five years from now.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—as I say, I always like to take them on board—but I fundamentally disagree with him, because our amendment would ensure that we take the Bill further. As he once said, the best way to promote UK manufacturing jobs and production is to

“shape regulation to support enterprise.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 438.]

That is exactly what Labour seeks to do with our amendments, so I really hope he will support them. I understand where he is coming from, but our amendments would make sure that we deliver the projects that we need in the UK.

We know that the UK Infrastructure Bank could be a national enterprise. We have a world-leading offshore wind industry in Scotland and on the east coast, hydrogen in the north-west and on Teesside, nuclear power in the south-east, and solar power in the south and the midlands, but the potential of these industries can be realised only if investment stays in the UK. The amendments we have tabled would allow that to happen. The lack of domestic champions has compromised our security and stalled progress, and our amendments would enable the UK Infrastructure Bank to help reverse the trend.

I will speak briefly to the other amendments we are considering today. Labour strongly supported the circular economy and nature-based solutions being on the face of the Bill, and we were disappointed to see the Government remove them, but we are clear that amendment 4 has not been properly thought through. Nothing in it would do anything to improve water company performance or reduce sewage dumping; on the contrary, it would give water companies an excuse to not undertake the necessary improvement works. We will therefore not support it. Labour has set out a clear plan to end the Tory sewage scandal by introducing mandatory monitoring with automatic fines, ensuring that regulators properly enforce the rules, and holding water bosses personally accountable for sewage pollution.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not agree, having been in the Chamber earlier today, that the Government are already monitoring storm overflows across the country? One of the reasons why we are aware of the size of the problem that we are trying to tackle is because we have increased the monitoring from only 6% a few years ago to nearly 100% now.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I am not going to take any advice from the Government. They have been in government for 13 years, and what have they delivered so far? I suggest that the hon. Lady support our amendment, which would ensure that things go through properly.

The devolved Administrations must be included in the development of the UK Infrastructure Bank. I have already mentioned the fantastic wind energy sector that we have in Scotland, and I was excited to read about the opportunities that the bank has identified in Northern Ireland. We do not believe that amendment 2 is necessary to ensure that all regions and nations of the UK benefit from the Bill, so we will not support it.

As we enter another year of low growth and failed Conservative government, we know there is a vital need to invest in the infrastructure of the future. We support the establishment of the UK Infrastructure Bank and have sought to improve the Bill throughout. We want to see stronger objectives and reporting for the bank, so that it can play a role in meeting our net zero targets while creating good jobs across the country and supporting the UK supply chain’s resilience, but what the bank needs most of all from the Government is an ambitious plan. Once again, the Government are on the back foot and U-turning at the last minute with amendment 1, on the bank’s reviews. It is yet another sign that Labour is the party with a plan for government—a party that will grow the economy and create jobs for the future.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I thank all hon. Members who have tabled amendments and contributed to today’s debate, as well as those who made valued contributions in Committee. Notwithstanding a certain number of amendments, I feel that generally there is good consensus across the House about the core purpose and objective of an important institution.

If we are fully to meet our responsibilities to spread opportunity to all parts of the United Kingdom and support the all-important transition to the clean energy economy, it is right that we take bold action now with institutions such as the UK Infrastructure Bank. We have therefore introduced the Bill to make explicit—with a legislative lock, if you like—the scope of the bank’s objectives

“to support regional and local economic growth”

and

“to help tackle climate change”.

Enshrining the bank in legislation will help to establish it as a long-lasting institution. That is important to colleagues across the House, as we have heard, who agree that it is a welcome initiative. I am glad that there has been general consensus today about the importance of the Bill.

I turn to Government amendment 1, which stands in my name. In Committee, I committed to looking again at the frequency of statutory reviews into the UK Infrastructure Bank and undertook potentially to propose a different frequency at a later stage of the Bill’s passage. It would be a gross mischaracterisation to call the amendment a U-turn; it is simply an example of a listening Minister in a listening Government trying to do what is best to get the institution on the right footing. I thank hon. Members who brought the matter to my attention and shared their views, particularly my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who raised the point in Committee.

