Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I start by congratulating all those who are making their maiden speeches today, and welcoming them to this place. I also thank my Liverpool Riverside constituents who re-elected me. I give my commitment to continue to be their voice in this place. My constituency is now the most deprived in the country, with 47% of children living in poverty. That is nearly one in every two children, and it is communities such as mine that have faced the sharpest edge of 14 years of austerity and the cost of living crisis. Nationally, 16 million people are now living in poverty; 4 million are children, and 1 million are living in destitution. I am sure everybody in this House would agree that those figures are unacceptable.

Child poverty is completely avoidable in the sixth richest country in the world. Not tackling it stores up problems for the future, costing our economy £39 billion per year, according to calculations by the Child Poverty Action Group. It is not a question of whether we can afford to adopt vital policies to alleviate child poverty, such as lifting the two-child cap; it is a question of whether we can afford not to. This is the reason I tabled amendment (f) to the King’s Speech, with a focus on debate not division, to push for a clear timetable for scrapping the two-child cap. The End Child Poverty coalition believes this to be the most effective way to immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty.

There is support for this position from right across the political spectrum, and it is something that the Labour leadership has indicated that it will do as soon as financially viable, but there are pockets of money that can be found if we look hard enough. Gordon Brown has suggested that between £1.3 billion and £3.3 billion can be found by imposing a reserve requirement on banks similar to those that the European Central Bank and the Swiss banks currently have, and that £700 million can be found by simplifying the gift aid system.

Economists believe the recent upturn in the economy means that the new Government could begin to consider bringing forward priority policies such as scrapping this cap. Others would argue that progressive taxation should also be strongly considered. The latest Department for Work and Pensions data shows that two thirds of families impacted by the two-child cap have at least one parent in full-time work. The last Labour Government had a big and bold ambition in 1997 to end child poverty within a generation. As a single working mum of twins, I personally benefited from those transformative policies. Without the availability of after-school and holiday provision, I would not have been able to continue working.

I know we have inherited the worst financial situation since the second world war, and that Labour in government is going to have some very careful choices to make about the path forward. We have a massive mountain to climb, but we were elected with a massive majority. The country has voted for change. Removing the two-child cap would send a powerful message of hope to those who have put their trust in a Labour Government to bring about the change we so desperately need. The one in two children living in poverty in my constituency have known nothing but the tyranny of a Tory Government, hunger and hardship during their short lives. Those children cannot and must not wait any longer to be lifted out of poverty.

As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of my amendment was to debate this very important issue, not to cause divisions, and there has been lots of debate this week but we need action. This punitive policy needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs, and in its place we need policies to lift 4 million children out of poverty. Let us put these children and our country first. I call on the Chancellor to make some immediate changes here.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Peter Bedford to make his maiden speech.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and Members on both sides of the House who have given their maiden speeches with such passion today.

I thank my long-standing friends, family and supporters who have worked so hard to enable my election to this place. Although there are far too many to name, I want to put on record my sincere thanks to Richard Milburn, Paul Taylor, Jon Humberstone, Ravinder Taylor and Ross Hills for their herculean efforts over recent months.

It is customary for new Members to pay tribute to their predecessors. However, I am in the unusual position of my three immediate predecessors being sitting Members of this House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for their assiduous work in the last Parliament for the residents of my constituency. I look forward to working with them collectively for all the residents of Leicestershire.

The new Mid Leicestershire constituency is formed from parts of Charnwood borough, Hinckley and Bosworth borough and Blaby district. The Charnwood villages comprise Anstey, Birstall, Cropston, Thurcaston, Swithland, Rothley, Mountsorrel, Woodhouse Eaves and Old Woodhouse, and the borough is home to the UK’s only mainline heritage railway, the great central railway.

At the heart of the constituency is Bradgate Park in Newtown Linford, a place I call the jewel in the crown of rural Leicestershire. No matter your troubles, you will be able to take a peaceful, tranquil walk, admiring the deer and their fawns, while taking in breathtaking views of the beautiful green surrounds, before looking up at Old John and quietly reflecting on one’s physical fitness; it is a 212-metre climb to the top of that hill.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the ruins of Bradgate House, which is believed to be the birthplace of Lady Jane Grey, who ruled as Queen for a mere nine days; hon. Members can be assured that my maiden speech will not last that long.

The Blaby district areas of Braunstone, Thorpe Astley, Leicester Forest East, Kirby Muxloe and Glenfield also form part of the new constituency. Although they extend from the city, they very much value their unique identities as independent county settlements. Indeed, I put on record my support for the campaign spearheaded by Glenfield resident Steve Walters and local residents to protect Glenfield from the ever-increasing urban sprawl.

The Hinckley and Bosworth villages include Ratby, Groby and Field Head, in addition to Markfield, Stanton under Bardon, Bagworth and Thornton, which for the last seven years I have had the immense honour of serving as a Leicestershire county councillor.

Many of my constituents have legitimate concerns about overdevelopment and the lack of infrastructure to cope with the strains that population growth brings. I think of villages such as Ratby, which has seen its population almost double over the last 10 years, and where, even today, developers are willing to take advantage of the borough council’s lack of a local plan. I urge the incoming Government to ensure that local communities, not faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall, always have the final say on development across our green and beautiful countryside.

I turn to the issues that I will champion during my time in this House. The first is social mobility. As the eldest of three children in a single-parent family, I passionately believe that it does not matter who you are or where you were born; it is what you do with your life that matters. Life chances, owning your own home, getting a career and having a family should not be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy, but should be opportunities available to all.

I believe that the best path out of poverty is through education and training, and I will work constructively with Members from across the House to ensure that reform and investment in these vital tools is the Government’s top priority. The motto of my secondary school is “Aspire, Achieve, Acclaim”, a sentiment that I want to see promoted far more widely across society.

Secondly, I came through the ranks as a local councillor, so I cannot give my maiden speech without referring to fairer funding for local authorities; that is another issue that I wish to spearhead. The system is fundamentally broken, with allocations still linked to historical spending levels. The result is a poorly funded system in which need and funding do not match. For example, the core spending power of Leicestershire county council is a mere £900 a head, compared with almost £1,500 a head in the inner London boroughs. Reform in this area, by Governments of all colours, is long overdue, and I shall be a vocal advocate for fairer funding in this place and beyond.

Finally, dignity towards the end of life will continue to climb up the political agenda, particularly given our ever-ageing population. My election to this House is tinged with sadness that my grandparents are not around to see me give my maiden speech. Both were diagnosed with incurable cancer and, like millions across the country, they wanted greater control of their lives in their final days.

I am here to represent all my constituents, and I pledge to be a vocal advocate for those who are often disillusioned with the political process, or feel that their voice is not heard by those with power. It is the highest of honours to be elected to this place, and I intend to do my very best each and every day to repay that trust.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Jonathan Brash to make his maiden speech.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I congratulate all Members who have made their maiden speeches today, including the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who paid a moving tribute at the end of his speech.

I thank staff across the parliamentary estate for diligently and patiently looking after new Members in these first few days.

It is an honour to be called to make my maiden speech, which I do proudly as the Member of Parliament for my hometown of Hartlepool. To represent the place where I grew up, where I met my wife Pamela and where we are raising our young family holds a special kind of responsibility for me. The challenges that Hartlepool people face are personal, because they are challenges that I share. When one of our local businesses closes due to spiralling costs, there is a good chance that I have visited it in better times. When a local play area is the victim of arson, my children are among those devastated at the loss of a place they enjoyed, and when someone tells me that they are living in pain because they cannot see an NHS dentist in a town that has been described as a dental desert, I know how they feel, because I cannot get one either.

It is these experiences that drove me to serve my home-town, and it is Hartlepool people who have given me that opportunity. It is now my duty to respond in kind by delivering for them the opportunities that they have been denied for far too long. That is why I welcome this King’s Speech, which prioritises growth in every part of the country, not just those already blessed with affluence.

Hartlepool’s history is one of innovation and industry. Once the bedrock of the British economy as the country’s third-largest port, we built ships that shipped the Durham coal that powered the world. At one point in our history, Hartlepool’s shipyards, such as William Gray and Company, launched more ships than anywhere else in the world. As a major exporter of steel, we built the bridges, the ships, the railways and the infrastructure that transformed not just our economy but economies across the globe. Such was Hartlepool’s strategic importance that, along with only two other places on the north-east coast, it was targeted for bombardment by the German navy during the first world war. In true Hartlepool style, we were the only place to fire back, making the Heugh gun battery the UK’s only first world war battlefield.

Our industrial heritage has not left us. The Expanded Metal Company, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, provided metal mesh for buildings such as the Stephen Lawrence centre in Lewisham, the Young Vic theatre and New York’s New Museum, among many others. Our world famous, and award-winning, Camerons brewery was built during Hartlepool’s industrial heyday, but it has survived, grown and adapted to a changing economy, and a pint of Strongarm is as good today as it was back then.

In moving the Humble Address, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) mentioned the famous Antony Gormley statues in his constituency. Although there are no Antony Gormley statues in Hartlepool, we are proud to have built the most famous one. Whenever I travel up the A1 through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and see the magnificent Angel of the North, I remember three simple words: “Made in Hartlepool.”

