Stamp Duty Land Tax
Bobby Dean Excerpts(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Ask any economist, or indeed most Members in the Chamber today, and they would say that stamp duty is a bad tax. It creates friction in the market, whether we are talking about someone in a one-bedroom flat who is trying to take the step up to a family home, but who finds that their savings goal is now that much more, or whether we are talking about someone whose kids have flown the nest, and who is considering downsizing but finds the bill a disincentive.
It is important that we do not overstate what abolishing stamp duty will do. There have been lots of claims about how it will help millions of young people on to the ladder. For most people, this would not be the case. There is an exemption for first-time buyers of properties worth up to £300,000, and a further discount all the way up to half a million. It is important that we recognise that the proposal would not make a difference for huge numbers of people, including young people. I appreciate the points made about the fluidity of the market as well, but that is not the critical point.
The central problem in the housing market is the disparity between people’s wages and house prices. People have said to me, “I had to save hard to get my home,” and “You should have seen the interest rates back in the day.” I have no doubt that it has always been hard and a struggle to save up to buy a property, but the extent to which it has become out of reach today is not properly understood. Around the time I was born—1990, if Members are interested—the difference between the average wage and the average house price was about three times a person’s income, but today that average difference is eight times a person’s income. I represent a London constituency, and for people in London, that difference is 15 times the average income. That means that people in the top 10% of earners in the capital cannot afford the average home. It is an absolute disgrace that we have allowed ourselves to get to this situation.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member is making a powerful point in support of our motion. Does he intend to support it this afternoon?
Bobby Dean
Surprise, surprise, I do not. I will come on to the reasons why.
Mortgage companies will lend around four times someone’s income, so we can see how big the problem is. A couple may stand a chance of getting a mortgage; someone on their own has no chance. The other problem with house prices accelerating away from wages so much is that the 10% deposit that people often need to raise is completely out of reach. To put this in context, in 1990 the average wage was around £8,000 a year, and a person might have needed to save about £2,000 for a deposit. Today, a person on the average wage of £33,000 would have to try to save £28,000. People simply cannot do it unless they have the support of their mum or dad, or others in their family.
This is the death of meritocracy in our country. We now live in a society where a person’s family wealth, not their work or talent, defines their future financial security. We are back to Victorian-era levels of social mobility. That is absolutely abhorrent, and no amount of tinkering around the edges is sufficient to fix it.
Scrapping stamp duty will not be a silver bullet. In fact, on its own, it might represent a bit of a giveaway to those who are already faring better than most in society. If we are serious about fixing the housing crisis in our country, we need a generational change in the level of house building, and a holistic approach to redesigning the property tax system.
Jack Rankin
I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly, and he is making an excellent speech, but I would gently say that lots of us in the shires who face Liberal Democrats in our constituencies get leaflets from his colleagues that oppose building almost anywhere, ever. What would he say about that to some of his colleagues?
Bobby Dean
I think the hon. Member will find that across the country there will be opposition politicians opposing developments. In Sutton council in my borough, where we are in control, we are outstripping all of London in house building, and I am very proud of that record.
In order to fix the housing crisis, we need sustained wage growth, so that wages come up against the increase in house prices. I do not hear that on offer from the Conservative party today. I am sorry to say that we have a Trussite proposal on the table: an unfunded tax cut that lacks real credibility.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the shadow Chancellor, he would have heard him say that half the £47 billion in savings will come from reducing welfare spend. Another significant proportion will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was back in 2016. The proposal is fully funded, and he does himself no favours by inventing other facts.
Bobby Dean
I thank the hon. Member for bringing me on to my next point early. I want to address this proposed £47 billion in public spending cuts. If the Conservatives were to hand over that proposal in its current form to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it would laugh them out of the front door. Those cuts are not credible at all. Over half of that figure is based on welfare cuts—a welfare bill, by the way, that rose on the watch of the Conservative Government, not least because of the defunding of the NHS, which caused people to be in ill health in the first place.
The Conservatives are also talking about reducing the size of the civil service. Can any Member hazard a guess as to why the civil service has grown since 2016? It is because we have in-housed a lot of bureaucracy that we used to outsource to Brussels. One of the primary reasons why the civil service has grown is the number of services that we now have to deliver in this country.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned covid, which is the largest single contributor to the increase in the size of the state. He also did not mention the £5 billion reduction in welfare spending proposed by the Government; the Conservative party supported that, but the Government just gave in on it. There is plenty of money to be saved.
