Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Young Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Of course we want to be able to support those women, mothers and families who rely on us in these hard times, and that is exactly what this Government are doing. Over the past 10 years, as I said, we have reduced the number of people in poverty. We know that the best way to do that in the long term is to support people into work, which is why I am delighted to see this morning that unemployment is at its lowest level in almost half a century. The single best way to fight poverty is to have a plan for jobs, and our plan is working.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

One of the best ways to reduce economic inequality is through our plan for jobs and our freeport programme. To that end, will the Chancellor join me in welcoming the latest investment announced in Teesside’s freeport, a £150 million renewable gas facility for Circular Fuels that will create 200 jobs in construction and further jobs in the supply chain?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been a fantastic champion for his constituents and Teesside in getting the freeport. We are now seeing the proof of that policy, with yet another announcement of more investment and more job opportunities for his constituents, which he rightly says is the best way to support them through these challenging times.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Jacob Young Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we cannot emphasise that enough. We are determined to address the underlying challenges we face not only with the public finances, but crucially with the backlog of care. Let us not forget that 6 million people are on NHS waiting lists as a direct result of the covid pandemic. While we do that, we will always focus on supporting families and, crucially, on making sure that, when we do have to increase taxes, the burden is borne by those with the broadest shoulders. That is what the combination of this measure with the levy will deliver.

The Bill’s first measure will increase the NIC primary threshold and the NIC lower profits limit to £12,570 from 6 July. By way of explanation, these are the thresholds at which the employed and the self-employed, respectively, start to pay NICs. The increases in these thresholds of about £3,000 will equalise the NIC and income tax thresholds, and in so doing create a fairer and simpler tax system, something to which we ought all to aspire. That means that people will be able to earn £12,570 without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance.

As we heard a moment ago, that is the largest increase in a starting threshold ever, it is the largest single personal tax cut in a decade, and it reduces the tax burden by £6 billion for 30 million people across the United Kingdom. On an individual level, a typical employee will see their tax bill reduced by £330 in the year from July, while the equivalent saving for a self-employed worker will be worth over £250.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the calculation by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that it is people who earn £35,000 or less who will benefit from this tax cut, and does that not show that our measures are targeted at those who need our support most?

[Mr Clarke]

Indeed, I absolutely do recognise what my hon. Friend says. The IFS has described raising the NICs threshold as

“the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system”,

so he is absolutely right in what he says.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents, and in challenging the Government about the harm that their decisions will do to the people he represents.

[Jacob Young]

Let me take the hon. Gentleman back a few moments. He said that he was not debating the national insurance levy, and then he continued to debate the national insurance levy. On the subject of the national insurance levy, what would Labour do instead to fund the national health service? I have yet to see any sort of plan from the Opposition.

[James Murray]

I do not recall whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the debate on the health and social care levy, but if he was, he would have heard us set out that any increase in taxation should fall on those with the broadest shoulders, not directly on working people. This Government are laying the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time on the shoulders of working people. In the long run, the way to fund public services sustainably is through growth, but this Government have become a low-growth Government, and therefore a high-tax Government. That is the truth of their economic model, and that is what we would seek to change.

Since September, when the Health and Social Care Levy Bill was pushed through Parliament, our arguments against April’s national insurance hike have only got stronger. The difficulties that people face in making ends meet have been mounting by the day. Inflation jumped again yesterday from 5.5% to 6.2%, with the OBR now forecasting it to hit 7.4% this year—the highest rate in 30 years. Energy bills that have been rising rapidly are set to soar next month, and the crisis in Ukraine will put even greater pressure on the cost of energy, petrol, and food. The pressure on the Chancellor to change course has been rapidly growing, yet he has backed himself into a corner. He has nailed his colours to the mast, stubbornly refusing to reconsider his deeply unfair national insurance hike, and that seems to be how we have ended up where we are today.

We have a Chancellor who has found himself politically unable to cancel his national insurance hike, yet also unable to ignore the fact that this is the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time. That is why he has tried to respond by making these changes to national insurance thresholds, with promises of further tax cuts at some point in the future. Whatever the merits of the individual measures, that approach is driven not by what may be the right thing to help people now, but by the Chancellor’s desperate ambition to portray himself as a tax cutter, despite all evidence to the contrary.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a huge opportunity to levy a one-off windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers’ profits. Yet there was no mention of such a tax in yesterday’s statement.

[Jacob Young]

rose—

[Gareth Davies]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress. The record shows that the Chancellor likes putting up taxes. He has been busily defending his tax rise on working people, but when it comes to oil and gas profits he is suddenly nowhere to be seen.

[Jacob Young]

rose—

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not used to being called first—this must be the first time. I am grateful to you, and it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. First, I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I now have a chance to expand on the question that I raised with those on the Treasury Benches yesterday. When some years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was asked at a meeting what conservatism stood for, he paused for about one second and said, “Freedom”. That is freedom for the individual, freedom from the state, freedom to spend one’s own money—or more of it—and freedom from high taxes.

As I said yesterday, I applaud the Chancellor for going as far as he did. But many of my constituents in South Dorset are impoverished already; we have deep pockets of deprivation and poverty. I fear that the generous moves by the Chancellor and the tinkering that he has done have not gone far enough.

I sympathise with the Chancellor and the Government: we have had a pandemic and now there is a war in Europe. Both have been out of the Government’s control and have clearly had devastating consequences on how we run our economy.

[Jacob Young]

Obviously, my hon. Friend will recognise that the inflation statistics paint a stark economic picture for this country, but does he also recognise that in the US inflation is double what it looks to be here? The eurozone’s inflation statistics are similar to ours. That demonstrates that this is a global problem, not one that only we are facing in the UK.