If our history is one of industry, innovation and growth, I must tell the House in all candour that it must also be our future. Too often, towns such as Hartlepool have been left behind, an afterthought in our national conversation, able only to reminisce about what we once were, not plan for what we can be. This must change, and I believe it will change under this Labour Government.

Right now, we are witnessing a new industrial revolution sweep the world as we shift to a net zero future. Whereas our past was in coal and ships, our future is in new nuclear, wave and tidal. The election of this Labour Government means that revolution is finally coming to our shores, with a national wealth fund investing in jobs in every part of the country, a proper industrial strategy that forges a real partnership with business, and Great British Energy, which will make the UK a clean energy superpower.

I am determined that Hartlepool will play its part in this transformative agenda, once again at the metaphorical coalface of our country’s prosperity and economic growth. That is nothing less than Hartlepool people deserve. They are my inspiration, with their defiance, grit and determination to succeed in the face of challenge. Even in the toughest of times, we come together, stronger, more united and standing up for each other.

Everywhere in our town, we see courage, community and compassion. I have been privileged to work with brilliant Hartlepool people every day to improve our town, from those in our voluntary sector organisations and community groups, our faith leaders, and those in our schools, colleges and clubs, including Hartlepool United; my children and I are proud season ticket holders. All of them are working together in the service of our town.

Hartlepool has produced many leading lights across a variety of professions, from Iron Maiden guitarist Janick Gers, world boxing champion Savannah Marshall, fashion designer Scott Henshall and television presenter Jeff Stelling, whose repeated and impassioned outbursts defending the north-east, its culture, heritage and people from those who would seek to criticise it display all the formidable characteristics of a person raised in Hartlepool.

The Prime Minister has rightly talked about putting his Government back into the service of working people. My unfaltering belief in public service was instilled in me from a young age. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to my father, Charles Brash, a doctor in Hartlepool for over 30 years. One of my earliest memories is of him coming home from a night on call—GPs did that in those days—having a quick bite to eat, and then heading straight back out for his morning surgery. Some people still call me “the doctor’s son”, and I wear it like a badge of honour. His career, spent in the service of others, shaped my values, and my belief that only by putting people first can we achieve the change we need.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Jill Mortimer. Since her election in 2021, Jill has forged strong relationships in Hartlepool, particularly with veterans’ groups, which I hope to emulate. Public service is never easy, and I thank Jill Mortimer for her service to Hartlepool.

I close by returning to the idea of opportunity. Right now, in 2024, in one of the richest countries in the world, nearly 20% of Hartlepool’s children live in absolute poverty. Nothing could better symbolise the spectre of opportunity denied—the opportunity for a safe and secure upbringing, to fulfil their boundless potential, to get a good job and raise their own family in security and prosperity. So I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education, and for Work and Pensions, on developing an ambitious child poverty strategy, because as Members know, the record is clear: when Labour is in government, child poverty falls.

I am privileged to stand in this place, but I will never lose sight of the fact that it is a privilege gifted to me by Hartlepool people, far too many of whom have been denied opportunity for far too long. Hartlepool people have a reputation for, on occasion, electing fighters as opposed to quitters, and I am pleased to tell the House that they have done so again. My duty, my service, is to fight for them every day to secure the brighter future that our town deserves.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Nick Timothy to make his maiden speech.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the other new Members on their excellent maiden speeches, in particular the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), where I know his predecessor, Lord Mandelson, recommends the mushy peas.

It is an honour to be called to speak for the first time. I pay tribute to the last MP for West Suffolk, Matt Hancock, who oversaw the delivery of the covid vaccines, a vital achievement for our country. Less well known is that Matt once rode in, and won, the Blue Square Cavalry Charge horserace in Newmarket, a feat that required him not only to be propelled forward by a thoroughbred horse at 30 miles per hour, but to train for three months and lose 2 stone. For all these reasons, not least the dubiousness of the idea that I have 2 stone to lose, I can assure the House that I will not be stepping into my predecessor’s stirrups.

Newmarket is the best-known town in my constituency. It is most famous for horseracing, an international success story that brings thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds to the local economy every year. From Charles I to Charles III, racing gives West Suffolk its long connection to royalty, but unfortunately ours is not an unblemished record, for Newmarket was once the home of Oliver Cromwell’s new model army. Old Ironsides championed free expression yet persecuted his enemies. He attacked aristocratic privilege and patronage, but handed power to his cronies. Censorious, joyless and puritanical—it is like he wrote the Labour manifesto.

Fortunately, we have left those days of self-denial behind, and from the Star in Lidgate to the Queen’s Head in Hawkedon, the Affleck Arms in Dalham to the White Horse in Withersfield, and many others, we have some of the best pubs in Britain. And we have plenty more besides: beautiful villages, vibrant towns and farms that feed the country; Anglo-Saxon settlements and ancient churches; rolling countryside and big Suffolk skies; dense forest and the world-famous gallops; businesses doing everything from seed drills to particle engineering; charities such as Reach in Haverhill and the day centres in Brandon and Newmarket; Highpoint prison near Stradishall; the airbases at Lakenheath and Mildenhall; and public servants working for their communities every day.

I look forward to championing them all and addressing our challenges too, including dealing with flooding in Clare, Cavendish and elsewhere, and fighting the appalling decision to approve the Sunnica solar and battery farm, due to be built on high-quality agricultural land. In Brandon, lorry traffic is a problem. We need the Ely and Haughley junctions sorted to get freight on to the railways. In Mildenhall, where 1,300 new homes are coming, we need a relief road. We are not against new house building in West Suffolk—we have had 3,000 new homes built in the last five years—but we need attractive family homes in the right places. We need services and infrastructure to keep pace. We need to get tougher with the developers and reform the construction market. We need to drastically cut immigration, not just for the economic and cultural reasons that should by now be obvious, but to limit new demand for housing.

Our largest town, Haverhill, has doubled in size in only 30 years, to almost 30,000 residents. It has an incredible community spirit, but the town centre is struggling. We need a new start for our high streets, and I will fight for a railway linking Haverhill to Cambridge. The development of Cambridge looms large for us, but I want us to embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks. If we get it right, we have the chance to get better infrastructure, new investment and more jobs. That is why I wanted to speak in today’s debate.

From potholes to public sector pay, the thread that runs through all our challenges is an inconvenient truth. While it is plainly incorrect to claim that the new Government have the worst economic inheritance since the war—[Interruption.] It is incorrect, but we are less prosperous than we often tend to assume. This is not a question of party politics, but of the decline and failure of our country’s long-established economic model. Put simply: we do not make, do or sell enough of what the world needs.

Our £33 billion trade deficit—1.2% of GDP—means we sell off valuable assets and build up external debt to limit the current account deficit. We end up with less control over our economy, and more exposed to global risks and shocks. From low pay to regional inequality, poor productivity to the funding of public services, all the things we worry about are symptoms of this wider problem.

We need to question economic theory, challenge Treasury orthodoxy and think beyond the intellectual limits of ideological liberalism. Theories like comparative advantage have led us to offshore industry and grow dependent on hostile states, like China. But international trade is neither free nor fair, and net zero cannot mean sacrificing our prosperity and security. Being a services superpower is a great advantage, but alone it is not enough. We need a serious strategy to reindustrialise, narrow the trade deficit and rebalance the economy. We need to change and, in the months and years ahead, I look forward to debating how we do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Alan Strickland to make his maiden speech.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on his maiden speech, and all those who have spoken for the first time in the House today.

It is an honour for me to make my maiden speech as the first Member of Parliament for the Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor constituency. I pay tribute to those who came before me. The former Sedgefield constituency makes up the majority of the new seat. In addition, we have taken Spennymoor and Tudhoe wards from Bishop Aukland, and Coxhoe ward from City of Durham. I wish to put on record my thanks and pay tribute to Paul Howell and Dehenna Davison for their public service, and to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for her continuing dedication to her constituents.

Unlike some former Members of this House, I am not fluent in Latin, but I am assured that the motto of my hometown translates as “Not the Least, but the Greatest we seek.” This has not only served as a powerful statement of intent for the new town of Aycliffe since 1947, but captures the shared spirit of the towns and villages across this new constituency—varied in history, but united in a desire to get on, to do well, to strive for a better future. My own family’s story is testament to this spirit of aspiration that has long defined the working people of our country.

Several generations ago, both sides of my family were drawn from mining villages across England to the Durham coalfields because of their reputation for good wages and reliable work. In turn, my grandparents moved from pit villages to Aycliffe new town, home for two years to the late Lord Beveridge, in search of modern housing and better jobs for their children. My parents’ generation then worked hard to give us the opportunities that they never had, including higher education, the chance to work across the country and across the world and personal freedoms to flourish. This ethos—that each generation raises the next, that background be no barrier, and that opportunity be distributed as widely as talent—is the driving force in families in my constituency and a lodestar for this Government.

But making that a reality requires strong economic growth across our country. We must back the industries of the future, such as Hitachi Rail in my constituency, which manufactures world-class, green trains, and employs 700 highly skilled workers and another 1,500 in the supply chain. I thank a former Member of this House, Phil Wilson, for his tireless campaign, alongside The Northern Echo, which led to the plant being located in the area some years ago. I am also grateful for the public commitments made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary to support Hitachi’s future. I look forward to working with them to secure those jobs and expand high-tech manufacturing more widely. That includes the innovative work at Sedgefield’s NETPark. This Durham University spin-off hub develops innovative products in satellite technology, drug development and biological weapon detection, which are then exported around the globe. The creation of jobs in the industries of the future is particularly important in a constituency with former mining communities, where ongoing economic development is badly needed.

