Charter for Budget Responsibility

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, like so many on the Labour Benches, loves to talk—almost fondly—about the former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Well, at least she knew her time was up after 50 days; we are stuck with the Chancellor for five years.

When it was noted a few months back that the entire Labour Cabinet could barely scrape together a year’s worth of business experience between them, it was thought to be just a curiosity. Little did we know it was an early warning sign of their lack of suitability for the task of managing the British economy: business confidence down, job losses up, consumer confidence in the gutter and Government debt spiralling further upwards—and they are just getting started.

There are, of course, potential benefits from the investments that are being announced today. We share a desire for a more competitive, less regulated economy based on a passion for free enterprise, but while Labour celebrates the exodus of millionaires from our country, we recognise that it represents a loss of skills, lower job creation, and the evaporation of potential future taxation to support public services. While Labour sees the attack on family farms and family businesses as a vital part of its warped class-war ideology, we recognise that putting family at the heart of enterprise is a critical piece of our nation’s proud heritage of freedom.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The shadow Minister talks fondly about the importance of family farms. Where were his comments on that topic when his party was negotiating trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that have sorely impacted farms around the country?

[Richard Fuller]

My friend, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on economics, makes a fair point about the impact of trade agreements on family finances. However, as she knows, that is very different from the pain that farmers are feeling right now about Labour’s attack on the ability of families to pass on their farm to their children—it is different in scale and in type. It is a damaging policy by the Labour party that we know, or at least hope, that Labour will change in due course.

I am sure that today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is also engaged in a series of phone conversations with his departmental colleagues as, ahead of the March update on the OBR’s financial forecast, they review what it will mean for their departmental expenditures. As he has those difficult phone conversations, I say to the Chief Secretary that we stand ready to support effective steps on prudent financial responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The charter for budget responsibility is at the heart of the OBR’s function, setting the Government’s fiscal rules, as well as the OBR’s broader remit and how it is to perform its duties. It is important to stress just how vital the OBR is for the sound management of our public finances and for the UK’s economic stability.

I am very proud that the OBR was set up during my party’s time in office, and the Liberal Democrats have backed it at every turn since. In our most recent general election manifesto we said that every fiscal event should be accompanied by an OBR report, and we are pleased that this Government are taking the same approach. We also called on the Government at the time to establish the OBR to assess general election manifestos independently.

Unfortunately, commitment to the OBR as an institution cannot be taken for granted, as we have seen over the past few years. We saw Liz Truss’s Conservative Government sideline the independent watchdog at the mini-Budget and cast doubt on its forecasts at every turn. Equally unfortunately, we all witnessed the consequences: soaring interest rates, sky-high mortgage bills and a spike in the cost of servicing our national debt. We Liberal Democrats are crystal clear that we can never have a repeat of that debacle.

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Will she also reflect on the disastrous impacts on pensions savings, and particularly on people who were drawing their defined contribution pensions at that point in time? Some of my constituents had awful experiences, which they relayed to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that many people were impacted by the mini-Budget in different ways. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from a sedentary position from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). Those on the Conservative Benches may want to forget the impact of the mini-Budget, but many of our constituents across the country continue to live with the consequences.

In the run-up to the Labour Government’s Budget, we Liberal Democrats welcomed one of the Government’s new fiscal rules—namely, the switch to public sector net financial liabilities as the targeted measure of debt. We are pleased that the Chancellor made a change that will create more room for productive public investment, while also making a commitment that debt as a share of GDP should keep falling. We Liberal Democrats have long recognised the need to boost public investment in a responsible way, and we are glad that the Government have moved in that direction.

However, as we debate the new charter, it is also worth reflecting on how fiscal rules are treated in our politics more broadly. Although they are absolutely necessary for economic stability, there is too often a sense that fiscal targets can be arbitrary and that they are chosen based on what is convenient for each Government; previous Conservative Chancellors changed the fiscal rules five times in seven years between 2015 and 2022. What often seems to be lacking throughout the process is a sober, pragmatic dialogue about what the best fiscal rules are for our economy, for everything from growth and investment to jobs and net zero—a discussion perhaps ideally not affected by politics, but focused on what is right for our economy.

Notwithstanding that, and although I hope we will all agree to these changes in the borrowing rules, the costs of borrowing clearly rely on good economic management, which, in turn, as the Chief Secretary said, relies on stability. Borrowing costs have gone up in part due to events abroad, but they have also risen because of the Government’s jobs tax, the uncertainty over their business rates reform and the impact that that will have on small businesses. It is therefore clearly important that we recognise that any changes to productive borrowing must go hand in hand with the responsible management of day-to-day spending and tax changes.

A second point, which I made in an earlier debate around the time of the Budget, is that although the Liberal Democrats welcome productive borrowing for investment, we recognise that the Government’s headroom is quite slim. Will the Minister be able to offer a word or two about which measures the Government are taking to ensure that we have a resilient economy that can withstand any external shocks? We live in a very uncertain world. There are rumours of trade wars and tariffs, and God forbid we have another pandemic. It is only by having a resilient economy that we can withstand unpredictable external shocks.

There are several elements in the charter that we support, and we do not want to stand in its way, but I express the hope that, from here on in, we may be able to adopt an approach to fiscal rules that is more pragmatic, open and grounded in what is best for our British economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

That is a very strong accusation, which I refute in the strongest terms. The Chancellor was very clear that debt would be falling as a share of the economy. That is the fiscal rule. As predicted by the OBR, we will deliver on that promise. It is right that the Chancellor chose at the Budget to define debt as public sector net financial liabilities. The big question is why. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, it is because having a Government with stability and competence at their core means that we are borrowing not to pay for out of control day-to-day spending, which I think everyone in the House would agree is an unsustainable path to higher debt burdens, but instead borrowing responsibly within guard rails for investments, predominantly alongside the private sector, to enable, for example, infrastructure delivery across the country or investment in businesses, for example, through the national wealth fund.

The reason that the public sector net financial liabilities debt rule is important in that context is because it reflects the fact that, where Government have an equity stake or have provided debt for non-commercial terms, there is a rate of return. The taxpayer receives some of the benefit of that investment and growth in the economy, which I am sure we would all welcome. There is the important difference about the type of debt. Under the last Administration, debt was spiralling out of control because the last Government could not pay their day-to-day bills. Everybody knows, whether they are running their household finances or the country’s finances, that that is not a sustainable thing to do.