It is, I hope, a sign of strength that I considered afresh what was appropriate for the first review period. However, given the pre-existing reviews to which the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury have already committed, and the need to allow a nascent institution time to embed itself, I remain of the view—having taken the question away and looked at it again—that it is right for the first review period to be seven years. However, I recognise the strength of the arguments for, the appropriateness of and the desire for a shorter period between every subsequent review to ensure that this House applies the necessary accountability. My amendment 1 would therefore reduce the interval between each regular review after the first.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Does the Minister remember rejecting our amendment about the reviews? He is saying that this is not a U-turn, so I just want to hear from him about that aspect.

[Andrew Griffith]

I hope the hon. Lady would never dream of trying to score cheap political points, as distinct from our good-natured and collaborative discussions in Committee. Rather than setting a new timeframe there and then, we looked at precedent in a quest for the optimal timeframe. I undertook to come back on Report and share a proposal with the House, precisely as I am doing today. Having listened and having made that determination, I can feel the warm radiation of support from the Opposition. I hope to see that good will extending to supporting the rest of the Bill without further amendment.

Non-domicile Tax Status

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

As we have heard from Opposition Members today, this Conservative Government have repeatedly failed to deal with the non-dom tax loophole, and what is the result? It is higher taxes on working people; tax breaks for the super-rich, when we could be training new NHS workers and delivering breakfast clubs for primary-age children; and a Government mired in sleaze and scandal, with a former Conservative Chancellor who found adhering to the ministerial code just too taxing. Just this morning, the International Monetary Fund predicted that the UK will be the only major economy to see negative growth. The choice is clear: slow growth, stale ideas and sleaze with this Government or ambition, aspiration and a clear plan with Labour.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke passionately about how working people are picking up the tab for the Government’s failure to invest in her constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) got to the heart of this debate about the current system. This is about fairness—if people live here and work here, they should pay their taxes here. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who said that this loophole should not exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) asked a simple question, and I would be grateful if the Minister could answer it: how much tax has been lost by the loophole? Do the Government even know? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) talked about how abolishing the non-dom status could help the Government to prioritise support for young people.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) clearly laid out, this Conservative Government are out of ideas and missing in action. Food and fuel costs are soaring, while our economy is left completely exposed. I am sure the Minister will repeat that rising prices are not unique to Britain and many countries are experiencing inflationary pressures, but what is unique to Britain is that we are at the bottom of the pack. What is unique to Britain is that the Government refuse to take action. Through decisions such as the one they will take today when they vote on Labour’s motion, the Government are entrenching the pressures that the economy faces and pushing costs on to working people as their own Ministers seek to avoid them.

No one will be reassured by the Government’s arguments that all countries are experiencing soaring inflation. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the UK will grow the fastest of all G7 countries, but today’s IMF stats set the UK far behind its competitors. Contrary to the assurances of the Prime Minister and Chancellor, we are the only G7 country that is forecast not to see its economy grow. The Chancellor could not be bothered to come to the House to respond to those stats today, but it is good to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber.

The Conservatives have had 13 years in government, but they have failed. Throughout the chaos of the last year, with constantly changing Prime Ministers and Chancellors, the British public could be sure about only one thing—that their taxes would continue to rise while the pound in their pocket got weaker. While people’s pockets have been emptied, a few at the top are wriggling out of paying their fair share. The non-dom tax status allows the wealthy few to avoid following the normal rules and requirements met by people and businesses up and down this country who work hard and pay their taxes. Instead, those around the most powerful in Britain benefit from our country’s generosity while getting away with not contributing their fair share.

The non-dom tax status is an out-of-date, 200-year-old system that allows people to dodge millions in tax. The Government may pretend that the system is necessary to provide a trickle-down effect to the rest of the economy, but can they explain how countries with much more successful economies than ours manage without non-doms? Canada and Germany require their equivalent of non-doms to pay their taxes after just six months, and in America, they pay their tax from day one—day one! As a modern economy, Britain should operate with modern principles in line with other major economies such as France, Germany and Canada.

As we have heard, the non-dom tax loophole costs the economy £3.2 billion. With a modern taxation system, we could provide the much-needed investment that our public services are crying out for. A Labour Government would scrap the non-dom tax status and end tax breaks for private equity bosses and private schools. A Labour Government would crack down on hidden offshore trusts that allow people to avoid paying their taxes.