I do not want the House to think that my constituency is all work and no play. We are famous for the Sedgefield ball game—a historic Shrove Tuesday tradition not for the faint-hearted. We are home to excellent football clubs, including Newton Aycliffe, where my parents served on the committee, and Spennymoor Town. Spennymoor itself typifies our rich cultural history, with a heritage trail dedicated to Norman Cornish, one of the pitmen painters, who learned his craft alongside his mining in the Spennymoor settlement.

Some of the best brass bands in the country can also been found in the constituency. They not only keep alive the cultural traditions of our past, but provide excellent, high-quality music education for new generations of young people today. We are also home to incredible local produce, including artisan chocolate made in Coxhoe, and award-winning real ale brewed at the Surtees Arms in Ferryhill—I have personally quality-assured the latter on several occasions. On the topic of ale, my predecessor Tony Blair was noted for hosting world leaders in pubs across the constituency. I have yet to find a pub without a photo of the former Prime Minister and his closest NATO allies, but my diligent search continues.

Finally, I am proud of our thriving community organisations. The Ladder Centre does invaluable work to support residents, and the Cornforth Partnership is a lifeline for those looking to get back into work. Just as Durham coal powered our economy in the past, so constituencies such as mine can power our modern economy, with high-tech, green manufacturing and research.

Let me return to where I began—“Not the Least, but the Greatest we seek.” Mr Deputy Speaker, in this House, let us commit ourselves to seek the greatest—the very best—for our constituents, for our communities and for our great nation. I look forward to seeing the economic measures in the King’s Speech start to spread wealth, growth and opportunity to every corner of this United Kingdom, including the people of Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Greg Stafford to make his maiden speech.

[Greg Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on his maiden speech. I do not think that we crossed over at university, but mutual friends tell me that he was an excellent president of the Oxford Student Union. We can tell that his debating skills were honed there, and we saw that in evidence this evening.

I want to express my gratitude to the people of the new Farnham and Bordon constituency for placing their trust in me and for allowing me the honour to represent them here in Parliament. I feel that giving a maiden speech is a bit like giving a best man’s speech at a wedding, as you are surrounded by disapproving elderly relatives who are going to hang on every word, but I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that none of the jokes that I have made before in any best man’s speeches will be given in this House, especially as I know that my mother-in-law is watching on the Parliament channel.

I also wish to thank my family—especially my wife, Caroline, and my daughters, Susannah and Lucy, who have put up with me a lot over the past year—for their patience and support, as well as my parents, James and Theresa.

Other hon. Members have noted that they are not the first people in their family to be Members of Parliament. I am not even the first sibling to be a Member of Parliament. I pay tribute to my brother, Alexander, who served the people of the Rother Valley constituency so diligently in the previous Parliament.

Apparently, it is also customary to express gratitude to our predecessors in the seat—a small political obituary, as it were. Fortunately, both my immediate predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), are still, as Members can see, very much in their political prime. None the less, I want to thank them for their generous support and advice since I was selected. They have both achieved amazing things for the constituents whom I have inherited. Campaigning was a sobering affair. On the doorsteps I was told: “Oh, we do like Jeremy”, or “Damian did such wonderful stuff for us”, or “You have very big shoes to fill”. To rub salt into the wound, the week before the election, the local paper ran a story on how much the people of Haslemere would miss the shadow Chancellor—believe me, I know my place.

Speaking of predecessors, the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, Lord Arbuthnot, should be praised for his sterling work on the Horizonscandal and for bringing justice to the sub-postmasters so cruelly affected. I still hope that those who were responsible—by act or omission—are brought to justice.

The newly created Farnham and Bordon is a county constituency crossing Surrey and Hampshire, making the life of a new Member of Parliament even more complex than it already is. More than that, the name, while referencing the two largest towns in each county, ignores the other towns of Haslemere and Liphook and the many villages that range between the larger population centres. Many argued for, and I supported, a less specific but more all-encompassing name for the constituency, such as the Wey Valley, taking its name from the beautiful River Wey that runs through it. Clearly they are not romantics in the Boundary Commission, so Farnham and Bordon stuck. The only saving grace is that its initials spell FAB, which sums up the area that I represent.

This “FAB” constituency ranges from Farnham in the north to Haslemere and Liphook in the south, Whitehill and Bordon in the west, and the western villages of Surrey, such as Tilford, in the east. Bookended by the north and south downs, it is an area of outstanding beauty, with thriving market towns, pleasant villages, and a thriving sports and arts scene, including the prestigious University for the Creative Arts. It also has a significant military connection, most obviously in Bordon, which was home to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers until 2015 and is home to the Longmoor ranges, where Ukrainian troops are being trained. Military history is everywhere, from Amesbury school in Haslemere and Hindhead, where Montgomery lived during the war, to the Canadian war graves and memorial in Liphook, and the site of the first-ever two-minute silence in this country on Castle Street in Farnham. The residents of this new constituency are ever thankful for the role that our armed forces have played in keeping us safe.

From Arthur Conan Doyle to Jonny Wilkinson, King John to Flora Thompson, and Graham Thorpe to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), heroes and villains have been born, lived, worked and played in this fabulous constituency, but it is not the beautiful scenery, the historic gems, or the famous people who make this constituency the best in the country. It is not even the fact that my grandparents ran Stafford’s sweet shop in Haslemere for many years—what little boy would not want grandparents who ran a sweet shop? It is the current residents, businesses and community spirit that make FAB special, and a joy to represent. Every day there are local events, charitable occasions and community festivities to get involved with. Indeed, I doubt that anywhere else in this country can rival the number of duck races in the area.

Following that Cook’s tour of the constituency, one might be forgiven for thinking that there are no issues to solve—a home counties garden of Eden. It of course cannot be denied that there are many areas of significant affluence, but it should not be concealed that there are areas of high deprivation, and I will champion their improvement. The constituency’s location is both a benefit and a curse. Within easy commuting distance of London, it provides a rural haven for those who wish to live outside but work in the city. That also makes it rich pickings for housing developers who look for any open space, green or otherwise, to build on. I am not against housing development—we need homes for our children and grandchildren—but we need the right homes in the right places, with the right tenure mix and with the supporting infrastructure.

Conservative-run East Hampshire district council has done everything that it can to persuade the new Government to modify their housing targets to make them more appropriate for our area, including writing to the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that she will respond positively. Indeed, if there is one issue that unites the whole of the new Farnham and Bordon constituency, it is that infrastructure has not kept pace with development. That is particularly acute in Bordon, where thousands of houses are going up without the supporting infrastructure. The GP surgeries, the NHS dentists, the schools, the roads and the leisure centres all need upgrading and expanding rapidly to meet that housing growth. We must not build more houses until infrastructure catches up. Otherwise we will be left with housing estates devoid of services, security and society. I am deeply concerned about the new Government’s plans on house building. Labour’s changes to planning, imposing top-down targets and removing the rights of local people to have their say on developments, is a retrograde step that has been met with anger from my constituents and resolute opposition from me.

I mentioned the need for health services in our area. Having spent most of my career in healthcare, latterly working for seven years in the NHS, improving clinical services and patient outcomes, I know that both locally and nationally things need to change in the NHS. We need to have a grown-up and honest discussion with the public about how we are going to deliver, provide and fund the NHS and social care going forwards. For an ageing population with increasing healthcare needs and diminishing birth rates—that is, the people who are going to pay for the NHS—we need a cross-party discussion that brings all parties together to make long-term decisions on how we proceed with health and social care in this country. If I achieve nothing else in my time here, starting that conversation, and hopefully progressing it fruitfully, will be something to hope for.

As a traditional, common-sense Conservative, I believe that we cannot pay for health and social care unless we have a strong economy. Despite a global pandemic, a war in the east of Europe and instability in the middle east, and regardless of the picture that the Government are trying to paint in their press releases, the most recent statistics show that the economy is turning around and is on an upward trajectory. I will oppose any measures by this Government, including the misguided nationalisation of industry and the socialist labour rules, that I believe will hamper or reverse that trend.

Equally important is to safeguard ourselves from external threats. The rise of a resurgent Russia, China and North Korea is something that we should all be concerned about. I do not believe that it is hyperbole to say that we are in a pre-war era, and we need to ensure that our borders, skies and infrastructure, both physical and digital, are safe from threats. That is why I absolutely believe that we should move to 2.5% of GDP spent on defence immediately, and increase that to 3% when practical.

In short, we must protect our economy, healthcare and national security to ensure the prosperity and safety of our country, but mindful that maiden speeches are not meant to be controversial, I shall leave it there and return briefly to the subject of my FAB constituency. In 1668, Samuel Pepys recorded that the people of Liphook were “good, honest people”. Given his own morals and motivations, I am not sure whether he meant that as a compliment, but I assure the House that it is as true now as it was then for the residents of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and our surrounding villages, and I pledge to be a good, honest servant of them in this place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Rachel Blake to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to be re-elected for the fourth time to the redrawn seat of Brentford and Isleworth, and to follow such impressive maiden speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), in whose constituency we all work.

