Taxes

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

We did, actually. We did arrest it. We made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion-worth of savings. The OBR also scored the fact that there would be 450,000—almost half a million—fewer people going on to those benefits as a consequence. We had already started a consultation on personal independence payment, which I will come back to in a moment, but it was interrupted by the general election. The first thing the Labour Government did when they came into office was scrap all of that and then come forward with some ill-thought-through proposals that did not survive contact with their own Back Benchers.

There are other areas where we can make savings. The size of the civil service is one. The civil service has grown by 37% since 2016. We could cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) should listen carefully to this, because he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things. These are good alternatives that should be taken seriously.

Raising taxes is simply a choice. The Labour Government are too weak to make the choice to control spending, so they fall back on taxes. They had to U-turn on the welfare reforms they brought through, and £5 billion was added to Labour’s black hole in an instant. We have seen the terms of reference for the Timms review of personal independence payment. They show quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the PIP budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward.

From what we hear, it is highly likely that the two-child limit will be scrapped and abolished. Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he is being squeezed halfway out the door of No. 10 and thinks he had better do something to settle the troops on the Back Benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail to get on top of spending and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Chancellor often talks about taking difficult decisions and tough choices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not a tough choice to raise taxes on other people; the tough choice is cutting spending?

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend absolutely gets to the core of it. This is an extraordinary point to have arrived at, but this Government, despite their majority, do not have the plan, political will or, seemingly, even the ability now to command enough support on their own Benches to push through vital spending controls that would allow us to get the taxman off the back of businesses and people up and down our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Chancellor give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

He has only just walked in!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I do expect Members to be here for slightly longer before intervening.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the shadow Chancellor for opening today’s debate. It is two weeks until Budget day, and it is just over two weeks since the last motion tabled by the official Opposition that sought to debate the content of the Budget before it is announced. We know that Conservative shadow Ministers want the British people to forget the mess they left from their time in office, but surely shadow Ministers cannot have forgotten how the Budget process works. If indeed that is the case, I am sure shadow Treasury Ministers will recall that we would not reveal any details of the Budget two weeks before the Budget, and that any decisions on the Budget will be revealed by the Chancellor on Budget day.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have a simple question for the Minister: does he think that manifesto promises are important?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I point the hon. Lady to last year’s Budget, at which we decided to get rid of the non-dom tax status, to remove the VAT tax rate on private school fees, to increase the air passenger duty on private jets and to change the rate of capital gains tax and inheritance tax—all measures that will raise £8 billion by the end of this Parliament from taxes on assets and the wealthy. That is what a fair tax system looks like.

While our plans are a credible way to settle the public finances, get public services back on their feet and support the economic stability so vital for investment and growth, the Conservatives come up with numbers out of thin air. At least half the £47 billion of fantasy savings they mentioned come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices: they say that the list of measures would raise £23 billion in total, but no breakdown is apparent.

We remember how, in June last year, just as the Conservatives were on their way out of Downing Street, they said that they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they have doubled that, without any explanation whatever. Frankly, however he protests, the shadow Chancellor is not the person to be making that argument about welfare. When he was the Work and Pensions Secretary, he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefits spending in decades.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He wonders why the ability to cut more money from the welfare bill has been identified by the Opposition. Does he not recognise that more than 5,000 people a day are joining long-term disability and incapacity benefits? That is how he can save more money from welfare. Why does he not do it?

[James Murray]

I agree with one of the sentiments in the points that the hon. Gentleman made: we need to ensure that people get into work wherever they can and that the safety net is there for people who can never work or are unable to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is leading that work to ensure that we get young people into work rather than being on a life of benefits and written off as they were by the Conservative party in office.

As I was saying, it was frankly quite some cheek for the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) to lecture about welfare spending, given the enormous increase in welfare spending on his watch when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If the £47 billion came from cuts in public services instead of from some of these fantasy welfare cuts, what would that mean? It would mean 85,700 fewer nurses; cutting every police officer in the country twice; or cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail was mentioned in the shadow Chancellor’s speech.