[Richard Drax]

I entirely concur. Yes, inflation is now spiralling to 7%, I think, and more across the rest of the world. Inflation has a very negative effect on the economy, on what we can afford to buy and on the value of our money. It has to be countered.

Given that the cost of living is spiralling and that taxes are the highest for 70 years, I urge the Government to go further. As they know full well, lower taxes generate more cash. That point is proven, and we Conservatives have fervently followed it for as long as I recall. Why? Again, as Treasury Benchers know, low taxes are a force for good—both for the individual, who is far better placed to decide where to spend their money, and for the private sector, which can better invest in their businesses, employ more staff and sustain a profit—an ugly word for Labour Members. Let us not forget that it is the tax from those profits that pays for the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).

The increasingly unstable world in which we live brings many challenges to people at home, not least the many concerns of people across the country about the cost of living and the potential impact that rises in that cost can have on family living standards. Yesterday marked two years since the start of the first lockdown, the reckoning point of the first pandemic of its kind in over 100 years. Flash forward two years and we already face a new crisis, the war in Ukraine—the first full-scale war on European soil since world war two. As we heard from the hon. Member for Gordon, the fact that the tax burden is at its highest since that point shows the scale of the economic hit that we took from the coronavirus. It is in that context that we must view the Chancellor’s statement yesterday. There are no easy choices—the outlook right now is bleak, and our focus has to be on steadying the ship, on supporting the most vulnerable and on rebuilding. We are able to do this only because of the tough decisions we took preceding this crisis, and it is not worth thinking about the situation this country would be in had the Opposition won in 2019.

This Bill is an example of how we rebuild, by setting the course for lower taxes, starting with a tax cut in July for everyone earning less than £35,000—a tax cut for 70% of workers. By raising the threshold at which we all start paying national insurance from £9,500 to £12,500 in July, we are supporting over 30 million working people with a tax cut amounting to an increase in income of about £330 for the average family. That means that no individual will pay any tax at all until they earn at least £12,500—the largest increase in the starting tax threshold in British history. It means that workers up and down the country can earn £1,000 a month without having to give a single penny to the Government. This is the first step on our journey to lower taxes, in stark contrast to the Labour Opposition, who have absolutely no tax cutting plan, or any plan at all, for that matter. The shadow Chancellor recently proposed over £170 billion in uncosted spending increases as she pandered to the hard left of her party, with absolutely no plan to pay for it and absolutely no plan for how to get more money back into the pockets of hard-working people.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) pointed out, we on the Government side of the House believe that cutting taxes is in everyone’s interest, but it is only sound fiscal management that enables us to cut taxes this year, next year and beyond. This strong economy meant that last year the UK was the fastest growing nation in the G7, and unemployment levels are now back to their pre-pandemic lows, which is a remarkable achievement considering that we have just emerged from a once-in-a-century global pandemic.

Turning briefly to some of the throwaway suggestions from the Opposition, they ask why we do not just cancel the health and care levy, but they have no alternative proposals for how to fund the NHS and social care as we begin to see longer and longer waiting lists caused by the pandemic. They talk about an oil and gas windfall tax, but with no acknowledgement that it is the oil and gas sector that is delivering the future energy security we need through investment in carbon capture and storage and in hydrogen production in places such as Teesside. They talk about increasing defence spending, but with no recognition of the fact that most of them spent the period from 2015 to 2019 propping up a hard left leadership who wanted to scrap the nuclear deterrent while last year we delivered the largest ever cash increase to the defence budget since the cold war. Labour has no plans for the NHS, no plans for energy independence and no plans for defence. It has no plan at all. We on this side of the House will keep on delivering on the people’s priorities and taking the tough decisions to ensure that our economy does not just recover but becomes more resilient to the challenges we face in an uncertain world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Does the hon. Lady accept this measure helps not only people who drive but hauliers, who move important products across the country, which obviously has an impact on food prices? This measure will help not only our constituents but the wider economy.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I accept the measure helps other people, but the reality is that we have seen an increase, on average, of 40p a litre. As other hon. Members have said, there has been a 5p a litre increase in the last week. A 5p reduction is helpful, but it does not go far enough to support those who really need it.

Frankly, lowering the basic rate of income tax is the biggest wheeze of all. Paul Johnson of the IFS said in The Times this morning that we are experiencing “fiscal drag.” The freezing of income tax, which the Chancellor previously announced, means that, even as people’s wages increase, they will pay more tax, and the reduction is not happening yet. All the Chancellor has said is that he will do it at an unspecified time before the next election.

The reduction will help those on low incomes the least. It is a tiny reduction and, overall, the tax cuts announced yesterday are worth only a quarter of what is being increased. Arguably, it is not workers who benefit from the cut but people, such as landlords, with unearned income from investments. People who are wealthy enough to get their income from savings and property will pay less tax, while the least well off continue to pay more and more. This is driving another wedge between unearned and earned incomes. I tabled a further amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath to require reporting on the impact.

The Chancellor repeatedly spoke about hard-working families—that was his catchphrase of choice—but those hard-working families are not being helped. They are seeing their energy bills go up and the price of food to feed their children skyrocket, and working parents are being pushed into higher tax brackets by the choice to freeze the thresholds. They pay ever more tax. My final amendment addresses unearned income.