After nine years sitting in Opposition it is a pleasure to be on the Government side of the Chamber and to support this Government’s legislative programme, which brings hope, opportunity and change for my constituents and for the country at last. I will focus my response to the King’s Speech on the Government’s ambitious proposals around transport policy—not only because it is an area I have long been involved with, having served on the Transport Committee for five years and chaired five all-party parliamentary groups on transport, but because transport was brought up regularly on the doorsteps in this last election.

The theme of today’s debate is economy, welfare and public services. Effective transport policies are essential to the change we need to see in all three areas, as well as in addressing our climate crisis, so I am pleased to see the bold and ambitious plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and her team to do just that. For access to work, education and health services, for supplying our manufacturing and retail sectors and for supporting our wellbeing and family life, decent transport choices are essential, and nowhere are they more needed than in the new communities that will be built, if the traffic on the roads to and around them is not to grind to a halt. Whether in city, town or countryside, we need the full range of transport options—ones that are affordable, accessible, efficient and environmentally sound.

On buses, I am delighted that, through the better buses Bill, the Government will end the ideological and control-freakery policy of banning local authorities from running their own municipal bus companies. Such companies were killed off by the Thatcher Government in a bout of ideological rage, with only London retaining a regulated bus service. The rest of England should have what we have in London: regular day, evening and weekend services, simple fare structures, and high standards of safety, accessibility and passenger information. Those are being developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and I look forward to seeing other local authorities—of all parties, I am sure—following his example.

To be an alternative to driving, and for us to cut road congestion and pollution, rail travel must be reliable. I am therefore delighted to see Bills to create Great British Railways and to bring train operations into public ownership. That is essential for a simplified and unified rail system that focuses on improving passenger services while getting value for the taxpayer. Our constituents, and many Members of this House, have had terrible experiences of cancelled trains, or of sitting on the floor for hours despite booking a seat. We will now see a Government and a Department that do not use transport as a cudgel in our culture wars, or as a crude electoral hammer to override local authorities that want to introduce sensible measures to encourage cycling and walking.

Transport is at the heart of the challenge of national renewal that we have set ourselves: kickstarting economic growth, boosting jobs and living standards, and building sufficient homes in sustainable communities. Of course there are challenges ahead—not least in further growing capacity in our overloaded rail network. I welcome the plan to improve east-west connectivity across the north of England, but funding further increases in rail capacity will unfortunately be financially unsustainable until we see the economic growth that the Chancellor is working on. Aviation expansion is acceptable only if it passes the four tests that we set ourselves in opposition: cutting carbon dioxide emissions, overcoming local environmental impacts, providing regional benefits across the UK, and deliverability. I know that the new Secretary of State and ministerial team will work across our travel and transport sectors to improve transport connections to the benefit of our country as a whole.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Robin Swann to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate all the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches on their passion and their commitment to their constituency, which has come across so well. Age does not wither, nor custom stale the privilege of being in this place, and I too want to thank my constituents, who have returned me to Parliament to represent them all and the wonderful city we call home.

I spent 14 years on the Opposition Benches, standing up for my constituents against a Government who were bearing down on them. It is absolutely fantastic to speak from the Government Benches in support of a Government who will help and empower them. Some Conservative Members have been painting a rosy picture of our economic inheritance, but the message of working people in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West was clear and consistent: “We need change.” It is not hard to see why. People are worse off; over a third of children in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West live in poverty; and over 2,000 households in Newcastle are homeless. Those are just a few of the issues that my constituents face, so please, let us not pretend that we should be grateful to the last Government.

But everything changed on 4 July. Indeed, as I was buying my fish supper last Friday at one of the excellent fishmongers in Grainger market—locally smoked cod, since you ask—they told me that on 5 July, sales of halibut soared. That is an expensive fish, so they took that as a sign of celebration, but also of optimism, hope, and confidence in a better future. There is nothing fishy there, because the Bills set out in the King’s Speech will give Newcastle our future back. Our destiny will be in our own hands, with the English devolution Bill and the better buses Bill giving local leaders such as our fantastic Mayor Kim McGuinness the powers needed to drive growth and prosperity locally. Our region’s immense potential in the green industries of the future will finally be unlocked through the national wealth fund and Great British Energy; planning reform will take the handbrake off building new homes and spaces for business, making us an even greater city with an economy that provides great jobs and good homes for all Geordies; and by expanding the rights of workers, tenants and minoritised groups, the Government will make sure that work pays and everyone in Newcastle enjoys their fair share of our national prosperity.

Having worked around the world as an engineer, I have been proud to champion science and innovation in Newcastle and across the UK. I am now privileged to have both of Newcastle’s fantastic universities in our constituency, and our city is looking forward to building a proper industrial strategy once again—one that can boost our universities as drivers of inclusive economic growth. Unlocking private investment through measures such as the national wealth fund and the recently announced pensions review will super-charge spin-outs and start-ups in the north-east, and I believe that sites such as Helix—home to innovative businesses and entrepreneurs in cutting-edge industries—are a tantalising glimpse of the future of Newcastle.

Technology has the power to make our constituents’ lives so much better, and measures such as planning reform will make that a reality. As an ex-shadow science Minister, I have spoken to Lord Vallance, as he begins his ministerial role, to offer my support, and to make the case for investment in regional research and development. I know that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology team are already committed to opening up careers in science to everyone, getting money outside the golden triangle and connecting science to industrial strategy, healthcare and economic growth.

As I have said, this Government inspire hope that has been lacking in Newcastle— that is, apart from on match days. That is why, as the MP for St James’ Park, I welcome the football governance Bill. From Mike Ashley to the Saudi Public Investment Fund takeover, football governance has been a thorn in our side, and Geordies around the world will welcome the safeguarding of our precious football club.

My constituents sent me to this place because our party promised change. With this King’s Speech, with this Government back at the service—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. I call Olly Glover to make his maiden speech.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to give my maiden speech today. I aspire to match the eloquence of the previous speakers in this debate, including the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who gave the most recent maiden speech; his passion for his constituency is very clear.

I start by paying tribute to my immediate predecessor, David Johnston. I admire the fact that Mr Johnston entered politics because of his passion for social mobility. I have met constituents who have been personally helped by him, and I aspire to follow his lead. I was pleased that the first email in my parliamentary mailbox came from Lord Ed Vaizey of Didcot, Member for the predecessor seat of Wantage between 2005 and 2019, offering his congratulations. That was a warm and encouraging gesture. I arrive in Parliament following a career on the railway, serving the public, and I hope to apply my knowledge and experience to working with others to advance both rail infrastructure and public services in my seat.

The name of the new Didcot and Wantage constituency is an improvement on the previous name, Wantage, but remains imperfect. While Wantage and Didcot are the larger towns of the three in the seat, residents from Wallingford are aggrieved by their omission. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you and this House that all three towns will have my attention and care. The same applies to the dozens of villages in the seat; I am fortunate enough to live in one of them, Milton. All our villages have a unique character and set of attractions. Pendon museum in Long Wittenham includes an homage in model railway form to the 1930s Vale of White Horse landscape, and there is also the ancient Uffington white horse and the beautiful chalk streams of the Letcombes. The constituency’s economy is diverse: we have the technology and science centres of Milton Park, Harwell campus and Culham near to farms that have been passed down through generations. Didcot hosts many industrial and business units, and residents benefit from the great western main line for fast commuting to and from London. Organisations such as Didcot TRAIN, the DAMASCUS youth project and Sustainable Wantage illustrate the strong culture of public service and volunteering.

My constituents rightly have high expectations. During the election campaign, one of them highlighted the lack of biographical detail in a leaflet about me, and asked me whether I was a doctor, a surveyor, a banker, a teacher, or an alien from outer space. Despite my love of the voyages of the crew of the USS Enterprise, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can reassure you and everyone in this House that I am not an alien. Of course, my constituency contains many non-humans, albeit perhaps not aliens. Many a local party volunteer has come to tire of my frequent canvassing of cats as well as humans. On occasion, this has helped my cause: while I was in conversation with one voter, his cat, Matthew, intervened. Matthew took a strong liking to me, with a great deal of leg-rubbing, even sitting on my lap on the pavement. The voter, astonished, told me that Matthew hates nearly everyone, and that his favourable verdict on me would be taken into account.

Turning to the subject of today’s debate, my constituency shares many of the same challenges as the wider country. Access to GP appointments is often difficult, particularly in Didcot, which continues to yearn for a new GP surgery in Great Western Park. NHS dentistry barely exists, and sewage dumping in our waterways is a great concern, as are proposals for a large reservoir near Steventon and the Hanneys. Many residents desire to walk and cycle more, but need pleasant and safe routes and paths in order to do so, and while the constituency benefits from fast railway connections, the reliability and capacity of the service provided can be somewhat patchy, and we continue to lack a railway station serving Grove and Wantage.

Perhaps the greatest issue on constituents’ minds is the cost of housing and recent, very substantial increases in the numbers of houses. I commend the Government on their commitment to genuinely affordable housing, but ask them to bear in mind that residents would be more supportive of housing growth were the health, education, and transport facilities needed to support it delivered in parallel. I promise to work tirelessly for my constituents in the pursuit of progress on these issues, and thank them again for the opportunity to serve. It is a genuine honour to be stood here, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House to achieve those aims.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Josh MacAlister to make his maiden speech.