When we took office, the Chancellor introduced tough new fiscal rules. Those required day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing, while protecting the long-term investment in our country. Now, I realise that fiscal discipline is an alien concept for some Members on the Conservative Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. We want to back—[Interruption.] It was unquestionably a disaster for our ratings—I will happily give the right hon. Gentleman that—and I do not want the Government to break their promises. That is absolutely right and correct.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he does not want the Government to break their promises. If he looks at the Liberal Democrat amendment, that is exactly what it does: it takes away the injunction to control public expenditure in order to keep the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he now accept that it is right that the Government should keep their promises and not follow his amendment?

[Charlie Maynard]

I have already said that the Government should keep their promises, so there we are. May I continue, please?

We want to back hard-pressed households and small businesses and push for practical steps that will help ease the burden on families and get our high streets thriving again. We have called on the Government to respond to the crisis in our hospitality sector through an emergency VAT cut. That would boost footfall on our high streets, thus protecting jobs in a sector that employs people from all walks of life: young, old, those returning to work, those vulnerable part-time workers and everyone in between.

We also propose bringing down household energy costs as winter is coming by removing the biggest levy baked into people’s electricity bills and, in effect, putting more than £90 a year into the pockets of the average family. Indeed, that will be closer to £250 for some of the least well-off, who rely more on electricity for their heating. This is about supporting local businesses at the heart of our communities, which we all represent, and making a real difference to people’s lives by making it cheaper for them to heat their homes. For too long, our high streets and the small business owners on them have been crippled by the policies of successive Governments.

All that needs to be paid for and needs to be done in a way that is pro-growth and pro-business and which shields households from even greater bills each month. That is not an easy circle to square—I will not pretend that it is. We, as Liberal Democrats, seek to bring deliverable and progressive ideas to the table. If the Chancellor chose such ideas, she could deliver them in her Budget, which is just days away, and the impact would be felt by households across the country with almost immediate effect.

First, we call for a time-limited tax on big commercial banks levied on the massive windfall profits that they receive due to unintended consequences of our financial system. Because of high interest rates and the way the quantitative tightening programme works, the Treasury hands over billions of pounds to the big banks every year via the Bank of England, effectively subsidising banking profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Figures from the OBR confirm that, as things stand, we are on course to hand the big banks £50 billion over the course of this Parliament. Banks never expected to receive that windfall, they never relied on it and never took any risk to reap it. They have only received the payments because inflation and interest rates shot up. That needs to be corrected. It is fair and reasonable to return a portion of that unexpected windfall to the taxpayer and it will do nothing to undermine the health of our financial sector to claim it back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

Obviously, we are in a global economy. We have the fastest growth in the G7; I think that is well known—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because it is important to set out why we need to be making investment in our public services and infrastructure.

We have only to look at what austerity did to the NHS. The Conservatives inherited an NHS with the highest satisfaction levels and the lowest waiting times ever, and they reversed both of those two things. Look at the state of our town centres. In fact, look at the state of my own constituency of Bishop Auckland compared with 15 years ago. Look at the state of dentistry. In the year before the general election we lost two NHS dental surgeries but, worse than that, children in the existing practices were sent letters telling them they could no longer be provided with an NHS dentistry service. Look at the rising crime in many of our communities, which exactly mirrors the cuts to frontline police. Look at what the Conservatives did to our defence capabilities, which left us the smallest Army since the Napoleonic era.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I quite understand the hon. Member’s philosophical approach: he wants to spend more money on public services. He knew of all those issues before the last general election, yet when he stood for election, he said to his constituents, “Vote for me because we will not raise income tax, national insurance and VAT.” Will he stick by his own promise?

[Sam Rushworth]

I have confidence in the Chancellor to produce a Budget that will do the things that my constituents need it to. What my constituents are asking for, and what they voted for at the general election, is change.