With the money that would raise, a Labour Government would fund the biggest recruitment drive in modern NHS history and provide breakfast clubs for all primary aged children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North laid out, Labour would train the next generation of doctors, nurses and midwives, so that the NHS can treat patients on time, as it did under the last Labour Government. Labour will support breakfast clubs for children across the country, because we all know that hungry children find it harder to learn.

A Labour Government would do all that by scrapping the non-dom tax status, as we called for ahead of the autumn statement. Although the Chancellor, or perhaps the Prime Minister, decided against it, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that he would look into it. Can the Minister tell us whether he has? The Government are yet to publish any analysis or provide an update on their considerations. Why are Ministers so quick to tax my constituents and so slow to act on non-doms?

That is why we are here today. We have heard about the difference that abolishing the non-dom status could make. Academics have estimated that the status costs the Government more than £3 billion, yet the Government refuse to move. Why? So far, they have refused to publish the analysis that would lay out exactly what trade-offs they are choosing to make. If the Government’s analysis shows that the non-dom status is an asset to our economy, why do they refuse to publish it? In his closing speech, will the Minister provide us with answers to some of the many questions raised today?

Labour’s proposal is not just about raising much-needed money; it is about fairness in the tax system, the same rules for all, and support for those who keep our economy growing. By voting against our motion today, the Government will make it clear exactly whose priorities they are here to serve, but Labour is clear that if people make their lives in Britain, they should pay their taxes here.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that, if they have contributed to the debate, it is very important to get back in good time for the wind-ups.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The shadow Minister may be slightly perplexed as to why I did not call her first, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) had indicated to me that he wished to press new clause 3 to a Division, so I thought it might be helpful for her to hear his arguments before being called to speak.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon. I was not perplexed at all.

When we debated the Bill on Second Reading in October, the stamp duty cut that it seeks to introduce was one of the last few measures to have survived from the Tories’ reckless mini-Budget in September. As we said at the time, we oppose the stamp duty cut because it would not be the right way to spend public money and would not be responsible. On the back of 13 years of economic stagnation, our economy has just suffered long-term damage from the Tories’ recklessness at the end of last year. We made it clear that spending £1.7 billion a year on the proposed stamp duty cut simply could not be justified.

In October, as hon. Members may remember, there was a last-minute flip-flop in parliamentary business. Four days before we were due to debate all stages of the Bill, the Leader of the House announced that we would debate only its Second Reading. No reason was given for that last-minute change to parliamentary business, so we speculated that the decision might have been intended to give the new Prime Minister and his Chancellor the chance to change their mind about these stamp duty changes. That is indeed what has happened.

Rather than reversing the stamp duty cut altogether, however, the Government’s amendments seek only to impose a time limit on it. Ministers could have used the breathing space since last October to do the right thing and scrap the stamp duty cut, but instead the Chancellor proposes only a partial U-turn. Government amendment 1 will amend clause 1, imposing a sunset date of 31 March 2025. The Government’s other amendments, which are consequential on that change, include an amendment to the name of the Bill.

The Opposition remain opposed to the stamp duty cut. Even if Government amendments 1 to 14 are agreed to, the Bill will still represent a failure by the Conservatives to spend money wisely.

We are not talking about a small amount of money: the Government’s own figures make the Bill’s price tag clear. Even if the stamp duty cut is time-limited, it will still cost taxpayers £3.2 billion. We are serious about spending public money wisely, and the Government should be as well. For that reason we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading even if it has been amended, but before we reach that stage we still want to use this Committee stage to interrogate the Government on some of the detail, and to urge them at least to amend its provisions if they are not willing to drop it entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Lady seems to be obsessed with the issue of second homes. What about the point she made earlier about the number of young people becoming home owners, which has declined so dramatically since 1987? In 1989, 51% of 25 to 34-year-olds owned a home; now about half that number do so. What are the Opposition going to do about it?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

In fact, the statistics quoted by the hon. Member show that the Bill will not help people. It will not help first-time buyers, and it is not just Labour Members who are saying that: the Resolution Foundation has provided statistical evidence that it will not help them. We want to help first-time buyers as well, but this is not the right solution. It will be mainly second and additional homes that benefit. Our two amendments would amend Government amendment 1 to remove the relief for buyers of additional dwellings, and would remove clause 1 (3), which raises the threshold for them. They would prevent the Bill from giving relief from stamp duty to buyers of second homes. I hope the hon. Member will support our proposals, particularly our amendment to enable first-time buyers to get on to the ladder as he wishes them to do.