That has changed under this Government. Debt will be for productive investment only and day-to-day costs will be met by revenues. Yes, that means that public services have to live within their means, and often that means difficult discussions in the spending review that I have to conduct with Secretaries of State, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. However, all of us around the Cabinet table recognise not only the non-negotiable nature of the fiscal rules, which are the foundation of economic stability, but the prize of the modernisation and reform of our public services. He will have heard the Prime Minister and other Secretaries of State talk about just that fact. There is a huge amount of opportunity to achieve better outcomes for people at lower cost, not just through basic technology but by improving the way we deliver public services. That means delivering services designed around the person and how they wish to interact with the Government. It means that people can receive support from different Departments and different functions, and they can receive the information they need at the time they need it.

Let me give one example. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—just north of my Bristol North West constituency—I visited a community diagnostic centre. The CDC programme began under the last Administration, but we have committed ourselves to it. The provider works in partnership with the NHS trust, charging exactly the same rate as the hospital for a diagnostic scan. The company involved does not make profits in comparison with the hospital costs; it is the same NHS tariff rate. People can have MRI and CT scans, gastroscopies, and other tests. The centre is attached to a branch of Asda and there is plenty of free parking.

I asked the owners, “Why are you able to charge the same rates as the hospital in my constituency while running this service more effectively?” They said, “We are open for 14 hours a day from Monday to Saturday and for 12 hours on Sunday, we sweat the assets more than a hospital can, and we have new bits of kit with AI that are more productive to use”—which is why the Health Secretary wants to roll those out across the NHS. They also said that the customer service was the key driver for productivity, because customers could book their appointments and move them if necessary, they could visit the centre after work, and they could go there between shopping trips. Essentially, the service has been designed around the patient. Patients turn up pretty much all the time, and they are never not able to do so. That is just one example of the way we are modernising public services.

[Daisy Cooper]

The Chief Secretary has given a fantastic example of how improving capital infrastructure in the NHS can improve productivity, but one of the big frustrations in the NHS is the fact that staff cannot be productive because the buildings around them are falling apart. I have seen that in Watford General hospital, where A&E staff cannot be as productive as they might be because they are in a crumbling, cramped hospital. Has the Treasury considered conducting any assessment of the productivity gains that could be produced by the new hospital programme, and by potentially speeding up the delivery of those hospitals?

Growing the UK Economy

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The Government are absolutely right to focus on economic growth, but their blinkered approach on Europe is holding back British businesses and stifling the very growth that we need to fund our public services. By ruling out negotiations with the EU on a bespoke customs union and a youth mobility scheme, the Chancellor’s dash for growth will be more like a slow crawl in a car with the handbrake on. In order to turbocharge economic growth, will the Government start negotiating those initiatives now?

To unleash growth through our small businesses, the Chancellor should scrap her national insurance contributions rise, and instead seek to raise the same amount of money through the measures that we Liberal Democrats have suggested: reversing the tax cuts on the big banks, increasing taxes on the big tech and gaming companies, and reforming capital gains tax in a way that would be fairer and raise more money. Will the Government look again at those alternative revenue raisers and lift the burden that the Government have placed on small business?

On airports, the Chancellor has voiced her support for Heathrow expansion and has suggested that expansion will be forthcoming for other airports. We Liberal Democrats oppose this, because it will deliver minimal growth at a huge cost to the climate. Can the Government confirm whether they intend to abide by the advice of their own climate change advisers that no airport expansion should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place? In the midst of a climate emergency, can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that the so-called refreshed carbon budget that the Chancellor referred to will not water down climate targets, and what do they have to say to those experts who say that sustainable aviation fuel is not realistic or scalable?

Turning to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, we really welcome plans that further boost the UK’s position as a European and global science leader. Can the Government confirm that there will be enough money for the whole of the route to be constructed on the East West Rail route, and that they will work hand in glove with local authorities to minimise the environmental impacts, introduce infrastructure before or alongside housing, and maximise local community benefits?

[Darren Jones]

As the hon. Lady knows, this Government committed in their manifesto to not rejoin the single market or the customs union. We will honour that promise, but the trade deal that the previous Government put together was clearly not good enough. There is room for us to improve our trading, energy and security relationships with our friends in the European Union, and my ministerial colleagues are in active discussions with their counterparts to take that work forward.

The hon. Lady invited me to speculate on any future Budgets. That is above my pay grade, but I am sure the Chancellor heard her suggestions. On airports, as I said in my statement, all our plans will be in line with our legal obligations. Of course, we recognise the need for more sustainable fuel and sustainable transport as part of those expansion plans.

Lastly, the hon. Lady asked me about something that I cannot read—

[Daisy Cooper]

East West Rail.

[Darren Jones]

Thank you. I thought it was “EU” again—I could not read my own handwriting.

The whole premise of the growth corridor is that we will have a transport spine through that corridor that allows for all the developments—housing, lab space or communities—around it. That is a crucial part of our plans, and we will make sure that it is delivered.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

All of our constituents are still feeling the cost of living crisis very acutely, and mortgage holders are still suffering from the misery of the mini-Budget, so the very last thing that taxpayers want to worry about is whether public money will be used to bail out banks that have gone bust. That is why we Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the Bill, which we hope will make sure that taxpayers do not have to do so.

A number of improvements were made to the Bill in the other place, as the Economic Secretary alluded to, and we welcome the improved requirements on reporting and accountability. However, as she and the shadow Minister acknowledged, there was a point of contention on the Bill’s scope. Liberal Democrats in the other place supported the successful Opposition amendment to prevent the Bank of England from using this mechanism, which is meant for smaller banks, to support bigger banks that are signed up to a different scheme.

The Economic Secretary said that an updated code of practice has been produced, but it is disappointing to hear that Ministers intend to table an amendment in Committee to try to delete the Lords amendment from the Bill. The Economic Secretary suggested that the purpose of keeping it in the code of practice, rather than on the face of the Bill, is to ensure flexibility in a time of crisis.

I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to say a word or two about that in summing up, because it strikes me that if this is not on the face of the Bill, it could create uncertainty rather than provide flexibility in a time of crisis. There is a danger that even the suggestion that this mechanism could be used to support a bigger bank could cause chaos, confusion and instability. I encourage Ministers to think again and to ensure that the restriction on the Bill’s scope remains on the face of the Bill.

The Liberal Democrats tabled a further amendment in the other place that sought to create a secondary objective for the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through this levy. In effect, the amendment was designed to protect against unintended consequences. Obviously, it could be a catastrophe if the Bank of England were required to rescue one small bank, even if that act may put others in jeopardy. The intention behind the amendment was to protect against the systemic collapse of the banking system. Will the Minister set out the Government’s objections to that amendment? Can the Government provide assurances about alternative protections that could be put in place to achieve the same goal of protecting against unintended consequences?

Oral Answers to Questions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The rising cost of borrowing will bring more misery to mortgage holders, with reports suggesting that some mortgage holders could pay an extra £500 a year. Given that potential global trade tensions could further affect the UK’s financial stability, what assurances will the Government provide that UK lenders remain in a strong position to support households and small businesses?