This spring statement is a huge missed opportunity. I would have liked to see a packed Chamber debating legislation that actually makes a difference to people, but I think we would all accept that this is not that Chamber and not that Bill. There are so many steps the Government could have taken today but did not. We had an Opposition day debate at the start of this week on pensioner poverty, which we know is increasing year on year. The Minister in that debate said he was sure the Chancellor would have been listening to Opposition Members calling for more support for pensioners and suggesting some of the ways in which that could be done—you were in the Chair at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly, the Chancellor was not listening, because pensioners were not mentioned at all yesterday. There was very little for pensioners who do not drive or own their house—or for those who do own their house but are not planning any energy-efficient home improvements.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record, but we are looking at 1.3 million additional people, some of whom I am sure will be pensioners, going into absolute poverty in the next year. Our state pension is set to have a real-terms cut. Inflation is at 6.2% and is expected to go up to 8% in April, yet pensions are going up by only 3.1%. That was what the triple lock was designed to deal with; it was there to keep pensions in line with and up to the cost of living. As I have said many times in this Chamber, the state pension is not just about pensioners now; it is about ensuring that people in the longer term know that they have a state pension that they can look forward to, and that matters for younger generations, too.

This Government say that they oppose loneliness, but, as always, actions speak louder than words and the measures are leaving older people on their own, in the dark and the cold. There are very good reasons why some people cannot work. There is nothing at all for those receiving social security, who are also suffering the real-terms cut to incomes and are also struggling to pay their rent, because of the freeze to housing allowance—even the National Residential Landlords Association has called that out as being catastrophic. Frankly, it is more expensive to be poor. People on benefits are being unfairly punished by a system that is set up to make them fail. They are worrying about money, making ends meet and debts, and living in unsuitable housing that costs more to heat. These are not the conditions that set someone up to apply for jobs, to succeed in interviews or to move on to a better place in their lives. We know, as we have heard the evidence, that the benefits system can cause serious harm, damaging people’s mental health, sometimes to the extent that they take their own lives. This is not a system that helps people—often it harms them. We know that our economy is stronger when those who are able to work do so, but our system does not help people do that and it must be more compassionate. It must also receive sufficient funding so that those receiving benefits are not pushed further and further towards the edge.

Do the Government want this country to be one where destitution becomes normal? As I have said, the estimate is that 1.3 million people will move into absolute poverty as a result of the current cost of living crisis. The only support offered yesterday for those on the lowest incomes was the boost to the household support fund, via local authorities. That is no substitution for having a proper support system that stops people falling into poverty in the first place. As happens with pension credit, people do not always come forward for the support they need, so I echo the suggestion that anyone facing hardship contacts their local authority so that they can get support that may be available to them.

The Government could have cut VAT to 17.25%, which is what my party would propose to do. That measure would help everyone. Cutting VAT will shield our constituents from the worst of the increased costs, put money back in their pocket, and help those on middle and low incomes the most. With an economy that is struggling, because of a variety of factors, we need people to be out in our economy; we need people on our high streets, buying things that are made in our factories and marketed on our streets. A cut to VAT would give an immediate boost to every household, but it also helps us in the long term. That is what a meaningful policy would look like.

[Jacob Young]

I am very interested in the hon. Lady’s arguments on a VAT cut, which is something I would consider, as it is sensible. However, how would the Liberal Democrats propose paying for such a cut?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting point, but it is clear that 70% of working people are going to have a tax cut. In fact, not only is there a tax cut in the Bill, but we know that there will be an income tax cut in 2023-24. I hope the Scottish Government also reduce income tax, so that they too are on the side of hard-working people.

[Jacob Young]

Does my hon. Friend recognise, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did earlier, that the IFS figures show that, taking into account the health and social care levy, people who earn £35,000 or less will still see a tax cut because of the measures in the Bill?

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. This is a Bill that really helps people because it will reduce the amount of taxation and put more money in people’s pockets.

We need to make sure that work pays. That is vital. I mentioned the £400 billion that the Government have spent; they have kept jobs going throughout the pandemic. That is vital. It is why unemployment in Rother Valley is only 3.6%, which is below the national average. Of course, that still means that 2,000 people in my seat are actively looking for jobs, which is why last Friday I held the first ever Rother Valley jobs fair. It was a great success: there were more than 30 employers and hundreds of people turned up, and I am told that dozens of people have already got jobs out of it. That is the Conservative view on the ground in a constituency, helping with jobs, and the Government are doing that nationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Chancellor’s spring statement left households and businesses across Luton South to fend for themselves in the middle of a cost of living crisis, as we are set to see this year the biggest drop in incomes on record. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that real household disposable income will fall over the next two years, leading to

“the biggest fall in living standards in any single financial year since ONS records began in 1956-57”.

Britain is facing the highest tax burden in 70 years, with the Chancellor confirming £24 billion in tax rises this year. For every £6 the Chancellor has taken in tax since he became Chancellor, he is giving back just £1 today. This situation cuts to the heart of the Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy, structured on low investment, low pay and low growth. It also shows their total disregard for the hardship that my constituents in Luton South are facing. Whether it is that people cannot afford the soaring heating bills, the petrol at the pump or the rising food prices, it is our communities that are suffering right now.

The Bill represents just one aspect of the Chancellor’s sleight-of-hand approach to the management of public finances, which is based more on feathering the nest of his own popularity—or, dare I say, his Instagram account—than it is on building an economy based on high growth, high productivity and higher redistribution. Although increasing the national insurance contributions threshold will provide some respite, it will deliver twice as much benefit to the top 50%—the top half of earners—as it will to those in the lower half. And it cannot be considered in isolation. The Chancellor announced in the 2021 autumn Budget that national insurance contributions rates would rise from 12% to 13.25%. Overall, that tax increase is regressive: those earning more than £100,000 a year could end up paying proportionately less. Notwithstanding the threshold change, the rate will be around 13.25% on most earnings up to £50,000 but just 3.25% on any income above that threshold. For all the references earlier in the debate about everyone paying their fair share, I am not sure that is the case.

