Taxes

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

We live in a country where wealth is hoarded by the few while poverty is the fate of the many. Yes, the Government have taken some welcome steps, addressing non-dom status and imposing VAT on private school fees, and I make no apology for being ideological about that. Those are steps in the right direction, but, as has been shown by reforms to welfare, they are far from enough to stop cuts. The truth is that these policies do not come close to tackling the grotesque level of inequality in our country, nor will they generate the revenue that is needed to repair the failed ideology of austerity, privatisation and no small amount of political cowardice in the face of corporate greed.

The 2010s were the decade in which the super-rich won. They were handed tax breaks, were shielded by loopholes, and watched their wealth explode while wages stagnated and services crumbled. Millionaires and billionaires flourished. As I said in the earlier debate this afternoon, the fact that in one of the richest economies in the world millions of people in full-time work are relying on food banks to survive is a national disgrace. They go to work, they do their shifts, and still they are left to rely on the charity of strangers to get by.

This did not happen by accident. It is the result of deliberate political choices: austerity, privatisation, suppressed wages and a tax system rigged in favour of the ultra-wealthy. Even now, with Labour in power, we are being told to temper our ambition. How can we do that when there is a 13-year difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest in Scotland, and when thousands of children are growing up cold, hungry and facing an uncertain future?

However, there is an alternative to relentless cuts. There is an alternative to balancing the books on the backs of the poorest. There is an alternative to managed decline as we watch the state become bankrupt both financially and morally. That alternative is genuinely progressive taxation alongside investment in people and communities. I find common ground with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), in that I also support equalising capital gains tax with income tax. Currently, many who earn their living through work are taxed more than those who profit by sitting on their wealth. Equalising those rates could raise an additional £12 billion a year. My hon. Friend and I do, however, disagree about the introduction of an annual wealth tax.

Since coming to this place, I have campaigned for the introduction of a 2% annual wealth tax on those with net assets over £10 million. This single policy could raise £24 billion a year, and the notion that the wealthy will flee en masse if we ask them to contribute fairly is a tired and dishonest argument. Even among the ultra-wealthy, there is a recognition that inequality has spiralled out of control. Many are willing to contribute more, as is confirmed by the work of Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires, but the Government must have the courage to do it.

When we invest in public services, when we lift people up, we build a fairer country and a stronger economy. Children do better at school when they are fed, housed and supported. Workers are more productive when they are not spending every hour worried about how they will make ends meet. Families are stronger when the welfare state works for them, not against them. We have to find new and just ways to fund welfare, to fund the green transition, to fund public services and to rebuild the country. The labour movement was not built to tinker around the edges; it was built to transform, and if this Government are serious about real change—the change that we promised—we must be bolder than we have been so far. Redistribution of wealth and power for the benefit of workers and communities, and wider society, should always be the driving mission of any real Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

This is topicals; we have got to get going. Brian Leishman will set a good example.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

T4. I want to ask about the £200 million national wealth fund commitment for Project Willow. How will it be accessed? What is the minimum and maximum amount that can be accessed by an applicant? If it is exclusively for businesses, will it be based on being positioned within the existing footprint of the Grangemouth site that is owned or operated by Petroineos or INEOS?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

There is £200 million available, and the Government will look at all proposals for investing it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The Government have already increased NHS spending by £22.6 billion, police funding by £1.1 billion, and fire and rescue authority funding by £65.5 million. Further spending will be set out in the June spending review, but this is another example of a Labour Government delivering on the promise of change.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

To alleviate grinding penury for millions of people, the Chancellor could introduce an annual wealth tax on multimillionaires, which would raise approximately £24 billion per annum, yet she refuses to entertain the idea and considers cuts to welfare acceptable. Why do “tough political choices” always seem to impact the most vulnerable?

[Rachel Reeves]

At the Budget last year, we increased the rate of tax on non-doms, we increased capital gains tax, we increased the carried interest on bonuses and we introduced VAT on private schools. This Government are ensuring that the wealthiest pay their fair share, because that is a basic Labour principle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

14. What recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a wealth tax.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

19. If she will make an assessment of the potential implications for her policies of the findings of Oxfam’s poll on taxation, published on 25 March 2025.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

This Government are committed to ensuring that the wealthiest in our society pay their fair share of tax. The Chancellor announced a series of reforms at autumn Budget 2024 to help fix the public finances as fairly as possible. Those reforms included increasing the rates of capital gains tax, increasing air passenger duty for private jets, and raising stamp duty for buyers of second or more homes.