The Economy

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor keeps all taxes under review. I will ensure that he has heard my hon. Friend’s comments and pleas.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that today’s good news would have been even better if the Government had implemented the public sector exit payments restrictions that were legislated for in 2016 and were the subject of a consultation that ended 17 months ago, in respect of which they are apparently unable to agree a response? Surely the Government should be able to do something about this and save the £2 billion that this has so far cost. Is not this an example of a proposal being sabotaged by the civil service?

[Bim Afolami]

I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend a few months ago on this very question, and I would be happy to engage with him on it again.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Commons Chamber

As I said earlier this afternoon, if the UK economy had grown under the Conservatives at the rate of the OECD average, it would now be £140 billion larger, providing an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services. Instead, the legacy of the Conservatives’ time in office is one of low growth, working people worse off and taxes rising while public services decline. Ahead of the general election, people will ask themselves whether they and their family feel better off than they did 14 years ago. They will ask themselves whether our hospitals, our schools or our police work better. Frankly, they will ask whether anything in Britain works better than it did when the Conservatives came into office 14 years ago. The choice at the general election will be between five more years of chaos with the Conservatives, or stability with a changed Labour party, and our long-term plan to make working people better off. The Conservatives may try to claim that Britain’s economy has turned a corner, but the truth is that the British people want to turn the page. It is time for a general election.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. I wish to speak briefly on clause 12 stand part and the new clause to which he has just spoken.

Clause 12 is a simple clause. The title is “Charge and main rate for financial year 2025”, and it states:

“Corporation tax is charged for the financial year 2025…The main rate of corporation tax for that year is 25%.”

Just over four years ago, I was re-elected to this House on a Conservative party manifesto that said that we would keep corporation tax at 19% and would not increase it. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) just reminded us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that 19% was far too high, and he had a radical proposal to reduce it to 15%. At the time, I did not buy into that leadership bid of his, but it is clear now that it was an extraordinary gesture, completely at odds with what he must believe, because I presume that he supports clause 12, which sets corporation tax for the following year at 25%. That is far too high. I voted against the increase originally, and if clause 12 stand part was pressed to a Division today, I would certainly vote against it.

It was with some incredulity that I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing North. His new clause 2 talks about reviewing the impact of section 12. The incoherent subsection (1) says:

“The Chancellor must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.”

Obviously, section 12 will not come into effect until the 2025 financial year, while the Bill will be on the statute book within a couple of months. What would be the point of conducting, within three months of that date, a review into something that will not come about until next year? If the new clause mentioned reviewing the impact of the current high levels of corporation tax, I would be with him. [Interruption.] He is shouting at me from a sedentary position. I will happily give way to him, so that he can make his point. Let us have a debate. If he does not want to engage in debate, so be it.

All I am doing is reading out the terms of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 2. If he wishes to resile from that, let him say so. I am sure that, even at this late stage, Mr Evans, you would accept him withdrawing the new clause because its terms do not bear out what he is telling us.

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. The key point of the new clause, as I am sure he realises, is to make it clear that Labour would cap corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. Does he agree with that?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, I do not, because that would be capping corporation tax at far too high a level. I would like to see it reduced, ideally back to 19%, as soon as possible. I certainly would not support any notion that we should stick with a 25% rate for the duration of the next Parliament.

That intervention was interesting. If that is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I think we can say that it is rather opaque, because it does not say, for example, “Between 2025 and 2030, corporation tax shall be set at the rate of 25%”. It says that there should be

“a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.”

What would the review look at? One thing would be how the 25% rate of corporation tax provided for by section 12 had affected

“investment decisions taken by businesses”.

Surely we know—I think he said so in his remarks—that having corporation tax set at 25% adversely affects businesses making investment decisions, including decisions on whether to increase their investments, or whether to invest in the United Kingdom for the first time. It is because such adverse investment decisions have been taken by businesses that, as he accepts, we have low growth, coupled with rising taxes and a stagnant economy.

It surprises me that more of my colleagues do not wish to engage in this debate. I very much support those Government Members who believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s main objective should be to grow our economy, rather than stifle it through high taxes and more regulation, which seems to be what is happening.

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question—high rates of corporation tax adversely affect investment decisions taken by businesses—so why do we need a review to establish that? How can he both want a review because he does not know the answer to that question, and be so confident about its results that he can announce today that corporation tax will be at 25% for the next five years? It seems a pointless exercise. One is left with the feeling that the main parties have very similar policies on many aspects of taxation.

[Drew Hendry]

That is what I have been saying.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Both parties support very high levels of tax. They are not as high as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) would like them to be, but who knows? If there is a Labour Government, then where Scotland leads on taxation, I am sure that the rest of the United Kingdom will follow. When he responds, I would like the Minister to take up the challenge from the hon. Member for Ealing North and tell us whether he supports 25% for the next four or five years. I would like him to say, “No, 25% is far too high. Perhaps we have to put up with 25% for 2025, but thereafter, if re-elected, we the Conservatives will reduce corporation tax steadily back to 19%, or even to 15%, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer aspires to do.”

[Drew Hendry]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s contention that there is no real difference between the Tories’ proposals and those of the Labour party—a point I have made many times. Does he agree that progressive taxation in Scotland has seen the majority of taxpayers pay less, and those who have a bit more pay more? More higher-rate taxpayers have moved to Scotland during that time, which has protected some of the services. That is not on offer on either side of this House.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Gentleman misunder-stands the dynamic effects of taxation. I was privileged to be in this House when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Lawson of Blaby, announced the dramatic reduction in the top rate of tax to 40p in the pound. As a consequence of that reduction, the overall tax yield went up. The burden on individuals was reduced, thereby causing them to work harder to retain their energies for what was happening in our economy, rather than taking their talents overseas. The hon. Gentleman talks about wanting a progressive tax rate in Scotland, but that leads to people becoming collectively poorer. We can see from recent statistics that the Scottish economy is stumbling and failing, because of the misguided policies of the Scottish National party.

That is a bit off the point of whether we support keeping corporation tax at 25%. I certainly do not, and I hope we get confirmation that the Government have aspirations to reduce corporation tax. When my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, he said that we need to be stable and predictable. He praised our system of complicated allowances against corporation tax. I would support more tax simplification. If we keep the basic rate down and reduce the allowances, that makes taxation simpler and reduces the need for extra people in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to deal with all that. It probably undermines the burgeoning accountancy profession, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Whatever happened to tax simplification? A specific committee was set up to deal with tax simplification and measures used to be brought before this House. That has all been abandoned in favour of evermore complex tax arrangements. Far from being stable and predictable, they are unstable and unpredictable because no one knows how those extra complications will be avoided or exploited by those affected. Hon. Members can tell that I am not a happy bunny on this issue, because we are not committed to reducing corporation tax in the long term. We do not seem to recognise the adverse impact that it has on our productive economy and our ability as a nation to grow that economy and thereby provide the extra revenue we need for public services.

I also despair that there are so few of my own colleagues who wish to reinforce the point and get the message out to our constituents and to businesses in our constituencies. That message is “Stick with us, because we find the current levels of corporation tax intolerable. We introduced them because of extraneous circumstances over which we say we had too little control, but do not worry: as soon as those extraneous circumstances are removed from the equation, we will revert to being a low corporation tax party.” Let us have an announcement to that effect today. In the meantime, however, let me say that if clause 12 is put to the vote, I shall vote against it, and I shall certainly vote against new clause 2 for the reasons I have given.

[Drew Hendry]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

Investors look at a range of factors. It is not just about taxation; it is also about regulation. It is remarkable that the shadow Minister did not mention the Labour deputy leader’s obsession with introducing 70 new regulations on business, which would hinder business investment. It is the certainty of a Labour Government’s introduction of regulation that will hinder business investment, not anything that this Government have done in office. Looking at our achievements when it comes to business investment, the facts remain clear.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Looking ahead to the next Parliament, and hoping that there will be a Conservative Government, can my hon. Friend say to all those in the business community who are watching eagerly that a 25% headline rate of corporation tax is too high, and that we want to lower it?

[Gareth Davies]

We agree. We want taxes to come down, but we are not going to announce tax decisions from this Dispatch Box outside fiscal events. It is clear for all to see that this Conservative Government believe in lower taxes. We have reduced national insurance contributions for 29 million people by some 30% in just the last six months, and the record is very clear on that.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The variety of Bills is in the strange nature of this place. We are going from the warm and fluffy Bill that we have just discussed, which I am delighted has received its Third Reading, to what is rather a dry Bill —but an important one none the less.

Amendment 2, which stands in my name, changes the procedure that applies to statutory instruments relating to proposed new subsection (9B) to section 7 of the Building Societies Act 1986. They will be subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than to the negative procedure as the Bill currently states. I tabled the amendment after talking to colleagues on both sides of the House. On reflection, it provides for closer scrutiny of the potential changes that could be made via secondary legislation under the Bill. The amendment does not change the immensely positive effect that I believe the Bill will have on the building society sector by bringing it in line with current practices, nor does it change the Bill’s aims, which will, in my view, enormously improve opportunities for people to get on the housing ladder. The result of the Bill will be a better landscape for first-time buyers, and the amendment just improves scrutiny.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I rise very much to support amendment 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). I am grateful to her for effectively taking forward my amendment 1, which we were told was defective because, although it would achieve exactly the same purpose, it does not use the normal wording that Government drafters like.