[Jacob Young]

The hon. Lady mentioned the health and social care levy; does she recognise the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies)? The top 14% of earners will pay 50% of the levy. Surely that demonstrates that the levy is more progressive.

[Rachel Hopkins]

There are many ways to cut a cake. The people in my constituency know what fairness is and they know that they are paying disproportionately more in their everyday lives.

Could the Chancellor point to any other major economy that is putting up taxes on working people this April? The policies in the spring statement are poorly targeted and not grounded in fairness. According to the response from the Institute for Public Policy Research, they will help the wealthiest households four times more than they will help the poorest. Alongside the lack of support in the spring statement, wages are forecast to fall in value by 2% this year, which is equivalent to a real-terms cut of £552.

We have heard much about a parallel universe, but it is clear whose side the Conservative Government are on. They are certainly not on the side of the pensioners, families on universal credit and children living in poverty in Luton South, who face the choice of heating or eating. I wish the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) was still in the Chamber. I listened intently to his comments about freedom; if someone cannot afford to heat their home or feed their kids, they do not have much freedom. For those on the very lowest incomes, there is nothing. There is nothing for those unable to work or those who are unemployed.

The reform places a greater level of tax on almost all workers. The Government’s negligence will lead to increased fuel poverty. Government Members may try to point, again, to the household support fund. A colleague told me earlier that for those under the income threshold, the increase would be equivalent to 6p a day.

[Jacob Young]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Hopkins]

One more time.

[Jacob Young]

We are talking about the second tranche of the household support fund. The first tranche of £500 million was announced last year. Luton got £1.83 million from that fund, which I am sure was helpful to her constituents. They will get a further share from the second tranche. Does the hon. Lady welcome that?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am really pleased that the hon. Member is able to remember that figure; I hope he is also able to remind the House of the more than £100 million that has been taken away from Luton council over a decade of Tory austerity, which is why so many of the families in my constituency are living in poverty and are in fuel poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

It is, actually, a pleasure to follow the considered and well thought out speech of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I agreed with some of the principal points that he made, particularly the need for this to be an ongoing discussion. We cannot allow what has been suggested today to be the full stop at the end of the sentence; we must allow the debate to carry on so that we can have those broad discussions. I share his concerns, which are also articulated in my own communities, about the plight and the difficulties that pensioners face. People on limited incomes make up a large proportion of my constituents, and also of the communities that I live in and have been brought up in.

Coming in at this point of a debate means that we have already had intensive discussion of the facts and the figures and what the OBR and the IFS have said, and I do not wish to regurgitate all the things that hon. and right hon. Members have said. None the less, we are facing an unprecedented situation. Broadly speaking, the interventions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday were welcome. As we have discussed, the balancing of the national insurance personal thresholds will enable, to a degree, a tax cut for hard-working people in this country. The levelling up—for want of a better expression—of those rates forms part of a broader package.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who is back in his place, talked about a one-off windfall tax. He strikes me as someone who will go very far on the Labour Front Bench, so I do not want to stunt his political career by agreeing with what he said. None the less, he does make an interesting point about a windfall tax. I have listened intently to the debate about this. My concern about a windfall tax, which might perhaps improve or be slightly better than what is being proposed today, is the broader unintended consequences that it might bring, such as that tax being passed on to consumers. Many many hon. and right hon. Members throughout the Chamber have picked up on that point today. We are dealing with multinational corporations, many of which have complex tax structures and people who are paid very well to avoid and to dodge tax, often using international laws. The one-off nature of what is being proposed, therefore, makes it very difficult to build a legislative framework that would operate in a way that would enable us to derive the benefit.

I do not disagree with Opposition Members about energy companies making exorbitant profits, because we see the figures. The point I come back to, though, is allowing any measure actually to be deliverable. That was a point I made when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the start of the debate. It is about operational delivery—it is not just a slogan; it is about reality. It is about ensuring that people on the ground, who either derive the benefit or face the impact of what we decide in this place, can actually see that. My concern with what Labour is proposing is that, while on paper there are some interesting proposals, in reality, I question whether some of it can be delivered. My concern is the unintended consequence of my constituents bearing the brunt of increased prices as a result of those proposals.

[Jacob Young]

One of the oil and gas companies whose name is batted around the Chamber is BP. BP is investing millions of pounds in Teesside in its new carbon, capture and storage facility, Net Zero Teesside, alongside Hydrogen Teesside, which is a hydrogen production facility. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that these are energy sources of the future, and that the investment we are seeing right now is important in building our future energy security? If we were to go down the route that Labour is proposing, it is feasible that many energy companies would pull out of their investment in green technologies of the future, which we are so desperate to see.

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend has been endowed with some form of clairvoyance today; it is almost as if has seen the second part of the point that I was about to make. He is absolutely right. We have to take a two-pronged approach. The fact is that these companies are investing, particularly in areas such as his. They are vital stakeholders in the future sustainability of energy in this country, so we cannot just take a pull-the-rug approach, or treat them completely as the bad guys. Yes, of course, exorbitant profits are being made. I acknowledged that in the first part of my speech; I am not denying that. The focus of what the Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done is to try to put the burden on those the broader shoulders, and that is the point that I am trying to drive home. My hon. Friend is right, though, that we must ensure that we encourage these organisations to continue to invest not only in the sustainability of our energy market, but in ensuring that we get the jobs and skills we need for people to realise the ambitions that we put forward in the spring statement yesterday. He is, of course, absolutely right in his intervention, and I thank him for it.