[Rachel Reeves]

Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are mindful of the last Government’s impact on mortgage borrowing costs for many of our constituents, and we are determined to tackle the cost of living crisis. As the hon. Member knows, I have written to financial regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority, about regulating for growth, not just for risk, so that we can help more people get on the housing ladder and help grow our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

A number of small high street businesses will be hit hard by the Government’s jobs tax and the dramatic reduction in business rates relief, and House of Commons Library research that I commissioned shows that from April 2026 the Government’s reforms to business rates could leave small and independent businesses in effect subsidising the big chains. Will the Chancellor meet me and a delegation of small and independent businesses from St Albans so that we can make the case for fairer reforms and for wholesale reform of the broken business rates system?

[James Murray]

One of the problems with the Liberal Democrats is that they support all our spending plans, but they do not support any of the tax changes to fund them. This is a prime example. When we talk about increasing employer national insurance contributions, we acknowledge that that was one of the toughest decisions we took at the Budget, but it was necessary to fix the public finances and provide support for those public services, which I note the Liberal Democrats are very keen to support.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.

Let us be blunt: the Budget has not worked. The Chancellor says that the Government’s No. 1 mission is growth, but to date there are no signs that the Government are going to deliver it. The national insurance contributions rise is self-defeating. It undermines growth—it does not unleash it—and it piles pressure on to struggling small businesses and high streets. Nor does it raise anything like the sums of money for the NHS that the Government initially suggested it would. Now we have this much-lauded visit to China, which the Government themselves say is only worth £600 million to the UK over the next five years. That is equivalent to just five and a half hours of NHS spending a year—27.5 hours over the five-year period. All growth is welcome, but this really is small beer.

What are we to make of the Chancellor’s pledge to improve existing channels with China? It is nothing short of warm words and mixed messages. The Chancellor should not have gone to China unless there was a commitment that Jimmy Lai was going to be released.

Does the Chancellor now accept that the national insurance increase will damage growth? Does she accept that there were and still are much fairer ways to raise the necessary revenue without holding back our economy and our high streets? The international market jitters we have seen in the last few days are largely caused by the threat of tariffs by the new Trump Administration, so will the Chancellor guard against the risks of a Trump presidency by rebuilding our trading relationship with our European neighbours?

After the economic vandalism of the previous Conservative Government and their mini-Budget, our NHS and care services are still on their knees. Does the Chancellor accept that wealth and health are two sides of the same coin and that scaling back any investment in the NHS will be not only devastating for local communities but damaging for economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady’s response. The Liberal Democrats opposed every decision we made to get the public finances under control at the Budget, and now they say that we need to spend more on public services. Well, I am afraid they cannot have it both ways. The only way there is more money for our public services is by raising it, as we did in the Budget—decisions that the Liberal Democrats apparently oppose.

The hon. Lady says that £600 million is not worth it. That is £600 million of tangible benefits for British businesses trading overseas. I would have thought she would welcome enhanced trade and investment as a way to create more good jobs paying decent wages in St Albans and, indeed, in all our constituencies.

The hon. Lady says that we should not go to China because we need to raise difficult issues. I am not sure how she thinks we are going to raise difficult issues unless we engage with the second biggest economy in the world. Because I went to China, I was able to raise issues around human rights, forced labour, Hong Kong and Jimmy Lai and the sanctioning of parliamentarians. We cannot raise those issues unless we are in the room. I was in the room and therefore able to do just that.

Labour is the party that put £20 billion into the national health service at the Budget in October. We were able to do that because of the difficult decisions we took, including on taxation. The hon. Lady seems to want the additional money for public services but without finding any way to pay for them. That is the way the Conservative party got into its troubles. I am afraid the Liberal Democrats are going down exactly the same path.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yuan Yang]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. I always welcome conversations with the OBR, whose representatives came before the Treasury Committee only a few weeks ago. In that Committee discussion, we had a full debate on its forecasts. It found that the long-term infrastructure and capital spending in the Budget, which is made possible by the different tax announcements the Government have set out, means that the economy will, in the long run, be 1.5% larger. I would add that the forecasts in the OBR’s assessment of the Budget have not yet taken into account all the various details of the measures that will be announced in the forthcoming months. I expect those forecasts to improve.

To return to the bill that the Government are now paying, we need to build back our economy and public services. That task requires at least a decade of national renewal. That is why in the Budget we set out credible long-term funding commitments and plans for where the money comes from.

On small businesses, I recently spent Small Business Saturday out and about visiting local employers across my constituency of Earley and Woodley. I agree very much that those small businesses are the backbone of our local economy; they bring character and jobs to our high streets. One such shop I visited is called UnderTwoK, a shopfront on Wokingham Road. I asked the owner, Mark, what the Government could do to help small businesses like his. He said:

“keep going with the focus on economic stability and clean energy. That’ll bring more people our way.”

Small businesses know that the Government are on their side. They know that, because the Chancellor increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, ensuring that the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions will not hit the smallest businesses. Those employing four members of staff on the minimum wage will not be hit by the measure. That means that 865,000 employers will not pay any NICs at all next year and over 1 million will pay the same or less than they did previously. The changes have been very much welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses.

The top concern I heard about from those retail businesses is not about NICs, but about shoplifting and crime on our high streets, which all too often goes unpunished. The funds raised in the Budget allow us to employ over 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers, police community support officers and special constables by 2029. They will also fund 1,200 new police officers. Introducing the specific offence of assaulting a shop worker and attaching prison time to that offence is backed up by the commitment to put £2.3 billion towards prison builds over the next two years. That is an example of how we are helping small businesses: not just by talking the talk, but by walking the walk fiscally.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yuan Yang]

I have taken two interventions, which was the number I set for myself, and we do like sticking to numbers on the Government Benches.

I am proud that the Labour Government are asking the wealthiest individuals and largest businesses to pay a little more, so we can rebuild the foundations of our broken economy. That means: more money into the NHS, with £25 billion in NHS funding over the next two years, which is sorely needed in my constituency and across the country; and £7 billion for education in the next financial year, including £1 billion for SEND. Those are the kinds of decisions that would not be possible under the March 2024 forecast. Opposition Members may look at the OBR assessment of that forecast if they are in any doubt about that. Those decisions would not be possible if the Government were not taking important and serious decisions. That is why I stand, very happily, to support the Budget that we set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

Part-time workers, especially in the hospitality sector, will be very badly affected. Before these changes a person could work 14 hours a week without incurring employers’ national insurance contributions, but that has now been reduced to eight hours, which will be very disruptive to weekend shifts in particular. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is an especially negative consequence of the changes?