Bobby Dean
When the hon. Gentleman refers to covid, I think he is referring to total debt, which has increased. We are talking specifically about why the civil service has increased in size. A lot of that can be attributed to the new functions that the UK Government have had to take on.
On the welfare budget, yes, the Government struggled to get through their welfare reforms, but so did the previous Conservative Government. That is why the proposal that half of the £47 billion will come from welfare cuts lacks credibility.
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. It really does irk me that the Conservatives keep talking about the welfare bill going up when they blew a hole in the public health budget, eroded primary and community care, and did nothing to fix social care—and NHS dentistry has been hollowed out. Is it any wonder that when people cannot get the care that they need when they need it, we end up firefighting and spending loads of money on welfare and the NHS further down the line? We should be investing to save.
Bobby Dean
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I made the point earlier that the welfare bill went up on the Conservative Government’s watch, not least because they cut back NHS funding.
Bobby Dean
I will make some progress; I have been intervened on quite a few times. In the Chamber, we may agree on the analysis of stamp duty’s failings, but the Liberal Democrats cannot support the motion, because it is not a credible plan. Also, if a stamp duty cut were made in isolation, it might not deliver what Conservative Members say it would. It might just gum up the housing market further for the next generation.
It is high time that we had a serious debate about property tax reform. Some of that has happened in the Chamber today, but the motion does not reflect that serious debate, so I will not support it.
Sir James Cleverly
Yes, pretzel-like. One after another, the speakers on the Lib Dem Benches stood up and said, “We agree that this is a bad tax. We agree that this is a counterproductive tax. We agree that it is a tax that needs to go.” I, and I suspect others on the Conservative Benches, thought, “Here we go. Here is the crescendo, the pièce de resistance,” and that those speeches would end by saying, “Which is why you will see us in the Lobby with you, ensuring that the motion is passed.” But that is not what we heard.
Sir James Cleverly
In a minute—I have a punchline to get to.
That is not what we heard. What we heard was, “We think this is a bad tax that should be got rid of, but we are not going to vote to say it is a bad tax that should be got rid of, because blah”—which is always the Lib Dems’ punchline. I was waiting for an explosion of political integrity, only to be presented with a political damp squib.
Bobby Dean
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way after his fantastic punchline, which everybody really enjoyed.
Bobby Dean
Exactly. He obviously was not paying enough attention to our argument. Yes, we did agree with the analysis that stamp duty is a poor tax, but we could not support the motion, because we do not think there is a credible plan for abolishing it. We would like to see a much more holistic review of property taxes, alongside a credible plan. There is no credible plan in the motion. We do not trust the public spending cut proposals that have been put forward.
Sir James Cleverly
You’ve gotta love ’em, haven’t you? Never seen a fence they would not sit on, never seen a position they would not contort around. “These are our principles”, they say, “but so are these, and so are these other ones as well.” It is that clarity that we value from the Liberal Democrats.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bobby Dean Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
We want to ensure that the better futures fund is targeted where it is most needed and that the investment is spent in a way that really improves life chances, in particular for young people and children who face some of the biggest challenges ahead. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the area he represents and the part of the UK he comes from; it is something we will consider as we develop the details of the fund.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Tax reliefs are an important feature of the UK tax system, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has invested significant resources in improving understanding of their cost and effectiveness. Since 2019, it has produced costings for 350 reliefs, including detailed analysis of the 38 largest non-structural reliefs, which cost more than £500 million a year.
Bobby Dean
The Minister detailed that about 350 reliefs have been assessed, but my understanding is that more than 1,200 tax reliefs are on the books, amounting to hundreds of billions of foregone revenue for the Treasury. Given that the Treasury examined the spending of all Departments in detail over the summer, I wondered whether it was considering applying the same level of scrutiny to itself.
Dan Tomlinson
It is worth noting that some 800 of the 1,200 reliefs the hon. Member mentions ensure that the tax system operates as intended by defining the scope of tax correctly and that it operates fairly and simply. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but I will not be able to comment specifically on any changes that we may or may not make to tax reliefs—any decisions will, of course, be announced at the Budget, which is not today.
Financial Services Reform
Bobby Dean Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chancellor announced quite a list of reforms yesterday. I note that many were on the shopping list of industry, so the Committee will examine them closely to make sure they also work for the consumer and for the long-term stability of the economy. One change in particular, on ringfencing, will worry those with strong memories of the 2008 financial crash. The shadow Economic Secretary indicated that perhaps we need to look at removing the ringfencing entirely. That would be a big step backwards. These reforms were driven by the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, and the idea was to separate everyday customer deposits from the risks of investment banking. Will the Minister give us assurances that the hard-earned savings of families across the country will not be put at risk by the speculative activity of people playing with other people’s money?