After some discussion, it was agreed by the hon. Lady and the Minister that it was sensible to use the affirmative procedure in relation to these delegated powers, and that affirmative procedure is now reflected in amendment 2. It could have been reflected in amendment 1, but what is important is the substance of the matter. These are potentially very significant changes that could be made, and if they are to be made, it is important that they are open to proper scrutiny.

As we know, the negative procedure does not really enable proper scrutiny. As an example, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that legislation was brought forward at the end of last year extending the breeds covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to include dogs of the XL bully type. I tabled an early-day motion to try to amend that. That early-day motion was on the Order Paper, but it was never accepted or debated, meaning that that change, which affected hundreds of thousands of dogs and their owners, was made without any proper scrutiny in Parliament. That is why it is important to have the affirmative procedure where possible, and I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for having brought forward this amendment, which I support.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Third Reading

HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

HMRC and I have heard and respect the views of the PAC and other bodies, including their recommendations and suggestions for improvement. Of course, many of these bodies suggest that the continuing move towards digital and online is an important part of that process. As I have said, I do not have day-to-day operational responsibility for HMRC, but I do have oversight. I proactively requested a meeting with the unions several weeks ago, and that is what I have tended to do in all my ministerial roles.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This is a welcome U-turn, but does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is HMRC’s chronic lack of productivity? Is that not made worse because so many people are working from home?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend is correct that a focus on productivity is key, and I can assure him that these are exactly the kinds of conversations that I am having. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leading a cross-Government review of productivity. HMRC staff are required to work in the office for 40% of the time. I have asked HMRC to assess and monitor the productivity of staff who are working from home versus staff working in the office, and there is very little difference. Because of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and others, I will keep an eye on it.

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I had already finished speaking, and I think the Minister’s predecessor was in the middle of responding.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is entirely my error. I did not have the pleasure of being here for the first part of the debate. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion of the value of taxpayers’ money, and he makes a very important point. The commitment I can give goes rather more broadly than that, which is that the Government will seek to make sure that any exit payments always offer value for money and that every pound of taxpayers’ money should be well spent. In responding ultimately to the consultation that the Government conducted almost a year ago, I will ensure that the point he raised is fully addressed.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend says that the Government are committed to doing something, but we are now in 2023, and it was in 2015 that the Government first resolved that something must be done about obscenely high public sector exit payments in excess of 95k. In the intervening period, the Government have been all over the place, and I wonder whether the Minister could tell me the result of the most recent action, which was a consultation paper in August 2022. The closing date for that was 17 October 2022, more than a year ago. What has happened to that?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the pace with which the Government have been able to proceed. I will write to him, following his important intervention, with the latest on the prognosis for that. I hope he will also recognise that it is not correct to say that the Government have done nothing. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) is, as we speak, leading an important piece of work about productivity across all public sector spending. All my colleagues in government are endeavouring every day to ensure that every pound of Government money is well spent. My hon. Friend will recall—this is why it is so important to get this right—that past attempts have not always delivered the desired results.

In 2020, the Government laid legislation—notwithstanding his own prolific endeavours on this, I know that my hon. Friend is not in general a big advocate of the Government constantly legislating—but in 2020 the Government legislated to introduce a cap on payments. That was subsequently withdrawn following unintended consequences, and the risk of overriding and conflicting with people’s contractual entitlements. Let me be clear: my hon. Friend is absolutely right in his intention.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The Minister says that he will write to me—I always love receiving letters, particularly from him—but the Government have known that this Bill has been on the Order Paper. It was introduced in June last year, and in August last year the Government issued a consultation paper and said, “Everybody must respond to this paper by 17 October 2022”, thereby indicating some sense of urgency. What has happened to the response to that consultation? Surely the Minister can give an answer now, rather than saying that he will write to me later.

[Andrew Griffith]

As so often is the case, it is sometimes better to be right than to be quick. Given that the Government absolutely understand and share my hon. Friend’s concerns, it is much better that when they bring forward that response to the consultation, we celebrate. I acknowledge today the first anniversary of the closing date for that, and it would indeed be unfortunate for there to be a second anniversary. Notwithstanding that, it is not the case that the Government are not making progress on this matter, and if my hon. Friend really supports the cause that he has so nobly championed over so many years, chronicling the period since 2015 that he talked about, we must do it right. We are dealing with a complex interplay between existing public sector arrangements, consultation with impacted bodies, including the unions, and the potential role of legislation. I said I will write to my hon. Friend. He will have to contain his excitement as to the specifics of my letter, but it will follow in due course.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Only “in due course”—it is not being promised for next week, even. Perhaps it will be next year sometime? Will my hon. Friend accept my interpretation of what has happened, which is that we have had eight years since the Government committed to doing this, and the score now is eight to the blob and nil to the ordinary people of this country, who are the taxpayers.

[Andrew Griffith]

I will not accept that construction, but what I will accept is my hon. Friend’s entreaties that every day it is the duty of this Government—indeed, it is the proud philosophy of this party—to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. There are many, many ways in which we can do that. I have referred to the productivity review by right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. Local government has a significant responsibility. Local government was not in scope of that consultation, but separate guidance has been given to local government, and it is the duty of us all to ensure, for example, that the many arm’s length bodies that are so important to the delivery of government in this country are entirely responsible with their pay arrangements. The Government have also separately legislated and taken action to curtail the use of non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements that prevent the transparency of daylight and oxygen intruding into this space, and that is an important measure, too.

To conclude—unless my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch wants to intervene further—this is a very important topic. The Government and my hon. Friend are at one in terms of the destination. I understand that he would like more velocity in reaching that destination. As I say, not only will I write to him, but I am happy to meet him or other colleagues on this important Bill that seeks to achieve the right balance of fairness between those who serve our community in the public sector and protecting the interests of the taxpayer.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What more can one say? This is just desperate, is it not? I would say it is no joking matter. We have made light of it, and in one sense, perhaps one of the reasons why the blob might respond ultimately is that we are mocking it so much. Up to now, it has been successful in preventing any action being taken on this key policy issue, which is of concern not just to national taxpayers, but to local government council tax payers. There is so much abuse. We reckon the cost to the Exchequer may be as much as £1 billion a year. We hear from the Prime Minister about his commitment to reducing the burden of tax and the debts of this country, but why are we not reducing this area of public expenditure? It is avoidable. We can do it, but nothing is being done and that suggests to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with how this Conservative Government are operating. They are not in control; the blob is in control. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reverse that situation so that the Government once again take back control.

What more can one say today? I will let the House know if and when I receive a response in writing, as promised by my hon. Friend, but I am so lost for words on this that I can only ask that the debate be adjourned. I do not want to put the Bill to a vote.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 October.

Financial Services Reforms

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I am enormously proud of the fact that we have recently reached agreement with all the member nations of the European Union on the memorandum of understanding in respect of financial services. That joins a number of such agreements, all of which have the objective of seeking access to as many of the growing markets in the world as possible for our financial and professional services. Only last week I met my opposite number, the German deputy Finance Minister, and next week I will be meeting the Luxembourg Finance Minister.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

By how much will today’s announcement reduce the burden of regulation on UK business? I ask that because the Government promised that there would be no net increase in the burden of regulation on business during this Parliament, but so far we are £14.3 billion in the wrong direction.

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

There is quite a history to this subject, going back far too many years. Back in 2015, the Government resolved that something must be done about obscenely high public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000 each. At that stage it was estimated that they might be costing the taxpayer at least £250 million a year. The Government legislated to make provision for that to be changed and for exit payments in excess of £95,000 to be outlawed, but the consultation was much delayed.

In the 2017 Session of Parliament, I introduced a Bill to give a bit of impetus to the Government’s agenda, requiring the necessary regulations to be brought forward. I had previously been told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Government were “delivering our manifesto commitment” to end these big payouts, and that:

“These reforms will ensure fairness and value for money across the public sector”.

In June 2017, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the secondary legislation would be introduced, I was told that the Government were

“currently in the process of drafting the necessary regulations.”

As not much progress seemed to have been made, I asked the question again. On 4 December 2017, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied that before laying the necessary regulations,

“we will bring forward a consultation in the first quarter of 2018”.

As you might anticipate, Mr Deputy Speaker, no such consultation was forthcoming, so I then asked another question to find out what was happening. I was told:

“To ensure the successful implementation of these changes, a consultation will be brought forward in the next few months.”

That takes us to May 2018, when I asked a further question. In June that year, the Chief Secretary said that the Government “remains committed” to this policy, and that the regulations would be brought forward. Indeed, they were already being drafted, but were subject to “further iteration”. We then roll forward a few years, unfortunately, because the Government ultimately introduced the regulations in February 2021, but no sooner had they introduced the regulations than they decided that the regulations were inappropriate, so the regulations were revoked. What will happen next? We were told that the Government are still intent on pursuing this policy, but nothing much has happened since.

I received a letter from the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 October 2021 saying that he would not be able to support the private Member’s Bill I had tabled in the previous Session, but that

“we are continuing to consider and develop new policy initiatives to manage spending on exit payments, including an additional approvals process, and mechanisms for clawing back exit payments where individuals resume employment in the public sector within a particular time frame.”