[Aphra Brandreth]

That is another important point, about yet another group who will be badly impacted by these ill thought-through changes. I urge the Government to think again, and to back these very necessary amendments.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I support the measures in the Budget. Given the speech that we heard from the shadow Minister, before we get into the policy I want to pause and acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of small businesses in my constituency and throughout the country. Every single day, countless individuals take on the challenge of building and running these vital organisations. The task is not always easy, but it is a labour of love, involving long hours, personal sacrifice and financial risk. These businesses are the heartbeat of our communities and the backbone of the British economy, and we all owe them our deepest gratitude. I have had the privilege of working for small businesses and witnessing at first hand the dedication that it takes. Members of my family have run small businesses, so I know how personal it is. It is not just a job; it is a way of life, and a commitment to local community. We must celebrate and support the work of those businesses at every turn.

Since becoming an MP, I have made it a priority to listen to small business owners. Their stories, their challenges and their hopes drive, and will continue to drive, my work in this Chamber, and let make it clear that this Government stand firmly behind them and will continue to do so. That is why I am proud that the Chancellor has agreed to raise the employment allowance to £10,500, a move that ensures that the smallest half of businesses will see either no increase or a reduction in their national insurance bills. It is a lifeline for the businesses that need it the most—and let us dispel the myths we have heard from Opposition Members: 75% of the funds raised from this policy will come from the largest 2% of businesses. But my plea to every single member of the Government is this: please keep engaging and listening to small businesses, because they continue to need our support.

I am sorry, but I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on supporting small businesses when they have spent 14 years making their lives miserable. When their Government came to power I was working in the kitchen of a small business, the Dolphin pub in Newport Pagnell High Street; admittedly there was a bit of nepotism there, as my uncle Trev was the landlord. Back then the high street was alive, but today it tells a very different story. Many buildings are shuttered, pubs have closed, and a number of our small businesses have been lost. Under the last Tory Government, 10 pubs closed every single week—including, I have just read, many in the shadow Minister’s constituency. In 2022 alone, 345,000 small businesses shut their doors. Members can walk up and down any high street in the country today and observe the toll. This Government are determined to turn the tide.

Too many shelves are empty after being raided by out-of-control shoplifters. The revenue raised through the national insurance changes means that the country can afford our manifesto commitment to 13,000 more police officers and staff who can crack down on the shoplifters who are affecting many small businesses—and, as an aside, we will reverse the outrageous Conservative decision not to pursue shoplifters for thefts of goods worth less than £200. Too many businesses, including some that survived world wars and a global pandemic, were put at risk by the spiralling costs and interest rates caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget. The revenue raised from this Budget will close down the £22 billion pound black hole that the Conservatives left to us, so we will not see a repeat of those disastrous events.

Too many small companies saw their energy bills skyrocket because of the disastrous energy policies of the last Government. We are setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company that will invest in clean energy here in the UK and end our reliance on foreign oil and gas.

Too many small businesses are being crippled by staff shortages, often because workers are stuck on NHS waiting lists for months. Because of the NICs changes, we can afford to put a record amount of investment into our NHS to get those waiting lists down.

[Daisy Cooper]

Does the hon. Member agree that because the previous Government gutted public health and primary care, there is now a crisis in the NHS? Although it is right that the Government want to move care away from hospitals and back into the community, does he understand the concern of some of us on this side of the House that the move to increase national insurance contributions on GPs, dentists and pharmacists will actually undermine that drive?

[Chris Curtis]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I refer her back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). Our tax system has got even more complicated, particularly after the last 14 years, and we do not want to see the level of complexity, which costs businesses and organisations, continue to spiral out of control. It is important that we make these changes in a simple way, but extra money is going into our NHS and will be flowing through the system. At the moment, the Department of Health and Social Care is looking at how to make sure that the extra funding is spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. I look forward to hearing soon from the Health Secretary about how that money will benefit all elements of our national health service, but I do not think that that is a reason to add extra complexity to an already complex tax system.

We do not want to raise taxes, and I appreciate that decisions like this are never easy—[Interruption.] The Conservatives laugh, but they raised taxes to record levels, broke our public services and left us with a £22.6 billion black hole. The reality is that they left us with no choice. Our goal is to lay the foundations for a thriving, resilient economy, where businesses can grow, communities can prosper and future generations can thrive.

What we have heard from the Opposition today is a repeat of what got us into this mess time and again. Liz Truss promised unfunded tax cuts and crashed the economy. The last Tory leader promised unfunded tax cuts and left a £22 billion black hole. The Tory party is promising unfunded tax cuts again, and will not say where the money is going to come from. That is what got us into this mess, and it is ludicrous to think that it will get us out of it. However, the mess that the Conservatives got this country into is about more than basic arithmetic; it was a complete failure to achieve any economic growth.

If growth in the UK had simply matched the OECD average, workers would have £5,000 more in their pay packets and the Treasury would have £50 billion more in tax revenues, without having to raise a single penny in tax. Just imagine how much better families would feel with that money in their pockets. We would not need to raise any taxes today if we had the extra tax revenue that was stolen from us by the Conservatives’ failure. Instead, they trapped us in a cycle of low growth, low productivity and low investment. That is the grim legacy of a Government who failed to create conditions for businesses to thrive. From a chaotic planning system to a revolving door of four Chancellors in five years, they have sown uncertainty at every single turn. Let us not forget the economic self-harm of Brexit, which was executed without a clear plan.

The Budget, including the NICs changes—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

Let me reach the hand of co-operation across the House to the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to finally work on what would be a genuinely affordable and accessible childcare system in this country. However, I will temper his enthusiasm, because his party made things worse. Under the previous Government, there was a 50% reduction in childcare place. We saw nurseries closing time and again because of the changes his Government made. We are starting from a foundation where the places simply do not exist. For the places that are there, too often it is those who can well afford childcare who are taking them.

If we are to get to a position where we have the childcare places we need, so that every child can get the best start in life in this country, we need to invest. We need to ensure that we save what is there and encourage those nurseries that can expand to do so. If we do that, we will reap the rewards, both in the Exchequer and in society. That is why early years provision matters to the future of this country.

Research by the Education Policy Institute shows that 40% of the disadvantage gap at the age of 16 has already emerged by the age of five. Equally, investment in early years means we could save £16 billion a year later, according to the London School of Economics. It also means we will get more money, because more people—mothers, fathers and carers—can make the choice to work and pay tax.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case about the need to invest to save. When we invest upstream in our public services, that often saves money for the taxpayer further down the line. Does she agree with the Liberal Democrats that that could be equally applied to investing in GPs, dentists and pharmacists to relieve pressure on the NHS?