As I have made clear, we do not believe that this stamp duty cut is the right or responsible way in which to spend £3.2 billion of public money, but if the Government are not willing to cancel the cut altogether, I urge Conservative Members at the very least to support our amendment to prevent second home buyers from receiving a £2,500 tax cut.

New clause 1, which Labour has also tabled, requires the Chancellor to be up front and transparent about the costs of the partial U-turn on the stamp duty cut, and to set out the measures that the Government will take to mitigate the impact of the abrupt end of the stamp duty relief at the end of March 2025. We know from the Government’s policy paper on this tax change that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have to incur costs in the region of £300,000 to change IT systems, and about £2.4 million in extra staff costs. That is ridiculous. Through new clause 1, we aim to push Ministers further by asking them to set out specifically the costs of implementing their U-turn

“for the Government, the property industry, and homebuyers”,

as well as

“any wider costs and impacts of the change…on the housing market”.

We are also asking them to set out the measures they are

“planning to ease the impact on tax revenues, home purchases and the housing market of the reduction in stamp duty…coming to an abrupt end on 31 March 2025.”

We know from Government amendment 12 that Ministers are introducing measures to ensure that transitions that straddle the end of the temporary relief benefit from the reduction, but the question of the impact of ending the stamp duty relief goes much further than that. In 2016, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a paper on property tax changes and forestalling when transactions are brought forward to benefit from lower tax rates. The OBR found that in each historic case that was analysed, the preannouncement of an upcoming tax increase led to a sizeable forestalling. Forestalling is therefore expected to be an important issue in relation to the end of the temporary stamp duty cut, and we urge the Government to set out the measures they are planning ahead of that. If they are not willing to accept our new clause 1, I urge the Minister to set out the detail that we request, either at the end of the debate or subsequently in writing.

When our country is suffering the consequences of 13 years of low growth and of the Conservatives’ economic chaos at the end of last year, now is not the time to be spending £3.2 billion on this tax cut, particularly when hundreds of millions of pounds will go to the buyers of second homes. We urge Members in all parts of the Committee to support our amendments to remove the tax cut for second-home buyers, and to join us in opposing the Bill on Third Reading.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I think that the Government have made a number of admissions today about the importance of property taxes, and stamp duty land tax in particular. During the covid period we used a reduction to try to stimulate the market and keep it afloat, for good reasons. I heard what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). There are often flipsides, downsides and unintended consequences from tax changes, but the implicit admission from the Minister was that lower stamp duty encourages market transactions. In my mind that has to be a good thing, because property sales refresh housing stock. I imagine that the first thing any of us who are lucky enough to own a property will do when we purchase it is to do stuff. We might improve the bathrooms—or whatever we fancy, if pockets are deep enough—but those transactions that we make with local builders and others add to the local market. They add jobs, and there are VAT revenues and profits for B&Q and elsewhere. This all comes with it.

A trap that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition Front Bench fall into is that they do not see tax as a game of chess. Too often we—the Treasury included—see tax as a one-step move: if we do this, it will create just that. It is far more complicated than that, because there are other outcomes in terms of economic activity that are not always recognised. But the strict admission by the Government Front Bench today is that lower stamp duty makes the wheels turn, and that has to be to the good.

We are currently seeing a modest reduction in house prices, so this type of measure to reduce stamp duty is very much to be welcomed, but I have a rather more long-standing objection to SDLT and to this form of capital tax generally, but most particularly to SDLT, because it stops labour mobility. If one of my constituents, someone with a family, were offered a job elsewhere in the country, the most natural thing would be to sell their property and move to that new area. But when they are faced with a stiff bill for SDLT, they have to be doubly or triply sure that this is the right move, because it is likely to cost tens of thousands of pounds. It worries me that people are not taking up roles elsewhere because they need to be absolutely sure. What probably happens is that they take a rental property elsewhere to get a feel for the area and find out whether the job is right. That is not helpful for their family life in the longer term.