What has happened since then? In August 2022, the Government issued a consultation paper, “Public Sector Exit Payments: a new controls process for high exit payments”, with which came some draft guidance. The consultation period was expected to expire on 17 October 2022. Have we received a Government response to that consultation? No, we have not.

This whole policy is still up in the air. With the news that the second permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, has just resigned, I ask this question, perhaps rhetorically: to what extent was she involved in trying to ensure that this clear Government policy has been frustrated for so many years? In one of my meetings with one of the Chief Secretaries to the Treasury involved in this matter, I said that it seems as though the policy of restricting public sector exit payments is being sabotaged by Treasury officials and other Government officials because they do not support it. This is a good example of where the civil service seems to be out of control. The Government need to regain control of the process, as it is unacceptable that something that was in our 2015 manifesto has still not been implemented.

I am pleased to have the opportunity again today to press the Government to get a grip of the subject, because we are no longer talking about £250 million of public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000. It is now probably getting on for £1 billion, for all I know—we do not have that information. The Government seem to be in denial. They will the end, but they do not seem to will the means. That is why I tabled this Bill, and it now gives the Minister an opportunity to make more promises of good intent and to tell us when these proposals will actually be implemented. Perhaps she can also tell us how much she thinks Sue Gray will be entitled to as her public sector exit payment.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I very much understand why my right hon. Friend raises that point. I know he took a great interest in the autumn statement and listened carefully to the submissions and oration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). We had to take some difficult decisions in the course of the autumn statement to ensure that our approach to the economy is fiscally responsible. This is one way in which we hope to stimulate the housing market in the next two years in the difficult economic circumstances we find, but thereafter we are confident that the economy will improve and we will be able to return to the status quo as it was before 23 September. However, the broader picture about reducing the taxation burden on our constituents still stands. Indeed, I hope my right hon. Friend listened with great interest to the Prime Minister’s speech last week in which he made it clear that that is our ultimate goal.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On 17 October, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer told this House that this particular element of the mini-Budget relating to stamp duty land tax would be retained. It was on that basis that the Bill was introduced in the House. It was only a month later that we had the autumn statement when the Chancellor of the Exchequer went back on what had been said earlier.

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point as to the very, very fast-moving economic conditions we have faced in the last few months. He will recall the autumn statement and the great detail the Chancellor went into in terms of ensuring that our approach is fiscally responsible. We had to acknowledge and react to the conditions as we found them then. We are confident that the sunset clause in the Bill will enable us to support our constituents. Indeed, it is happening at this very moment in time, because, of course, we brought in the measures as soon as possible immediately after the original announcement. They are helping, for example, first-time buyers get on to the housing ladder.

--- Later in debate ---

Surely that is the part of the Bill that Ministers must struggle hardest to defend. Even if the Government are determined to retain stamp duty cuts overall, surely they can see that a cut targeted at second home buyers is not the way in which public money should be used. I therefore urge the Government at the very least to support our amendment (a) to Government amendment 1, along with amendment 15, which would prevent a tax cut from applying to buyers of second and additional homes.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 6, which I tabled, and to support new clauses 2 and 3, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

The housing crisis has been discussed at length today and at many other times in this place, and Members are well aware of the pressure that second and luxury home ownership is placing on communities where existing residents are struggling to buy their first home. In rural parts of Britain, including North Shropshire, our villages are at risk of turning into retirement villages and our tourist hotspots are almost becoming ghost towns at certain times of the year. That is having a hugely negative impact on rural skills and the rural economy, as both pupils and people of working age are in increasingly short supply.

The economic climate has changed, but house prices in rural Britain have risen fast in recent years. Figures from Hamptons, the estate agent, reveal that rural house prices rose by 14.2% in 2021, compared with just 6.8% in urban areas. The property website Property Road estimates that there are 132,000 fewer young homeowners in rural England than in 2010. I do not want to bore the Committee with facts and figures, but eight in 10 respondents to a Country Land and Business Association survey said that the lack of affordable housing had priced out first-time buyers in rural areas.

Although efforts to help first-time buyers in all areas of the country are welcome, the experience of the previous temporary stamp duty reduction in 2020 suggests that there is a risk of distorting the market and achieving the opposite. During that period, rural areas saw soaring house prices, with those trying to sell in Shropshire reporting intense competition and competitive bidding, unseen, for their home. That is all very well for those who were trying to sell, but it was bad news for anyone trying to buy a home at the same time and disastrous for anyone trying to get a foothold on the housing ladder.

Meanwhile, genuinely affordable housing—housing costing less than £250,000—remains in desperately short supply. Market prices have risen so much in recent years that it is putting intense pressure on social housing and the private rented sector, with social housing waiting lists spiralling and thousands of families being forced into temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We all know this is far from ideal for anyone who needs a place to call home, but it is totally unsuitable for families whose children need the security of a stable school and home environment. People who came here under the Ukrainian and Afghan refugee schemes, and whose family sponsorship has come to an end, are now the responsibility of their local authority, and they are also being forced to spend time in unsuitable temporary accommodation.

The potential for an accidental house price distortion makes it much harder for local authorities and housing associations to replace stock sold under the right to buy, because they are unable to retain 100% of the proceeds. I tabled new clause 6 to require the Treasury to consider the impact of these measures on the housing market, and specifically on the availability of private rented and affordable housing, because people who are priced out of those sectors are adding to the ever-increasing waiting lists for social housing.

New clause 4 would require specific consideration of the housing market in rural areas in response to the recent trend of house price growth in these areas outpacing the house price growth in urban areas, which is exacerbating the issues we have seen across the country. We simply cannot ignore the housing crisis any longer. All policy should consider the possibility of unintended consequences and mitigate that risk. These reports would better inform policy, and I urge the Minister to consider their inclusion so that we do not cause an unintended problem.

I briefly turn to second homes, although I cannot improve on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Suffice it to say that second home ownership is hollowing out villages in some parts of the country on weekdays and during the winter, and it is driving up house prices for everyone, meaning that many people cannot afford a first home. In a country with a housing shortage, the Government should strongly discourage empty second homes. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) made an excellent point on that issue.

I support new clauses 2 and 3, which would require the Chancellor to consider the impact of the Bill on the number of first and second home buyers, such that it can be amended if necessary, and specifically to consider the worst-affected areas, which are our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

I broadly support any measure that encourages home ownership, but I fear that this temporary cut in duty, at a time when the Treasury can ill afford it, will be counterproductive for first-time buyers, particularly in rural Britain. New clauses 4 and 6 would allow the impacts to be fully understood, to confirm whether I am right and to make sure the policy is well informed.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Happy new year, Sir Roger.

In speaking to my amendment (b) to amendment 1 and my new clause 7, I share with the Committee my dismay at the way in which the Government, with their amendments, are transforming this Bill, which originally introduced a permanent tax reduction. The Bill will now increase tax permanently by about £1 billion a year from April 2025.

On 17 October, the new Chancellor confirmed that the mini-Budget’s provisions on stamp duty land tax were safe, yet in his autumn statement, one month later, he announced:

“I will sunset the measure”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 846.]

That is an extraordinary use of language, because it does not fit the definition of a sunset clause set out on the UK Parliament website:

“A provision in a Bill that gives it an expiry date once it is passed into law. Sunset clauses are included in legislation when it is felt that Parliament should have the chance to decide on its merits again after a fixed period.”

I assumed, wrongly, that by introducing a sunset clause, the Government would give this House an opportunity to reconsider the situation before the advent of that sunset period.

That is why I tabled new clause 7, which states:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, three months before expiry of the temporary relief period, publish an assessment of the impacts of the temporary relief provided by this Act.”

That would meet the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). New clause 7 continues:

“(2) This assessment must include an assessment of the impacts on—

(a) the volume and value of housing transactions on the housing market,

(b) any wider costs for the Government, property industry, housing market and/or homebuyers, and

(c) tax revenues.

(3) The assessment must make a recommendation as to whether the temporary relief period should expire or whether the House of Commons should consult on extending it or making it permanent.”New clause 7 would be a proper sunset provision that enables this House to return to the issue before the change is made permanent, but the Government amendments do not embrace that at all.

How does this Bill fit with what the Prime Minister said on 4 January? In quite a long speech, his only reference to taxation was:

“as soon as we can, the Government will reduce the burden of taxation on working people.”

Today, six days after that speech, the Government are asking us to increase the burden of tax on working people with effect from April 2025.

We have also heard in the interim that the Government will forgo the receipt of about £1 billion from the sale of Channel 4, yet as recently as 18 July 2022, when responding to the consultation on that issue, the Government announced that now is the right time to pursue a change in ownership of Channel 4. Why, one might ask, is now the right time both to increase taxes and to abandon asset sales?

Stamp duty land tax is targeted at homeowners and those who aspire to home ownership. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), I am opposed to stamp duty land tax because it is arbitrary, clunky and unfair in how it applies in different parts of our country.

For example, if someone lives in Christchurch and the average price of a house is £405,000, that does not mean that they are better off. It means they have to spend more money on the borrowing costs in order to buy an average house for themselves and their family. Someone living in the Minister’s constituency, where the average house price is only £200,000, would have lower borrowing costs and would not have to pay any stamp duty land tax.