[Ms Creasy]

I have worked with the hon. Lady on various issues, and I hope she will give me the latitude to expand my argument and set out my proposals, which we could move forward on together as a House. I do not doubt her sincerity, but I also recognise the fiscal destruction of the previous Government that we need to deal with, which means we need to tell the British public the truth about what needs to happen. Making unfunded promises is as bad as not promising to act.

Parent surveys show that a real difference is made when 30 hours of childcare is offered. That amount of childcare enables families to make choices about getting back into work. If we want to get to 30 hours by September next year, we need 60,000 additional childcare places and 29,000 extra members of staff. If we do not have fundamental root and branch reform of how we fund the provision of childcare, that will cost about £72 million extra a year on hiring staff alone. That is the challenge we face if we want to get this right.

I know how hard the Minister is working to get the economy growing again. I know he is going to hear pleas from every single sector about the impact of the national insurance changes; nobody should be under any illusion that they are not difficult changes. I make a plea for the childcare sector because I believe that in the end, it will pay for itself. If we are able to get more people back to work, especially mums, who all too often end up bearing the burden of childcare, we will be able to raise more taxes and there will be more investment as a result.

That is particularly true of the childcare sector because it is a people-intensive industry. Staffing costs make up 75% of a nursery’s running costs, compared with 30% for the average restaurant. Because the previous Government systemically failed to invest in childcare, the majority of childcare has been provided by the private sector. Some 85% of places are delivered outside the state sector. There is little flexibility on numbers in the sector, because ratios—the number of people looking after little people—matter. These are not businesses with small numbers of staff; an average nursery has 14 members of staff, which means the additional costs will be about £36,000 to £39,000 a year. Around £14,000 of that will be national insurance.

Many Members agree that we need to invest in that childcare and will be pleased to see this Government trying to address the balance. The damage done under the previous Government meant that 83% of nursery providers said the funding they received did not cover their costs. That is why closures increased by 50% in the last couple of years. This Government have already increased the funding for our nurseries, but while that takes account of increases in wages costs, it does not take account of the increases in national insurance.

I tabled new clause 4, which is about having a review of one element of all that, to ensure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face when trying to get more people into work. We recognise that extra national insurance costs may have consequences, be they recruitment freezes, reduced staff training or even closures, at a time when we want the sector to expand. Indeed, the majority of nurseries have staff vacancies, so they need extra people already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

Again, if my hon. Friend bears with me, I will get to that point, but I absolutely agree in principle that taxation in this country should fall on those most able to make that contribution. There is also a question about how we spend that money and use it in preventative services. Again, there is an argument to be had about how much of the money given to, for instance, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board is spent on reactive services that treat people, as opposed to preventative services that keep people well in the first place. There is definitely a discussion to be had in our communities about whether the commissioning bodies that have the money are commissioning the preventative services necessary to reduce acute demand.

Last Friday I listened to the charities convened by Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, and they themselves said that their biggest challenge before the national insurance increase was even mooted was the fact that they cannot get recurring funding year on year from health bodies, councils and the public sector. When they manage to get to the end of a project, they are told, “You’ve done that project. Come up with something new.” They are asked to redesign their service to chase a pot of money in order to deliver what essentially is the preventative service that stops the more acute services from facing greater demand. Again, we as a nation need to have a conversation—in part it is brought to a head by this Bill—about what role we see for charities in this and how we fund those services.

[Daisy Cooper]

For a long time we in this place have had debates about ensuring that the shift happens upstream in the sector, to support public health and primary care. Does the hon. Member accept that this measure will undermine the effort to put more investment upstream, and that it will force many charities to do even more fundraising to backfill the gap created by the national insurance contributions hike?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

There are so many places where the Government have spent it. Having claimed this £22 billion black hole, they promptly agreed a £10 billion pay rise for their trade union backers. Train drivers on more than £60,000 a year are getting £10,000 pay rises while in talks about a four-day week. Those train drivers are not available for the holiday season, because they are so awash with that backdated pay increase that nobody wants to do any overtime. There are so many other areas. We have GB Energy to invest in renewable energy. I was the Energy Minister until April, and there was no shortage of investment available for renewables in this country. Before anyone points to last year’s failure to get offshore wind, that was because of the price window that we imposed. We did not want to overpay for it. There was no shortage of appetite, as was shown this year. One reason why we moved to an annual programme was precisely to ensure that we did not overpay, but could bring on all the renewables we wanted. There are so many areas where the Government could instead not spend the money that they have chosen to spend.

Fundamentally—we need this conversation, including in my party—one of the things that makes the Conservatives the most successful democratic political party in the history of the entire western world, I am proud to say, is that we believe in proper analysis and deferred gratification. We have to make sure that we have a growing private economy, because that is where wealth comes from. If we allow money to fructify in the hands of those who create wealth, it will duly come back to the Treasury with interest, as the Financial Secretary of Hong Kong said many years ago, in rather more pithy terms. The most important thing is to live within our means, and to recognise the importance of feeding the private sector economy, because it is only wealth from that sector that allows us to deliver the public services that we all want.

I support new clause 1. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made it clear that he has concerns about the Bill’s impact, and I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that impact. At the very least, we should look back and check that the impact is, as I hope it will be, more akin to the growth-producing, foundation-fixing, black hole-removing vision of the Government. However, if by any mischance the combined Opposition parties are right about the Bill’s disastrous impact on the most vulnerable, the people furthest from the labour market and the rest, we should find out the truth, and whether the Minister or his colleague the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is correct.

I also support amendments 13 to 18. The NHS is the centrepiece of the tax-raising and spending elements of this Budget, and this rise in national insurance contributions will contribute £22 billion—or £20 billion; I hear different numbers at different times, but I will stick to £22 billion—to the NHS. There are a couple of ways to sort out the problems, because the system is entirely dependent on social care provision, the hospice system and ancillary services, including primary care—the things that make up the NHS. In my area, when an ambulance goes to Hull royal infirmary, it may take an hour to get the patient in. That is because patients in the hospital cannot be got out of their bed—even though they are ready to leave—and into social care provision. The Bill will make that worse. Perhaps funding can be vired over to social care. Through the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), we are probing the Government and the Minister, who is a decent, honourable man. We are asking them to look at the issue creatively and ensure that the misgivings of those such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are listened to.

[Daisy Cooper]

It is music to my ears to hear a Conservative Member of Parliament finally recognise the connection between the NHS and social care. The right hon. Member will remember that former Prime Minister Boris Johnson stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and promised to fix social care for good. Could he let us know why he did not?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady has not been in the House quite as long as I have. I was first elected in 2005, and in that Parliament I spent a lot of time—mostly in Westminster Hall, as I recall—in debates with then Labour Ministers talking about the importance of having a joined-up, coherent approach to the national health service and social care. It is clearly fiendishly difficult. The coalition Government, of which the hon. Lady’s party was a part, and the Conservatives kept working at it. We changed the name of the Department of Health to the Department of Health and Social Care precisely because of that. It is challenging, because social care is delivered through local authorities, but the opportunity is there. Before the Government get all that wiring and complexity fixed—we were working devotedly at that—they could vire funding over to the sector, or exempt from the Bill the sectors on which the NHS depends. Pouring money into the Hull royal infirmary while it is unable to unload the ambulances coming in, or get the healthier patients out, is a crazy approach. I am sure that the Minister recognises that.