I was very pleased yesterday to see the letter sent by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Business Secretary to the petroleum companies, saying that the cost benefits as a result of the fuel duty reduction—I am sure there will be chunterings and arguments that it was not enough—should be reflected on the forecourt. That was the right thing to do.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary is on the Front Bench, may I also say that I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to a value for money committee, which is being set up? I know she will respond more broadly on HMRC’s implementation of some of these NI measures, but it is vital that we ensure value for money and delivery on the ground for constituents —never more so than with the Bill we are debating today.

I should say that I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and value for money is our raison d’être. I am concerned that we often put things in place without thinking about how they are reflected on the ground and what value for money actually means there. For my constituents, particularly the most vulnerable, this is about ensuring, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, that they can buy their school uniform and meet the additional costs they will face as a result of where we are now.

When we talk about the changes in the NI threshold rates, I think particularly of the many sole traders and small businesspeople in my constituency who will have to navigate this change, building systems and putting them in place. It is therefore right that the Government have sought, rather than bringing in this change straight away, to delay it to July to allow that process to be embedded. I make a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to ensure that HMRC has the systems to do that, because there have been times when I have not been impressed with HMRC and the way it has implemented such things. It is vital that the Treasury get a grip on that, to ensure that we can unleash the full benefit of what this measure is intended to do. In my very short time here, compared with many others in this place, I have learned that, whatever our political objectives and political will on particular measures, delivery on the ground can be very different and can sometimes mar them. The plea I hope she takes away from my comments is to ensure that this measure can be realised and benefit our constituents more broadly.

As I said at the start of my contribution, this is about a broader range of packages. Touching on what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, this Bill cannot be the end of the conversation; it must be the beginning.

[Jacob Young]

Yesterday, the Chancellor published his tax plan, which sets a course for the first income tax cut in many, many years—I am not sure how many—for working people across the country. Does my hon. Friend welcome those steps, which give tax certainty to both constituents and employers?

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is the certainty in that plan that allows us to move forward. That is the point I want to drill down on, and he has articulated it much more eruditely than me—it is obviously the fantastic focus he has, being a Teessider. Publishing a plan that sets a clear roadmap, as our right hon. Friend the Chancellor did yesterday, is vital so that we know where we are going and the fiscal interventions we will have to make to help people. That is what people are looking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak today, having been unable to get in yesterday.

Clearly, as we have heard from across the Chamber, a lot of people are hurting right now. Some might suggest that Warwick and Leamington would be deemed a relatively prosperous community, but there is real deprivation in all our communities. It is those who are on the lowest incomes, the pensioners and those on welfare, who will be—who are being—hit hardest.

While I can see the Chancellor is an ambitious individual, what was most disappointing about his statement yesterday was that, with the exception of the removal of VAT on solar panels and renewable heat systems and the 5p reduction in fuel duty, there was very little in it. That is particularly disappointing because we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and he could have been seen to be more obviously looking to support others. It must be difficult, being a relatively wealthy individual, to be able to see what is going on in the households of ordinary working people and the hardship that they are currently facing.

I was really surprised about the windfall tax because, to me, it seems like an open goal—an obvious thing to do. I have heard the comments of Conservative Members about the windfall tax and the need for large oil and gas companies to reinvest profits—of course, and those businesses will be doing that. Their profit forecasts were looking fairly good this past 12 months anyway, but they have risen significantly because of the dramatic rise in the international price of a barrel of oil. That is terrific for the businesses in that sector. It is fortunate for them to be there at this time, but it has significant consequences for the households of our constituents— our hard-working families who are trying to make ends meet.

We have heard the comments about those businesses having to reinvest profits, and of course they would be doing that. I sincerely want them to look at new hydrogen facilities and electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and they are, but we need to rapidly upgrade those plans, and I am sure the Government will be looking at that and talking about it in the coming days. That needs to be done, and I hope the companies and the Government will be much more ambitious than they have been to date. The upsurge in profits from the increase in the price of oil has essentially equated, as the chief exec of BP said, to a cash machine for those businesses that they have then used to increase dividends, understandably, but also to go on to a very aggressive plan of share buy-backs. That is what a lot of corporates do—I get that—but, as my Front Benchers and I have been saying, that money could have been put back in and used to alleviate the very real, very immediate pressures on households up and down the country.

The IFS says that yesterday’s announcements were really like the Chancellor giving with one hand yet taking away with the other. Paul Johnson said that the decision to raise national insurance contributions and cut income tax drives a

“further wedge between taxation of unearned income and earned income.”

That relates to my point about the dividend increases that we have seen in other parts of the economy.

[Jacob Young]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is supporting the Bill; I think his Front Benchers have indicated that they are. He talked about lowering income tax driving a wedge and so on. Does that mean that when it comes to lowering income tax, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said he wants to do in a couple of years’ time, Labour will oppose that?

[Matt Western]

Of course Chancellors want to do all sorts of things. The prospect of this Chancellor actually being able to do anything in six months, 12 months or two years is entirely down to the economic winds of that period. Let us recall that the Chancellor said just a year ago that he would allow an increase in nurses’ pay of 1%. At that time he would have been getting very regular briefings from the Bank of England forecasters, with its economists looking at what was going to happen to the economy and the rate of inflation. It was pretty clear then that inflation was already ticking up way beyond 1%, so even at the time of the announcement nurses would be getting a real-terms cut, and he then increased it to 3% in the autumn. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but who knows what the economic situation will be like in two years’ time, given that the UK had the biggest hit of all G20 countries in the pandemic? These things would not have been forecasted at the end of 2019, so quite where the Chancellor will be in two years’ time, goodness only knows.