The Government Front-Bench team made another admission this afternoon. Not surprisingly, the Minister announced with great fanfare the very good news that in vast areas of the country, the majority of transactions will fall outside of stamp duty. That is particularly true for those buying a property for the first time. We often talk about tax, and people’s idea of fairness will probably be different depending on where they sit in this House, but can it really be fair that a constituent in South Thanet who is trying to purchase a modest property will face this SDLT charge just because they are in Kent in the south-east, whereas someone buying the self-same kind of property in another part of the country will not pay that tax at all? I am not entirely sure of the fairness of that. I would rather that everyone paid a similar amount in a property transaction, possibly based on the size of the property.

Another area that I have discussed with many colleagues over the years, including at a few roundtables, is retirement mobility. Too often, people who have lost their partner, a husband or wife, are stuck in their old property. We are very much aware of the cost of heating that type of property. They do not have the ability to do more work to increase their annual income, and they are stuck in a property that is too big for them, with all those memories of old. They realise that they really ought to move somewhere smaller that is more energy efficient and closer to services. However, if they live in an area of the country that is expensive, they might find an ideal property that is smaller and has all those good things, but there will be a very big SDLT charge.

I know the thoughts of older people, because I have had these discussions with my father and friends, and when they look at the potential bill just for doing the right thing through retirement mobility, they often say, “Do you know what, I’m not prepared to pay it. I’m just not going to pay £10,000 or £20,000 or whatever the price may be to do the right thing.” They do not want to pay that much to move somewhere more appropriate for older living.

I implore the Minister to receive a document from me and to have a conversation about the concept of a downsizing relief for older people. It could be fixed to retirement age, when people’s ability to earn has gone because they have retired. Perhaps they could get some credit, such as free stamp duty, for doing the right thing in moving to a smaller home, which is sensible for them, the family and everyone else. In so doing, they would be releasing those bigger homes for the families who need them.

Non-domestic Energy Support

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and happy new year. I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

Businesses have been crying out for some much-needed clarity. In September, the Government promised a review to look at targeted support, saying of the energy bills support scheme:

“We will publish a review…of the scheme in three months”.

I noticed the Minister made limited mention of this review. Could he tell the House where it is, who was consulted, what were the outcomes and whether it even took place? Many industries have suspected that the review was always intended as a delaying tactic. They have strung businesses along, playing for time, just like everything the Government do—living day to day and crisis to crisis, and hoping the blame does not land on them.

It is criminal that this sticking-plaster politics has forced British businesses into the same cycle, with firms unable to plan and not knowing what the next month will bring, let alone the next quarter. Business owners and their staff have faced two Christmases racked with worry because of covid and half-baked announcements from this Government, not forgetting the £6.5 billion of money recklessly squandered by this Tory Government. Firms were promised clarity last year, but Tory chaos meant that they spent another Christmas worrying about their energy bills. Will the Minister apologise today for the distress and uncertainty caused by the Government, not least for the hospitality sector during what should have been its most profitable trading period? What has been announced today is just a sticking plaster. What are the Government doing to ensure the take-up of energy efficiency measures for small businesses, and what plan does he have to deliver energy security and lower bills for the long term, or are businesses to be treated to this merry-go-round every winter?

The Minister spoke about support for energy-intensive industries. Can he confirm what businesses are in scope and how this will be implemented? Can I point out that Wade Ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent closed while the Government dithered and delayed over energy support? What does he have to say to those 140 workers? Our steel producers paid twice as much per megawatt-hour than German producers did last year. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear this, but these are the facts. Reports from the Scunthorpe plant are deeply alarming, so can I take this opportunity to ask what steps his Government are taking to secure the future of the domestic steel industry? Will the Minister confirm today that he will commit to the long-term investment that steel needs to protect our manufacturing base and national security?

With delayed announcements, constantly changing plans and a Government living day to day, they are forcing industries to do the same. I agree that firms need to invest, but what steps have the Government taken to make this possible? There was no mention in the statement of support for businesses investing in green technology. The British Chambers of Commerce and Make UK are very clear that, rather than inspiring business confidence and investment, the Government’s policy decisions have reduced confidence.