I want to mention the impact on social care. Last Friday, I went to Merrywick Hall, a great example of a small, family-run, residential care home. Its 31 residents are not all elderly, but they all have learning disabilities. Some of them are elderly, making them doubly disadvantaged. The home charges a basic rate of just £699 a week to care for those people, and its staff are stretched. I met Katie, who runs the home, and her husband Carl, who oversees the finances, although the home is owned by another. It was quite clear that that they were not running a business in the way that I would recognise as a former businessman; they were running an institution that was absolutely committed to the welfare of the people in it. Between this jobs tax, which the Minister is foisting on us, and the national minimum wage increase, they have to find an extra £56,000 a year, which is equivalent to the care costs of 1.5 residents. That is the reality. That system and those places are vulnerable. If those places go, there will be a massive knock-on effect on the rest of the system.

I hope that hon. Members from across the House are less interested in the system—although it is our job to worry about it—and much more interested in the people. People cannot get much more vulnerable than the elderly who have learning difficulties.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is of course a doctor. In this and previous debates, such as Second Reading, it is good to encourage a discursive approach in the Chamber, if we are to be valuable. I hope that we will continue to gather in this Chamber, talking to each other and listening. No one would think less of the Government for making changes. I cannot speak for those on the Opposition Front Bench, but I would seek to give the Government some political cover if they found a way to ameliorate the impact of this measure on the system—and, more importantly, on the human beings on which the NHS relies.

In 2021, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, promised a plan

“to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 295.]

Yet all the analysis available to Government Members shows that those with the least will pay the highest price for this measure. In my constituency, HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care—a brilliant organisation that has had the same chief executive for the past five years—was finally getting a surplus to invest in its stock, some of which is almost as old as me, and to give its staff something above the national minimum wage. But following the changes in the Budget, it faces a bill of £3.5 million, more than offsetting any hope of a surplus, which it desperately needs in order to invest in its people and stock. The money will be taken away from that good social purpose in my local area, and instead will go into the Chancellor’s mythical black hole—for payment of additional sums almost greater than the total income of many pensioners, and for pay rises, for train drivers, so that they can pay their union fees; and so that Labour Members can carry on all too rarely mentioning in the Chamber their sponsorship by people who dictate so much of what they share with us—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central aside.

Finally, it is interesting in these debates just how few of the more than 400 Labour Members—they can all cheer on the Government Benches at how many Labour MPs there are—want to come and defend these measures. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) spoke bravely, but he looked a little world-weary. I think he has been going out and about in his constituency, so I am sure that he is hearing the same thing as me, but said a little more angrily, because he is responsible for it.

I appeal to those Members who are not here to seek change. The 2012 Budget by George Osborne, crudely and rudely called the omnishambles Budget, included a measure to bring in 20% VAT on static caravans. The Treasury civil servants love dusting these things off—they hate an anomaly more than anything. Those are the very caravans that ordinary working people use to holiday on the coast. I did not, alongside colleagues, run my campaign in the press; instead, I built up support from Conservative Members and coalition colleagues, who realised how damaging that measure would be for jobs in their area, the holiday opportunities of ordinary working people, and an industry that is 95% manufactured in the UK. People told me, “Change is impossible—this has been announced in a Budget. You cannot overturn a Budget measure.” You and I, Madam Chair, having been here some time, know that that is not true. Politics is a matter of arithmetic. If Labour Members can build enough support among colleagues on the Government Benches—they do not need to do it publicly, and they do not need to tell us about it—they have every chance of changing this. The Whips and Ministers start getting spooked when 15 Members turn up. If Labour Members can get 30 or 40, they can make a change. They should not feel powerless.

The Government could make changes. They could move £3 billion or £4 billion over to social care, hospices, GPs and the like. They could agree to our amendments. They could come up with some other solution. They have the power to do it. Stubbornness and perhaps a certain arrogance has crept in because of the size of their majority. Government Members, who go out to talk to their constituents more frequently than Ministers, will be in a great position to tell Ministers that up with this they will not put.

[Daisy Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is encouraging the Government to ameliorate their position. Does he agree that there is one very clear way of doing that today? Members on all Benches could vote for Liberal Democrat amendment 1, which excludes all GPs, dentists, hospices and charitable health and social care providers from this NICs increase.

[Graham Stuart]

Liberal Democrats did remarkably well at the election, pretty much on the back of sewage. Between water stunts and sewage, a record number of Liberal Democrats have been returned. I am pleased to say that the Conservative party remains His Majesty’s Opposition. Therefore, I urge the hon. Lady and her colleagues to support amendments 13 to 18, and new clause 1. She will find that exactly the same is achieved, but with the backing of His Majesty’s Opposition.

Finance Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor]

Increasing rates of stamp duty land tax for second properties to 5% more than those buying their home will free up housing stock for first-time buyers, and hopefully stop prices continuing to skyrocket. Before I came to this place, I was a property solicitor in a high street firm in my constituency. Part of the reason I loved that job was that I got to be part of so many brilliant projects that transformed communities, but I was always so happy when I helped first-time buyers who would come through my door, proud that they had saved up and were able to buy their first home. They would tell me their plans for the future. We would overcome mountains of paperwork. I love being part of the moment when they got the keys to their first home, and they were finally homeowners.

I got to know my clients well. Each new homeowner would talk to me about how they would become part of their local community—supporting the local football club, or working at local businesses, hospitals and schools. They were planning to have kids who would go to local schools and shops in the town centre. But the longer I worked in that role, the fewer first-time buyers came into my office. Becoming a homeowner became out of reach for most young people. There are already half a million fewer young homeowners than in 2010. Millions are stuck in expensive, poor quality and insecure rented housing. The average cost of a home is over 10 times the average income of my constituents.

The Conservative party left a legacy of the most acute housing emergency in living memory. This Government could have ignored it and let more people miss out on becoming homeowners, but they decided to act and boost the supply of affordable homes. In addition, this policy will free up more housing stock for first-time buyers. For those who can afford the luxury of a second home, it will bring much-needed income into the Treasury in the form of an increased one-off tax—stamp duty land tax—that will help to pay for the much-needed improvements in health and education that this Government promised to deliver.