The Resolution Foundation has said that one third of the cost of living crisis has come from the increase in taxes. That is a really telling statistic. Torsten Bell said that

“it makes no sense to raise National Insurance while cutting Income Tax”.

He is quite right. There seems to be no logic to doing that. As has been said elsewhere, the increase in national insurance contributions is viewed by businesses as a tax on jobs. The Government’s determination to pursue this increase in national insurance contributions will hit hard those businesses that are already hurting as a result of the pandemic and now the war in Ukraine, as well as the consequences of the Brexit changes in certain sectors.

We have a Chancellor who has, to use the analogy of a supermarket, put up prices by six quid one month and then offered a promotion of £1 off this month—for now. I am afraid the public will see through that, particularly the poorest and most deprived in our society, including pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the removal of the triple lock, regardless of whether that will be permanent. There was nothing for the poorest and the pensioners in our society. When I went to a food bank in north Leamington a couple of weeks ago, I came across two women in their 60s—WASPI women who were queuing up, for the first time ever in their lives, to get food from a food bank. That is the reality of what is happening out there in our society.

I am afraid that there was a paucity of ambition in the measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday. He could have gone much further and done so much more for those who are hurting in our society. Sadly, I fear that that is the measure of this Chancellor.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Jacob Young Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak to amendment 1, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).

The increase in the national insurance thresholds for employees contained in the Bill will come into effect only in July this year, but the national insurance rise will commence in April—three months when employees will be facing the 1.25% increase in national insurance contribution payments without any protection through a higher tax-free allowance, and three months in which families will feel the full force of the Chancellor’s tax hike without any cushioning from the rising of the national insurance threshold.

[Jacob Young]

Just to correct the hon. Lady slightly, I believe the threshold will still rise by £300 in April, as was the Government’s original plan. The further increase will come in July.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments, but there is still a gap and the amendment seeks to close it.

The three-month delay will cost working families £2.1 billion and add to their distress right in the middle of the biggest cost of living crisis since the 1950s. Let us remember that the rise in national insurance contributions will hit all working families. A nurse or a midwife on an average salary will see their tax bill rise by £310 next year. A care home worker will pay around £140 more and ambulance staff will see a £420 increase.

Households are facing the biggest drop in living standards for 70 years through a combination of soaring energy costs and Conservative Government tax hikes. The typical family will see a hit of £1,100 next year, according to the Resolution Foundation. Absolute poverty is set to rise by 1.3 million people, including 500,000 children. Never before has Britain seen such a rise outside a recession. The cost of living crisis is biting right now and hitting families today. That is why the Chancellor should implement the changes in the Bill not from July, but from April, as that would save working families £2.1 billion in tax payments.

New clause 3 is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife. It would require the Government to produce a report to look at the impact of the 1.25% increase in national insurance contributions on disposable incomes. It would give a true picture of what working families are facing. The statement yesterday hid the true facts. The Resolution Foundation has stated:

“Considering all income tax changes to thresholds and rates announced…Of the 31 million people in work, around 27 million (seven in eight workers) will pay more in income tax and NI in 2024-25.”

Instead, the Government could have cut VAT by 2.75%. That is what the Liberal Democrats would do. Such a measure would help everyone and shield our constituents from the worst of the increased costs. It would put money back into their pockets and genuinely shield those on middle and lower incomes the most. With a floundering economy we need people to spend money on our high streets, which would boost our local economies. A cut to VAT would give an immediate boost to every household, and also help us in the long term.

Mr Deputy Speaker, new clause 4 would require the Government to produce a report on taxation on earned income versus unearned income. The income tax change that will come into effect in 2024 does not benefit people equally. Workers will not benefit from that cut, which instead will benefit those with unearned income from investments, such as landlords. If someone is wealthy enough to get their income from savings and properties they will pay less tax, while the least well-off continue to pay more and more. In response to yesterday’s Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated:

“What is the possible justification for cutting income tax rate while raising NI rate?...Drives further wedge between taxation of unearned income and earned income.”

It benefits

“those living off rents at the expense of workers.”

Let us look at what the Government have announced and at the inequalities that creates. I hope all Members of the House will support my amendments, to see off the worst from the Chancellor’s disappointing statement yesterday.

Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Appointment

Jacob Young Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Lady is quite right to ask that question. That is a very important matter and it continues to be. I can give her that assurance.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

In November, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was drafted in to help solve the illegal crossings crisis in the channel. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that solving this issue remains front and centre of this Government’s mission?

[Michael Ellis]

I can indeed, and I know my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary continues to work on it, too.

Economic Update

Jacob Young Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I will let this Government’s record on economic policy speak for itself. It is a record of which I am proud. I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance that I and the Government remain committed to tackling fraud wherever we see it. He mentioned the figure of £4.9 billion. As I said to the House in oral questions on Tuesday, that estimate has already been reduced by a third—by £1.6 billion—because of the actions that we are taking. I will not go into them all now, but he should know that we will go after everyone wherever we can to recover that money for the taxpayer, and I am confident that we will do a very good job.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

This is a targeted package that helps those just about managing, which is entirely right. The last Labour Government closed six nuclear power stations and had a policy of no new nuclear. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, alongside these measures to help people in the short term, it is imperative that we invest in our long-term energy security—in domestic gas production, in renewables, and, crucially, in new nuclear?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about some of the failures of policy that the Labour party propagated in power. That is being fixed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We are investing not just in new nuclear, as he said, with billions of pounds at the spending review, but in offshore wind, and—as he knows in his part of the world—carbon capture and storage and hydrogen, where Teesside is playing a starring role in that green energy revolution.

Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation

Jacob Young Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to criticise the Metropolitan police; I do not think that has the support of the House. I ask him to accept that the position is that the Metropolitan police and the public servants who work in Government work hard, including during a period of major crisis for the country, in the public service. They are devoted to their work and they seek to serve the public in the best way they can. Assumptions ought not to be made of police or civil service impropriety. The matter is subject to investigation and I ask him to accept the default position that persons are innocent unless otherwise proved—that is how it works.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Last night, NATO announced that it was putting troops on standby in response to the situation in Ukraine. In April, gas prices are forecast to rise by more than 50% when the energy price cap lifts. People in Redcar and Cleveland want to move on from the debacle on parties and focus on the real issues. Will the Paymaster General assure me that the Cabinet Office will publish Sue Gray’s report as soon as it can?

[Michael Ellis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s position. I would say that the report of Sue Gray—the findings of that report—will be published as soon as they are available.

Household Energy Bills: VAT

Jacob Young Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I was not aware of that, but it appears from recent figures relating to the impact of Brexit that the protocol is protecting Northern Ireland, and it is not taking the same hit to its economy as the likes of Scotland. It is swings and roundabouts. The Northern Ireland economy is doing much better than it would have as part of Brexit Britain.

I have said that I certainly support the VAT holiday, but I am not sure that some of the rest of Labour’s £6.6 billion package and rhetoric has been completely thought through. The real windfall tax should be levied on the Treasury. As our energy bills have increased, so have VAT returns to the Treasury; as fuel prices have increased, the Treasury has raked in more money in fuel duty and VAT; and as for the North sea, it was confirmed in the Red Book for the November Budget that this financial year the Treasury will receive an extra £1.1 billion in oil and gas revenues compared with the March 2021 prediction, and the Treasury will receive an extra £2 billion from oil and gas revenues in this coming year and £6 billion in total over the Parliament. The Treasury should release the additional windfall revenue it has received.

Although to impose a windfall tax directly on oil and gas companies is an easy political soundbite, it has potential implications, so what discussions has Labour had with the industry? What assessment has Labour made of the levels of investment—which could be part of the decarbonisation agenda—that might be clawed back because of such a tax? The harsh reality is that every previous windfall tax on the oil and gas industry has led to a drop in capital investment.

In our transition to net zero, we do need to get off our dependence on oil and gas, but the reality is that carbon capture and storage is part of the pathway to net zero. What assessment has Labour made of the potential impact on such projects, and particularly on the Scottish carbon capture cluster, which has already been sacrificed to reserve status by the Tory Government?

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

On low-carbon energy, if the hon. Gentleman wants us to get on a more sustainable footing where we do not rely on oil and gas as much, why did he, his SNP colleagues, the Lib Dems and even some Labour MPs oppose the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill last night?

[Alan Brown]

Let me come to the next part of my speech, which will address that point. I am absolutely incredulous that, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, Labour MPs were whipped to vote for that Bill, which will add billions of pounds to electricity bills. The Bill’s impact assessment, published by Ministers, shows an upper estimate of £63 billion for the capital costs and financing of a new nuclear power station. That is to be paid for by bill payers. That is not low cost: it is a burden of something like £40 billion to £60 billion added to our energy bills—and Labour voted for it. How can Labour MPs talk about lowering energy bills when they just voted to add £50 billion to our bills as bill payers? It is nonsensical and they need to rethink their nuclear policy rapidly.

On nuclear, the Chancellor allocated £1.7 billion for the development of Sizewell C to the final investment stage. That sum of money could pay for the Coire Glas pumped hydro storage scheme in Scotland, as well as the Cruachan dam extension. Those projects could be delivered quicker than Sizewell, they do not come with a £50 billion capital finance burden, and further investment in pumped hydro storage would save £700 million per year in operational costs compared with a reliance on nuclear.

Greater imagination is required in energy policy. The policies from both major UK parties sum up Scotland’s place in the Union: the Scottish CCS project has been relegated to reserve status; Scottish bill payers are having to pay for a new nuclear power station; and we are stuck paying the highest grid charges in Europe, which not only disadvantages Scottish renewable projects but means higher bills for everybody across Great Britain. Meanwhile, the Scottish oil and gas industry is asked to pay to mitigate high fuel bills throughout the UK. What about demanding that at least some of the additional oil and gas revenues are released to match fund the Scottish Government’s £500 just transition fund for the north-east of Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The last two years have been brutal and miserable for millions of people in this country, but not everyone has had a bad pandemic. Last year the number of millionaires in Britain increased by 10% and the number of billionaires increased by 15%. In fact, The Sunday Times estimates that, between them, the 171 billionaires in the United Kingdom are worth £600 billion, which is enough for them by themselves to fund every single pound of Government covid support over the last two years and still be the richest people in the country.

[Jacob Young]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am confused, because the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) signalled that the SNP will be supporting today’s motion, yet this is a tax cut for the very millionaires the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is talking about.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am not sure of the relevance of that intervention. I was describing the manifest economic injustice apparent in our country, and that is the context against which we need to examine rising energy prices.

It might be thought that any Government would want to do something about the extremes of wealth and poverty in Britain, but in fact this Government are making it worse. Last autumn they chose to cut the household income of the 6 million poorest families in the United Kingdom by £1,000 a year—that was a political choice. They are now preparing to introduce tax increases this April, and tax is always a political choice. One could choose to make the wealthiest pay more or one could choose to tax accumulated wealth and capital, but no. This Government are increasing taxes for average and low earners in order to avoid increasing tax for the wealthiest people in the land, for whom tax is at a historically low level. That is the moral tapestry against which we should judge this.