Emma Reynolds
It is always a great pleasure to come and give evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. I reassure him that the Government are upholding the ringfencing regime. We must strike the right balance between protecting financial stability and safeguarding depositors. Equally, we think that there are some flexibilities that should be explored within the ringfencing regime that will allow further growth and further capital to be deployed in the real economy.
Government Performance against Fiscal Rules
Bobby Dean Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
The fiscal rules are important because when we control the nation’s finances, we bring stability to family finances. We have all experienced the consequences of previous Governments losing control, and our mortgage rates and rents have gone through the roof. This Labour Government will never let that happen again.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government committed to one fiscal event a year in the name of economic stability, but by having an OBR forecast and these constraints, they had only one lever to pull: spending cuts. This time, disabled people paid the price, and the Government have since had to row back. Does the Government regret placing those restraints on themselves over tax measures when OBR forecasts are published?
Darren Jones
The Government are committed to the independence of the OBR. We will keep setting out future fiscal plans at one fiscal event a year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bobby Dean Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, I cannot see the relevance of the question. I call Bobby Dean.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs uses a range of data sources to monitor the wealthy population. International exchanges of information, including the common reporting standard and US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act data, offer opportunities to develop deeper insight into the international financial affairs of some of the UK’s wealthiest taxpayers.
Bobby Dean
The Minister will no doubt be aware of reports of the so-called exodus of millionaires. Those reports are from “high profile individuals” and city spokespeople, but there are rarely hard numbers behind them. Are Treasury Ministers able to verify the Tax Justice Network’s research that says that just 0.3% of millionaires have exited the UK and that that number has remained low and stable over the past decade, and will they publish their own figures as well?
James Murray
When considering fiscal measures or financial changes, the figures that matter are those provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms that the Government have implemented will raise £33.8 billion in total revenue, and that figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime choosing to leave the UK.
Spending Review 2025
Bobby Dean Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the changes to the Green Book, which will better enable the Government to invest, and will stop the situation whereby the Treasury used to wield the Green Book against local communities when it came to the investments that they wanted to make. This was a good spending review for the east midlands, as my hon. Friend mentioned, with investment in nuclear fusion and small modular reactors. Many businesses in the supply chain right across the east midlands will benefit from that significant investment and the jobs it will bring.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Last year, during the mayoral election, Sadiq Khan claimed that a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government would be a game changer for the city, but just now he has released a statement criticising the spending review for underfunding the Met police, failing to invest in our transport infrastructure, and potentially making the housing crisis in our capital worse. Was Sadiq Khan wrong to put his trust in this Labour Government?
Rachel Reeves
For London, today we have increased the spending power of the police by 2.3% in real terms every year; we have record investment in the affordable homes programme, which includes building new homes in London; and we have free school meals, lifting around 10,000 children in London out of poverty, and much more. We are also backing a third runway at Heathrow and investing in tunnelling to take HS2 to Euston. This is a good spending review for London, but most importantly, it is a good spending review for the whole United Kingdom.
Spring Statement
Bobby Dean Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, we set out in the Green Paper that we are consulting on a premium payment for the most severely sick and disabled, because, as a Government, we believe that those who need support should get it. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that there are many people who are sick and disabled. However, there are also many young people who could be working, but were written off by the previous Government, and that is why we are putting record investment into helping those people to get back into work with guaranteed personalised, targeted support. Someone is half as likely to be in poverty if they move from welfare into work. We are determined to lift people out of poverty by ensuring that there are good jobs that pay decent wages and with security guaranteed through the Employment Rights Bill.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The OBR said that the information it received on the package of welfare cuts was late, contained insufficient detail and that the estimates are highly uncertain, and it will now have to certify them in the next forecast. Can the Chancellor confirm whether that means the Government will have to go further, with even deeper cuts to welfare than they have so far announced?
Rachel Reeves
The OBR has not taken into account any of the package of measures to get people back into work or looked at any behavioural effects of people making that switch into work. It said in that document that it will spend the summer looking at the entirety of the package, including the efforts we are making with a huge package to get people back into work. I am confident that that personalised, targeted support will get more people into work and lift them out of poverty, so that they can support their families and so that the economy can benefit from their contribution.