The status quo is unacceptable. Our housing market is not a fair market, and I am glad that this policy will help to remedy that. It will ensure that those buying properties as investments pay a fair level of tax at the start, so I urge all Members to vote for this important change.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned against what has become, in some places, the scourge of second homes. In too many cases they disrupt or destroy local communities. However, I argue, as does my party, that this is not the best way of doing it. Clauses 50 to 53 raise the stamp duty surcharge on second and subsequent homes. I can see why it is attractive—it is an easy way of raising tax revenue for central Government—but it does not tackle the root problem. I urge the Government to look at the Liberal Democrat proposals, which would do both.

The impact of holiday homes, and short-term lets in particular, has been well rehearsed in the House over the years, but without any action by the previous Conservative Government to tackle it. In my constituency we have seen an absolute explosion of Airbnbs, which have become a magnet for antisocial behaviour and noise. Properties are taken out of the rental market, increasing demand and pushing up rental costs, squeezing many people out of the market and out of our area all together.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), highlighted the risk that this measure may pose of properties being moved from long-term let to short-term let. It may come as some surprise that the previous Conservative Government failed to regulate short-term lets properly. Indeed, when this House was considering the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, we Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to the Bill to give local authorities the power to regulate the number and location of Airbnbs—a power that is desperately needed. Every single corner of our country should be able to strike the right balance between tourism and homes for local people, where they can build their lives and their community.

We also called for a separate planning class to be created for local authorities, and we want local authorities to have the powers to levy higher council tax for newly bought second homes, with an additional surcharge on overseas residents. That would provide regular income for our hard-pressed councils, not just infrequent money for central Government.

We all know that we have a national housing crisis, but it is also a local housing crisis, because it presents differently in different parts of the country. We urge the Government to look at our proposals to raise regular tax revenue for our hard-pressed councils while tackling this problem at its root. I invite Ministers to speak to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we can give our local authorities the power to regulate the number and location of short-term lets such as Airbnbs, so that our communities are no longer disrupted and destroyed.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

Finance Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

As colleagues will notice, the Speaker’s Chair is vacant, so I remind Members that the Chair should be addressed as Madam Chair or Madam Chairman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I commend the Government for looking at capital gains tax as a potential source of revenue to get public services back on their feet, but we Liberal Democrats believe there was a better way of doing it. Right now, capital gains tax is unfair for everyone. Most people already pay too much capital gains tax when they sell a property or a few shares because the system does not account for inflation over the time they have owned them. At the same time, a tiny number of super-wealthy individuals—the top 0.1%—are able to exploit the capital gains system as effectively one giant loophole to avoid paying income tax like everyone else.

According to the latest HMRC statistics, 12,000 multimillionaires used the loophole to pay less than half the top rate of income tax on their combined £50 billion of income. Instead of raising capital gains tax across the board, we Liberal Democrats would have liked to see the Government properly reform CGT to make it much fairer. To provide a comparison, under the Labour Government’s proposals, the main rate of capital gains tax for basic rate taxpayers is being increased from 10% to 18% and, for higher and additional rate taxpayers, from 20% to 24%. According to the Government’s own statistics, the change will raise about £2.5 billion per year by 2029 to 2030. Under the Liberal Democrat proposal, we would have separated out capital gains tax from income, raised the tax-free allowance, provided a new allowance for inflation and had three different rates of capital gains tax. That would have raised £5.2 billion, more than twice the Government’s proposals.

As colleagues will hear, key to our proposal is the reintroduction of indexation—effectively, an allowance keeping people from paying tax on gains that are purely the result of inflation. That would be fair for ordinary people selling a family home or a few shares, but it would also incentivise long-term investment by ensuring that taxpayers are not penalised due to inflation if they hold their assets for a long period of time.

To summarise, the Liberal Democrat proposals for reforming capital gains tax would be fairer and would raise twice as much. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said our proposals would move CGT in a “sensible direction”. Our new clause 1 is incredibly simple. It would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of the changes to capital gains tax under the Bill on investment and on the disposable income of people in different income brackets. The objective behind the new clause is to illustrate to the Government that there is a fairer way to reform capital gains tax and to encourage the Government, in the spirit of constructive opposition, to look at our proposals in future years.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in Committee of the whole House on a crucial Bill that underpins the new Government’s aim of fixing a tax system that has become less fair and less sustainable over 14 years of Conservative government. We will ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share, and we will increase funding for public services. I will not detain hon. Members long as we have debated the measures at length already, but I want to make a few brief comments on the portions of the Bill that relate to capital gains tax.

As other Members have pointed out, we need to remind ourselves of our starting point. As the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Paul Johnson, said in his response to the Budget:

“It does bear repeating that the fiscal inheritance”

—that this Government face—

“is truly dire.”

It is in that context that the Bill and the wider measures announced at the Budget should be seen. As the IFS has set out, and Members have mentioned, capital gains tax is paid by less than 1% of the adult population—about 350,000 people. If we break that down further, around 12,000 people—0.2% of the adult population—realise gains of more than £1 million, which account for two thirds of capital gains tax. That is 12,000 people—the main contributors to capital gains tax—paying a little bit more.

Clause 7 raises the headline rates of capital gains tax to 18% for gains within the basic income band for basic rate taxpayers and to 24% for those who pay higher rate income tax. Those levels have risen to match the unchanging residential property rates. The changes are welcome and perhaps not as substantial as was widely speculated in advance. It is important that we look at comparators with neighbouring countries. Those rates, even after the changes, compare well with our European neighbours. In France, as the Minister already said, capital gains tax sits at 30%, rising to 34% for high earners. Our closest neighbour Ireland—often seen as a haven for entrepreneurs who feel that the UK is not a good place to do business—charges 33%, and in Germany it is charged at 25%, plus a 5.5% solidarity surcharge on the tax paid.

Clause 12 includes a long-needed reform in the treatment of carried interest, and I am pleased that the Government are proceeding carefully with this long-overdue measure, moving us towards a tax regime where carried interest is within the income tax framework.

These measures will, I believe, contribute to the crucial revenue that must be raised to fix the foundations of our economy and repair our public services. We need to remind ourselves of the words of George Dibb, the associate director of economic policy at the Institute for Public Policy Research, who said of the changes in the Budget:

“After at least a decade of under-investment, there is now real hope that the government can start to fix the UK’s economic foundations.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson once again.

[Daisy Cooper]

At the heart of the debate is a stark injustice, understood by every man, woman and child on the streets of Great Britain. In the last few years, oil and gas giants have made eye-watering profits—in many cases, they are profits that they did not expect to make—and they have made them off the back of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues that caused energy prices to soar. At the same time, people have seen their living standards drop and their energy prices soar. In too many cases, people have had to choose between heating and eating.

We Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021, but it was not until May 2022 that the previous Government eventually introduced the energy profits levy. It was half-hearted and woefully late. If it had been brought in when we had called for it, there would have been additional revenue to reduce people’s energy bills and launch an emergency home insulation scheme, reducing energy consumption, which would have been good for the climate, and reducing people’s bills, which would have been good for their pockets.

The previous Government effectively let oil and gas giants off the hook, by initially setting the energy price levy at just 25% and putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. That allowed the oil and gas giants to get away with vast sums at taxpayers’ expense, with the excuse of investments that they would have made anyway. In essence, the Conservatives gave them tax relief on polluting activity when they should have been doing everything to raise funds to reduce people’s bills and urgently insulate homes.

Thanks to the investment allowance—the big loophole—in 2022, Shell admitted that it had paid zero windfall tax despite making the largest global profit in its 115-year history: a profit of £31 billion. As some colleagues in the Committee have referred to, energy prices have come down since those record levels of 2022, but the oil and gas producers have still seen huge profits. In 2023, Shell saw its profit come down from £31 billion, but it still made £22.3 billion.

[Harriet Cross]

How much of that profit was made in the UK versus globally?

[Daisy Cooper]

To be honest, I do not know what the distinction is between global profits and UK profits. The point is that the levy is put on UK profits made out of UK operations. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that when her constituents cannot afford to put their heating on, she should not miss the opportunity to raise taxes from the big oil and gas companies.

As I said, Shell made a profit of £22.3 billion in 2023, and BP saw profit of £11 billion, its second highest in a decade. I hope the Committee agrees that where those profits are made on UK operations, they should pay their fair share. We are glad that the current Government have listened to calls from Liberal Democrats and others and finally scrapped the unfair investment allowance loophole, but we would like the Minister to give the Committee some clarity on how much money will be raised, particularly through the abolition of the carve-out. By extension, we would be able to see how much money could have been raised under the previous Government but was gifted to the large gas giants. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but their constituents are choosing between heating and eating. People should know just how much money could have been raised and how much will now be raised through this measure.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On 23 October, at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions, I warned the Government that an increase in national insurance contributions would impact not only millions of small businesses but social care providers. That was a week before the Budget. Here we are, six weeks on from that exchange, and we are still talking about the impact of those changes. The reason is that the unintended consequences are huge.

We all know the Government have received a terrible inheritance from the Conservatives. The Conservatives flatlined our economy, blew a hole in the public finances and left public services on their knees. In the wake of the Conservative Government, there is a litany of broken promises. They promised to recruit 6,000 GPs, and they did not. They promised to fix social care for good, and they did not. Every single year since 2015, they failed to meet their 62-day cancer treatment target. I have huge sympathy for the fact that the Labour Government need and want to invest in our NHS and care. However, I am concerned about the indiscriminate impact of the changes to national insurance contributions. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] You’ve heard this before—come on. Not only will the changes undermine growth, they will undermine the efforts to get the NHS and care back on their feet.

Over the past six weeks, all of us have heard concerns about the impact the changes will have on GPs, dentists, pharmacists and social care providers—all critical organisations to getting the NHS and care services back on their feet. We have heard about the impact on the early years sector. I am concerned the changes will drive up the cost of childcare when we should be driving it down to help parents get back to work.

Over the past few weeks, I have raised examples from my constituency of the impact the changes will have, including on Citizens Advice, which gives advice to some of the most vulnerable people; Hightown Housing Association providing social homes; Quantum Care, a social care provider; Rennie Grove Peace Hospice Care; the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire local medical committee representing GPs; DJs Play; and Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, the oldest pub in England. We know small businesses are the engine of our economy and backbone of our communities.

[Mr Perkins]

I am glad to hear that Liberal Democrats support the extra money for the health service, special needs education and social care. I apologise for my impatience, because I am sure the hon. Member is just about to get there, but can she tell us where the £25 billion should come from if not from this national insurance rise?

[Daisy Cooper]

I welcome that intervention. In the debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill yesterday, I addressed that question head on. I will try to remember my notes, which are sitting with Hansard. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OBR has said the £26 billion is actually reduced to £10 billion when behavioural changes and rebates to the NHS and care are factored in. On raising that £10 billion, we have said we would reverse the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, raising £4 billion. We could raise a further £3 billion by increasing the remote gaming duty and the digital services bill.

We set out proposals in our manifesto to reform capital gains tax in a different way from the Government. Our measures would have raised about £5 billion, so unlike the Conservatives—who did not set out the impact of the £10 billion to £20 billion of cuts that, based on their manifesto, would have been inevitable—we as a constructive Opposition have set out suggestions. I urge Labour Members to take up our ideas, if not in this Budget then certainly in the next.

We are approaching Small Business Saturday, when I am sure we will all be in our constituencies talking to small business owners. We know that small businesses are the engine of our economy and the backbone of our communities, and in many cases, they make our high streets what they are. When it comes to health and care businesses, though, I am concerned that this measure takes with one hand and gives back with another, but with no guarantee that the money that comes back will cover the costs. As such, I urge the Government to rethink these changes to national insurance contributions, but if they do not, I urge them at the very least to exclude health and care providers from these measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Citizens Advice in St Albans supports some of the most vulnerable people to access public services. It says that the changes to national insurance contributions will

“hit hard because we employ mostly part-time staff and the change to the threshold means we go from paying nothing to the full amount for each staff member. The increased rebate is intended to offset the NIC for small organisations but does not for us because so many of our staff are part-time.”

Will the Chancellor look again at the impact of the national insurance contribution changes on part-time workers?

[James Murray]

We recognise that we have taken a tough decision to increase the rate and broaden the base through changes to the secondary threshold. I welcome the work done by the organisation mentioned by the hon. Lady in her constituency, but perhaps the need for advice would be less if public services were stronger. One of the reasons we are taking these difficult decisions on taxation, welfare and spending is precisely to ensure that these public services can provide the service that people need.

[Daisy Cooper]

We all want to see stronger public services. According to Hightown Housing Association, the estimated extra total cost of the national insurance contribution changes will be £860,000 per year—money that would allow the association to pay the interest on a loan of around £17 million, which would pay for around 60 social homes. Will the Chancellor say whether she will conduct an impact assessment of these national insurance contribution changes on the number of social homes?

[James Murray]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson began her question by saying that we all want public services; the problem is that not all of us in this Chamber are prepared to pay for them. That is exactly why we have to take difficult decisions to ensure that we can fund our ambitious plans for the NHS, education and indeed housing. The impact of the impact assessment is published in the tax information and impact note, which is published alongside the legislation, which I am sure the hon. Lady will have seen. It comes down to the basic point that we have to make tough decisions on taxation if we want to fund those public services.