The Government need to take serious action, because standing aside and doing nothing about the cost of living crisis would be to abdicate government. Of course there should be a cut in VAT on energy bills. In fact, consider what it means not to do that. It means that families the length and breadth of the land will face the misery of higher gas and electricity bills and, at the same time, the Government will profit from that misery by bringing in more money from the tax levied on those bills. That is immoral, and of course this proposal should be supported.

Two other things are required. First, the energy cap must be maintained and the Government must take action to make sure energy suppliers are capable of delivering on it. Secondly, as a matter of priority, the Government need to make a heating and energy payment to low-income families that will allow them to deal with the increases that have already happened.

I would hope that these are reasonable asks of the Government of the United Kingdom, but I do not doubt what is going to happen. I know those asks will be ignored, and I know this Government think their 80-seat majority makes them impervious to reason and logic, so they will continue as they wish. That is why, in Scotland, people will be looking again at whether we have to forever be hitched to this Government—whether we have to go along with them and these policies, which benefit the well-off at the expense of the poorer—or whether it is time to take matters into our own hands and, through the political agency of being an independent country, be able to deliver things in a better way, and build an energy supply system and an economy based on fairness and community solidarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

People in Redcar and Cleveland will remember the last time the Order Paper was wrestled from the hands of Government. It was, of course, when ardent remainers, ably supported by the Labour party, tried to block the decision made in the 2016 EU referendum. The irony of this situation should not be lost on us, because the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to use the same tool he used then to try to block Brexit, but this time to exploit one of the freedoms that Brexit gave us: the ability to get rid of VAT on energy bills.

Axing the 5% VAT on energy is clearly an option to support people, but it is an expensive and incredibly poorly targeted one. The Labour party usually complains about tax cuts that help high earners, yet that is what it is supporting here. I am left asking why I or any of us, given the salaries we are on, should expect the Government to subsidise our energy costs. My view is that we should be focusing our support on those who need it most, not those who want it. That must be the cause of any responsible Government.

How are we supporting people right now? We are supporting people through winter fuel payments, the warm home discount, cold weather payments, the energy company obligation and the household support fund. That is on top of our general measures, such as increasing the living wage to £9.50 an hour and freezing fuel duty for the 12th year in a row, and the help given over the course of the pandemic. The Government supported 12,500 people in Redcar with furlough payments, and spent more than £16 million supporting businesses in my area.

Of course, for the Labour party it is never enough. During the pandemic Labour criticised the cost of test and trace, and then demanded that covid tests remain free indefinitely. Labour criticised the Government for not producing enough personal protective equipment fast enough, and then demanded investigations into why contracts were given quickly. They want it both ways. They want to go back into the EU while benefiting from the freedoms that Brexit gave us. I begin to wonder whether “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” is required reading for the shadow Cabinet—everything is a bit too much and a bit too little; nothing is ever just right.

What we are discussing today are short-term measures to support people, and I think that it is as important to discuss how we handle energy in the long term. We are in this position today because policy decisions—some good and some bad—made over the decades have left us without an alternative to imported gas for baseload supply, whether that was Blair’s Government rejecting new nuclear in the early 2000s, Cameron’s Government and hesitancy about fracking, or this Government and our decision to phase out coal completely. We have made these policy decisions, which have left the most vulnerable vulnerable to the swings in gas prices that we are seeing today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Young Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The Government remain absolutely committed to protecting this country from illicit finance. We have been a leader in the global community, making this place the safest place to do business, and we will continue in that vein.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

A key way to support economic growth is to help level up our forgotten high streets, such as Eston Square, where the old precinct building is blocking key investment and preventing new businesses from moving in. When the Chancellor is next up in Teesside, will he come with me to Eston, and meet leaders at Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to see what can be done to level up Eston Square?

[Rishi Sunak]

Yes, I would be very happy to. I am fresh from my visit to Yarm High Street last week to see levelling up in action, and I am back up in the north-east this week.

Budget: Pre-announcement of Provisions

Jacob Young Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

There is absolutely no doubt that we have observed all the proprieties by not talking about tax measures in any of the discussions that have been had. I am in regular contact with the Welsh Government. Indeed, I met the Welsh Finance Minister last week and will be speaking to her again tomorrow morning ahead of the Budget, in the usual way.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

I welcome the announcements that have been trailed ahead of the Budget, in particular the latest announcement on the national living wage. Will my right hon. Friend outline how this national living wage will help my constituents and his in Teesside?

[Mr Clarke]

Ensuring that work always pays is one of the foundational principles of this Government. It is what differentiates us, frankly, from the last Labour Government, who had a series of policies that, I am afraid, did not incentivise work. That led to what the then editor of The Spectator termed,

“the most expensive poverty in the world.”

I am afraid that that was the unfortunate legacy of a series of failed policies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the national living wage rise is the right thing to do. I am excited about that policy, and it continues our strong track record of ensuring that our plan for jobs is matched by rising living standards.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Young Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We recognise that this is an issue under intense speculation. We will publish a strategy that will set out many of the answers to the questions she is posing. What we have said is that we will put affordability and fairness at the heart of our reforms to reach net zero. The fact is that everyone in this House agreed with us when we set that target. For example, we have put in place plans to bring in electric vehicles by 2030. These will require changes not just in how we spend, but in our tax and regulatory system. The answers will come in due course.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, may I take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s world-leading comprehensive hydrogen strategy, backed up by £105 million of public funding to unlock £4 billion of private investment by 2030? Does the Minister agree with me that this is how we will build back better and create more jobs in places such as Teesside?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I do agree with him: building back better and building back greener are at the heart of this Government’s strategy. I thank him for raising those points, which will benefit Teesside and the north-east in general.