Growing the UK Economy
Bobby Dean Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Select Committee member Bobby Dean.
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?
Darren Jones
I am sure the hon. Member shares my view that we can achieve growth through our net zero plans. These things are not an either/or. For example, the announcement of this Government supporting investment in Heathrow and in the sustainable aviation fuel sector will stimulate investment in net zero technologies and industry in the UK. This can be a win-win for the economy and the environment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bobby Dean Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I am afraid I have not had time to do so since he told me 35 minutes ago that he was going to ask that question, but I have heard it clearly. I will take that away and come back to him in course.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government announced a range of measures at the autumn Budget to support SMEs, including in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. They include more than doubling the employment allowance, freezing the small business rates multiplier, extending RHL relief to 40%, maintaining the small profits rate and reducing the duty on qualifying draught products, which represent 60% of alcoholic drinks sold in pubs.
Bobby Dean
The Labour manifesto committed to replacing the business rates system. However, last week at the Treasury Committee, the Minister seemed to rule out the kind of comprehensive reform that the Liberal Democrats and others have been campaigning for, and indicated that there might only be a tinkering around the edges of rates and reliefs. Can the Minister confirm today whether the Government still intend to replace the business rates system, or will they just be tinkering around the edges of this broken system?
James Murray
I think that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which are the backbone of our high street, might object to the idea of permanently lower tax rates as “tinkering around the edges”. That is a fundamental change that we want to bring in from April 2026 to make sure they have stability, certainty and permanently lower rates. Alongside it are our wider ambitions in the “Transforming Business Rates” discussion paper, which I invited the hon. Gentleman to read and respond to at last week’s Treasury Committee.
Christmas Adjournment
Bobby Dean Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for opening the debate. He is a fellow Bob and a fellow Spurs fan. I am not sure how much we will agree on in 2025, but something we certainly do agree on is Spurs winning something.
Bobby Dean
Yes. The hon. Gentleman covered lots of local and international issues, which I think demonstrates the breadth of debate in this place. Before I respond to some of the Back-Bench contributions, I will focus a little on my work in Carshalton and Wallington.
I made three big promises to my constituents: on the NHS, on the cost of living and on the environment. I feel that I have made some progress in my first few months in office. First, I have negotiated with the NHS trust and the Health Secretary on the future of our local St Helier hospital. We hope that will mean that we will retain our A&E services and get a new building in our community in the next year. Secondly, on the cost of living, I am privileged to sit on the Treasury Committee, so I get to examine very closely the country’s finances and, I hope, to make an impact on the economy more broadly. Thirdly, on the environment, I have been focused on my local river, the Wandle. I made a documentary film about it last year, and we are doing a short follow-up in the new year—just in time for the Oscars.
We have heard lots of brilliant tributes to local organisations, volunteers and charities, and a range of issues have been raised, but I will focus my highlights on the Christmas-themed contributions. The right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) almost went into “The Twelve Days of Christmas” with her mention of a partridge in a pear tree. She also mentioned many constituency and international issues of concern to her.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) talked about driving home for Christmas. I am a subscriber to autopay for the Dartford tunnel because my parents live in Essex, so I will go through his constituency in a week or so as I drive home for Christmas. The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) talked about a local band that will not be contesting the Christmas No. 1—thankfully, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) would not be too happy about that. I was shocked that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) did not mention the choir behind our right hon. Friend’s “Love is Enough” single—so I will get that plug in, and keep my job.
There was a mention of what I will dub “Christmas lights”—although not quite—by the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who talked about the serious issue of headlight glare. On a more serious point about Christmas food and drink, many Members reflected on how many people will go without food this Christmas, and how important it is that we acknowledge the vital role of food banks at this special time. Our work in this place will never be done until every food bank is abolished.
My Christmas drink reference is a little more tangential. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) mentioned her port, and I classify Christmas port as a drink for this festive period.
Finally, we talked about Christmas sport. We might be moving into Boxing day a bit here, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about our being better together, and sport is a special way of bringing people together at this time. The hon. Members for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), talked about their respective football clubs; I will be going to watch my local football club on Boxing day, and I hope the hon. Members do the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) talked about Formula 1, not football, but that gives me a really good link back to Tottenham Hotspur football club, who are the hosts of the only F1 go-karting track in the country. Again, my new year’s hope is that we win a trophy.
In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas, as well as all the staff who have been so supportive of me as a new Member of this House. I thank all our colleagues for the respectful debates that we have had today and throughout the year.