[James Murray]

As I made clear earlier, the Government have already made changes to make the tax system fairer, and to ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. The reforms to the welfare system are principled reforms to tackle perverse incentives that encourage inactivity. We need to support those in most need, get people back into work wherever possible, and protect the sustainability of the welfare system.

[Brian Leishman]

Let us be frank and not spin it: for 14 years, we saw austerity that ripped the heart out of communities; we then had a global pandemic, during which inequality was accelerated; and we are still feeling the effects of a cost of living crisis that is making ordinary people poorer. The public do not want cuts or austerity—they want an annual wealth tax on the very wealthiest in society. Is it not time we had a Government who do something different, give people what they want, and are willing to redistribute wealth for the benefit of many in society, and to improve living standards?

[James Murray]

I politely suggest that if my hon. Friend thinks we are imposing austerity, he has not read the Budget very carefully. It contains increases to revenue spending in all Departments—across the public spending envelope—and an increase in capital investment. We are ensuring that we build for the future while protecting our fiscal rules. Let me be clear: those fiscal rules are not a nice-to-have addition to the way we approach the economy. Fiscal irresponsibility has a huge cost, as we saw under the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The OBR’s spring forecast will take place on 26 March and be accompanied by a statement to Parliament from the Chancellor. Ahead of the statement, the Government will not give a running commentary responding to forecasts and economic developments, but I reassure the hon. Member that the Chancellor’s commitment —indeed, the whole Government’s commitment—to our fiscal rules is non-negotiable.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It should not be working people who pay more tax, because wealth inequality is growing in the UK and improving living standards is ultimately what the Government will be judged on. Does the Minister see the merit in introducing an annual wealth tax of 2% on people with over £10 million-worth of assets, which would go an awful long way to raising £26 billion per annum to equalise society?

[James Murray]

I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the £200 million investment in the Grangemouth facility, which has already been spoken about today. I hope he will also support the Government’s decision to restore fiscal responsibility to public finances within the tough fiscal rules that the Chancellor set out at the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

During the passage of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, we set out clearly how the scheme would work to reimburse costs for public departments or local government. That measure is in line with what the previous Government attempted to do with the health and social care levy. Where third-party private contractors are engaged, those costs will be considered by local government or other public sector organisations in the round.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

T4. The previous Conservative Government decided to back an INEOS project in Antwerp, with a £600 million loan guarantee. I have spoken with the current the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) about that, and I have been told that the Government have no plans to stop that money, even though INEOS plans to close the Grangemouth refinery, with the loss of thousands of jobs. Why is there £600 million for Antwerp and not Grangemouth, and why would the Government allow that to happen and not use the £600 million as leverage with INEOS, to avoid Scottish job losses?

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government cannot account for the decisions made by the Conservative party, but we have created the Office for Value for Money, to ensure value for money when we use taxpayer’s money.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

There has been global volatility in markets. It is not reasonable to suggest that bond yields in the United States, Germany and France have risen because of decisions made by this Government. I think the hon. Member should just get real.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement. In regard to raising money for public services, an annual wealth tax on the multimillionaire and billionaire class would certainly achieve that. However, that is a conversation for another day—on to China. My right hon. Friend and I have had discussions regarding the closure of the Grangemouth refinery, in which PetroChina—part of the Chinese state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation—is heavily involved. If the refinery closes, thousands of jobs will be lost. This is not just a constituency issue for me. It will impact all of Scotland, as our fuel and national security will be severely weakened. Did the Chancellor speak about the issue with her Chinese counterparts, and if not, will she do so?

[Rachel Reeves]

We are working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a bright future for the people of Grangemouth, because deindustrialisation should not be the future for communities, including in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We have published the detail of how that money is raised, but the numbers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are very clear: only a quarter of estates will pay any additional tax. At the moment, the vast majority of agricultural property relief is enjoyed by a very small number of very large and very expensive estates. That is not affordable, and it will not continue.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: I am a member of Unite the Union. The Grangemouth refinery costs £100 million a year to run, and its economic contribution to Scotland exceeds £400 million per annum. Unite has a credible plan to save the refinery and prevent thousands of job losses. Will the Treasury consider the plan, and meet me, Unite and the refinery owners to discuss its viability and Government intervention for the public good?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the relevant Minister.