It simply does not need to be like this. Labour would back British businesses and give them the certainty they need to plan and invest, scrap business rates with a fair tax on the online giants, have a long-term industrial strategy alongside which our industries can invest and, crucially, deal with the energy crisis at source.

For 13 years, Britain’s energy policy has been a perfect example of sticking-plaster politics. Of course the Government are not responsible for the effects of the war in Ukraine, but the truth is that it was not the war that banned onshore wind, scrapped the home insulation and shut our gas storage facility; the Tory Government did that. That is why we are so exposed as a country, and families and businesses are paying the price. Labour’s green prosperity plan will deliver green electricity by 2030, getting bills down, ending the cycle of Tory crisis; the choice is between proper energy security that benefits Britain and a real plan to back British business with Labour, or an out-of-touch Tory Government with no ideas.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She asked what happened to the review. Well, I am making a statement about the results of the review, and the policy decisions that we have come to a conclusion on, based on the review and consulting all the key stakeholders in business and industry and also the voluntary sector, who I spoke to only this week.

The hon. Lady used the word “criminal” to describe the announcement today. I think that is a little over the top. We are continuing to provide significant support for businesses. We have a universal scheme, plus the targeted support for energy and trade-intensive sectors, with significant expenditure of up to £5.5 billion. We must balance this, however. She talked about failing to support business, but I remind the House that at this precise moment we are in the middle of a six-month scheme worth £18 billion, which is an extraordinary sum.

The hon. Lady said that we have somehow betrayed hospitality. The last statement I made, the day before the House rose for the Christmas recess, was that we would be freezing alcohol duty for another six months. We have supported pubs throughout the pandemic. To a typical pub, this will be worth about £2,300 in support over the next 12 months. Beer duty is now at the lowest real-terms level for 30 years, having been cut or frozen in nine of the last 10 Budgets, and spirits duty is at the lowest level in real terms since 1918, and of course we have extended the discount on business rates for the hospitality sector—previously it was 50% and we are increasing it to 75%. So there is a huge amount of support for hospitality.

The hon. Lady called for energy security. I agree that the long-term answer to this problem is investment in energy security; it is about having robust British energy, and we should look at the figures on that. Only a few days ago we heard from the BBC that in 2022 we had a record level of wind production in this country producing electricity: almost 27%, with just 1.5% from coal compared with 43% from coal in 2013. No other country is making that sort of progress. I am proud as an East Anglian MP to say that offshore wind has made a massive contribution; we have the largest array of offshore wind in Europe. We are delivering energy security and, as the Chancellor said in his statement, we are going to keep doing it, investing in nuclear and putting other investment in place, backing contracts for difference.

I will make one final point. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition said that it was no longer the time for the big Government cheque book and that we need to put the cheque book away. I am not sure that his Front-Bench Members have got the memo, because there is a balance to be struck here: we need fiscal prudence. The underlying problem for the country is inflation: inflation is the reason why people are experiencing cost of living problems. If we want to get a grip of inflation, we need to set a path for fiscal sustainability, because the problem with what the hon. Lady is suggesting is that it implies not just getting the Government cheque book out again, contrary to the words of the Leader of the Opposition, but getting a blank cheque book out. The problem with that is that if a Labour Government start writing blank cheques, we know where that ends up: with them writing a letter saying there is no money left, and bankrupting the country. We must balance prudence with supporting businesses and the voluntary and public sectors with their energy bills. We have done that today as a result of our review, and I believe this is the right balance of policy for the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

May I begin, Mr Speaker, by wishing you, the Minister and the whole House a jolly Christmas?

If the Government had implemented Labour’s windfall tax, they would have raised an additional £16.8 billion. Why have the Government chosen to leave this windfall of war on the table and not put it to use to support families and businesses in the tough winter ahead?

[James Cartlidge]

I do not entirely accept that. I would be interested to know the detail behind that figure. What we can confirm is that we have two specific levies: one on oil and gas, and one on certain electricity generators. We think that these are being applied in a very fair way. The levy to which the hon. Member refers does include an allowance for investment but this is the point. That level of support cannot continue for ever. The long-term answer is energy security—investment in new energy sources and, indeed, investment in the North sea, supporting UK jobs and the transition to net zero.