[Victoria Atkins]

This is precisely why the Government are so committed to levelling up. Although I know how beautiful my hon. Friend’s constituency is, having had the pleasure of visiting it, in my beautiful corner of England, we do not, sadly, have the transport links that other constituencies have. It is precisely this drive for levelling up, which I know Conservative Members are united on, which may help with some of the issues he sets out so eloquently.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It comes down to how we define, “levelling up”. The point I am trying to make is that, if somebody is buying an average house in Christchurch, or in her constituency of Louth and Horncastle, it should not make any difference in terms of taxation whether the house is going to cost £405,000 or £200,000. Why should the person buying a house in Christchurch who wants to become a teacher or an NHS employee in the area not only have the burden of having the higher house price—she has referred to some of those issues—but have to pay £10,000 in SDLT for the privilege of moving into the Christchurch constituency to purchase an average-priced house? I do not see any justice in that at all. In levelling up, we should be putting those two categories of person on the same level when it comes to their liability for paying transaction taxes.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made the suggestion, which I have also made, that we should scrap SDLT. If we want to have a transaction tax, we should introduce one based on, for example, the size of a property, because that would be neutral; it would really be levelling up across the country. Obviously, it would be more popular with some people than with others, but it would certainly be very popular with my constituents and it would meet the criterion of levelling up.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It might be very popular in Christchurch, but it would be very unpopular in Wellingborough and it seems totally unfair to me.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

This is the challenge, because some people think that this would adversely affect them. When we were looking at whether we should change the domestic rating system, we always faced the problem of the people who were going to be worse off, who were always the losers and who were going to complain. I accept that, were this to be implemented in the way I am canvassing, it would create some losers who would be unpleasantly surprised. That leads me to my belief that SDLT and stamp duty should be abolished altogether. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is an issue on which we, as real Conservatives who believe in a homeowning democracy, should be able to agree—and it seems from that response that we can agree on it—rather than dividing again in trying to find an alternative to an already unsatisfactory tax.

Let us remind ourselves that, in the 1980s, when we had the beginnings of the property-owning democracy revolution, with more than 50% of people in the 25 to 34 age group being homeowners, we had a stamp duty regime where the maximum rate to purchase any house was 1%. Since this process started under the Blair Government and continued with the coalition—the Treasury is always seeing this as a cow to be milked for taxpayers’ benefit—the proportion of people able to afford to buy their homes has declined significantly. So the challenge I make to the Government, and I hope the Minister can respond to this, is: if we put stamp duty back to 1% as a maximum, what would that do to increase the number of transactions in the housing market, which, as others have said, is ostensibly the Government’s agenda?

On 23 September, HMRC’s policy paper “Stamp Duty Land Tax Reduction” set out the following policy objective:

“This measure is part of government’s commitment to support homeownership and promote mobility in the housing market, in turn supporting economic growth. Increased property transactions also add to residential investment and spending on durable goods.”

Unfortunately, that was withdrawn on 28 November. It would be interesting to know whether that policy objective has been retained by the Government even though the HMRC policy paper has been withdrawn. Another paper issued on 23 September was “The Growth Plan 2022”, which I thought was great, as did many of my constituents. Paragraph 3.30 of the plan stated that the changes to SDLT would

“take 200,000 homebuyers, including 60,000 first-time buyers, out of SDLT entirely.”

Today, however, we are discussing a proposal by the Government, by way of amendments to the Bill, that would put those 200,000 home buyers, 60,000 of them first-time buyers, back into SDLT. Do we really want to do that? Do we really think it will help to move the housing market, boost growth and help people to have the mobility to get to new jobs?

This is not just about people being able to move to a new job by moving house; we also need to think about the damage to the environment being done by the large number of people who are now, having no alternative, being forced to engage in long-distance commuting. Last week, I visited a school in my constituency. The teacher showing me around has been driving regularly from Wales to do a great teaching job in the Christchurch constituency. Fortunately, she is about to move into the constituency, but that is after many, many months of that long-distance commuting. That is highly undesirable. It is bad for the environment and bad for the people involved, because it means that they are sitting behind the wheel of a car for far too long during the working week.

Stamp duty land tax is targeted against homeowners and it will have an adverse effect on labour mobility. Yet the Prime Minister, in his speech on 4 January, was complaining—I agree with him on this—that a quarter of our country’s labour force is inactive and, in this Bill, he is introducing an additional tax on the very mobility that he should be espousing. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has said, SDLT is a tax on downsizing: it makes it much more difficult for anyone to receive a significant return by selling a larger house and purchasing a smaller one.

My biggest complaint, though, is that the provision hits hardest those for whom homeownership is least affordable. The latest figures, produced by the House of Commons Library in December, show that, in Christchurch, the average house price is now 11.8 times earnings. The national average in England and Wales of eight times is bad enough, but why are we imposing that extra burden on those buying houses in places such as Christchurch? The latest figures from the 2021 census show that the dream of a homeowning democracy espoused by generations of Conservative politicians since Margaret Thatcher, and first raised in 1975, is not one of this Government’s priorities.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I think it is very sad and embarrassing that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition should be crowing at that statement.

[Mr Perkins]

Just to clarify, I am not remotely crowing. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This Government have hugely failed on allowing people to buy their own homes. It is a national disgrace. I support what he is saying; I am not remotely crowing.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I accept that I used the wrong expression in suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was crowing. But may I set out the basis on which I have these concerns? In the Prime Minister’s speech on 4 January, there was not one mention of the word “housing”, let alone any mention of the expression “home ownership”. Why is that? We obviously have a real crisis in housing and home ownership on our hands. We are facing a potential fall in house prices this year—predicted by Oxford Economics to be about 12%, but who knows? Having stamp duty land tax, even at temporarily reduced levels, will mean that the burden of the reduction in house prices will be borne by those people trying to sell to a greater extent than would otherwise be necessary, because potential purchasers will have to budget for making SDLT payments to the Government.

You can tell, Mr Evans, that I am very concerned about the Bill. When I see that the Prime Minister has declared that the people’s priorities are the Government’s priorities and that we will rebuild trust in politics through action, all I can say is that I do not believe that the new measures in the Bill accord with the people’s priorities because I think those priorities are for a permanent reduction in stamp duty land tax and even, potentially, the abolition of that tax, rather than reintroducing it at a higher level in 2025.

When I was talking earlier today to a member of the Government’s Treasury team, I was told that one reason why my amendment (b) could not be accepted by the Government was that it had not been cleared by the Office for Budget Responsibility. I ask rhetorically, “Who is in charge?” Are we really saying that the Office for Budget Responsibility is able to forecast things to the extent of £1 billion here or £1 billion there? I do not think it can, and if that is the best that the Government can do in arguing against amendment (b), I hope they will think again about whether to accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

There may be many reasons.

The capital gains tax regime already distinguishes between homes for investment purposes and homes for living in. People do not pay capital gains tax on the home they live in, but if they do not live in it, they do pay. The reason that people buying homes are overtaxed has been laid out by many colleagues, so I will not overlay that, but clearly we need labour mobility and for people to be able to live in appropriate housing. If we overtax housing, we end up with lots of people living in inappropriate houses, not least the home hoarders at the end of their working lives and the empty nesters whose kids have gone and who live in too big a house and do not want to move. That has a damaging impact on labour mobility, as people want to move around the country. It is the most economically damaging tax.

The reason I say that people buying second homes for whatever purpose or homes for investment are undertaxed is that stamp duty is a transaction tax. All other transaction taxes—we can argue about whether VAT or excise duty on petrol are transaction taxes—are flat-rated. People pay the same rate, whatever the value. We pay 20% VAT whether we are buying something for £10, £100 or £100,000. Stamp duty, however, is a progressive transaction tax, with a lower rate at the bottom end that progressively goes up, as it is designed now. That zero rate and lower rate for lower value properties is for social reasons. It is basically to help first-time buyers get on the property ladder, which is welcome, and to help people get up the property ladder. That is a valid social reason to have progressive stamp duty, but that reason does not apply to people buying second homes or investment properties. There is no reason to have a graduated stamp duty to help property investors get on to the property investment merry-go-round.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that somebody in Christchurch who is having to buy an average priced house at the cost of £405,000—as compared with someone in Louth and Horncastle, who can buy the same house for £200,000—should not be taxed double, in a sense, in addition to having to pay a higher mortgage?

[Anthony Browne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He proposed earlier that stamp duty should be based on the area of the property; I have some reservations about that for economic efficiency reasons. One of the considerations of taxation should be the ability to pay. If someone is buying a house for £400,000, clearly they will be able to pay a bit more tax than if they were buying a house for £200,000. But if the Government follow my proposal to get rid of stamp duty on residential properties altogether as an objective, his constituents will not have to pay any stamp duty whatsoever. They will pay the same stamp duty as the people buying houses in Louth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

Strikes are obviously very regrettable, and we as Ministers work closely with civil servants day in, day out, and we very much value the contribution they make to government. I will be looking carefully with Secretaries of State in the coming weeks at efficiencies across government and how we can get the economy, the country and public finances in the best possible place as we move forward through the pay review round next year.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Are the Government not just paying lip service to the need to get improved productivity in public services? For example, the NHS produced an internal report in April on its efficiency, or lack of productivity. I requested that that report be made available in the Library more than one month ago, and I have not even had a reply to the question. Why are the Government not more open with Members about the need for productivity improvements?