Look what the Conservatives did to our justice system: prisons are 99.9% full, and we have a court backlog that makes victims wait years for justice. We all know that our surgeries are crammed with these cases. Look at what they did to the asylum system, which has an enormous backlog. Whoever negotiated the contract on asylum hotels must have been the person who did the dodgy covid contracts, given the amount that they wasted. Millions a day were spent on hotels.

Look at what the Conservatives did to childhood. Contrary to what was said earlier, child poverty in our country has increased. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that both relative and absolute poverty have increased. The pattern between 1997-98 and 2022-23 can be described as a U-curve; poverty fell under the 13 years of the last Labour Government, and then relative and absolute child poverty increased. Look at what that means for the communities I represent: 16 Sure Start centres closed; primary school budgets are below their 2010 levels; transport for college students is expensive, and their education maintenance allowance was cut; youth services, boxing gyms and swimming pools have closed; and social infrastructure has disappeared from our communities over the last 15 years.

These are real challenges, but the problem is not just with our public services. Because the Conservatives robbed the capital budget to pay for day-to-day spending, they left Britain in the slow lane. Cancelling Labour’s Building Schools for the Future project left our schools and public buildings infested with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Cancelling nuclear projects left us reliant on expensive fossil fuels, which led to 11% inflation at one point under the Conservatives. Cancelling High Speed 2 to secure a media headline on the eve of a conference has left us without the critical transport infrastructure we need.

All these problems come with a higher social cost. When His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff are sacked, we get more tax avoidance and fraud. When people have to wait two years for a routine operation, businesses have a bigger sick bill. When prisons are not built and the police are cut, there is more crime. When civil servants were cut, the previous Government had to spend £3 billion on agency staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. I like the fact that, even in a debate about tax in which we have opposing views, we have been able to come to some sort of consensus—my speech has already done its job, one might argue.

The answer that I thought of giving the right hon. Member for Braintree about tax was that I would love residents in Harlow, particularly those in low-income families—23% of under-16s in Harlow live in low-income families—to pay less tax. However, we have seen underfunding in our local services, with the hospital and schools falling apart, and roads that frankly look like the surface of the moon. If we were to live in a low-tax haven—I do not suggest that all Opposition Members say we should—it would lead to those local services suffering, and it is those lower-income families who cannot afford private healthcare, private schools, or to get their car fixed every time they go over a pothole, who would suffer.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Vince]

I will, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not ask me about renationalisation.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I know that the hon. Member cannot pronounce that word. I quite understand the points that he makes—he is heartfelt in making them, and he thinks there should be Government spending on those issues. However, he was aware of every single one of those issues before the 2024 general election, when he stood on a manifesto commitment not to raise income tax, not to raise national insurance, and not to raise VAT. Does he accept that if his Government resile from those promises, it will be a huge breach of trust with the British people?

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for again mentioning that I cannot say “renationalisation”—well, apparently I can; I just cannot say it when we are on “BBC Look East” together.

I stood on a manifesto to ensure that I got investment into my town, and I am delighted that this Government have promised, for the first time, a realistic and fully funded timetable for a new hospital for Harlow, with a guarantee that Harlow will be the home of the UK Health Security Agency—I appreciate that I am now turning into a party political broadcast. My priority is to ensure that every young person in Harlow has the best possible opportunities, and I know that that is what this Government will do. I know that difficult choices need to be made by the Chancellor, and I will not pre-empt the Budget—Opposition Members will not be surprised to know that, as a humble Back Bencher, I do not know what the Budget says.

I mentioned that my mother was an HMRC compliance officer, and I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for paying tribute to her. I asked my mother to talk to me a little about what she did at the Inland Revenue, and later at HMRC. She said, “I will write a couple of bits down for you.” Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am not going to read out the four pages that she wrote, but I will give a few selected highlights. I will miss out the bit where she says, “Hello Darling, thanks for asking”, but she wrote that she joined the Inland Revenue as an inspector of taxes in 1975—I thought that was very honest of my mum. That was pre-computers, and she was

“manually calculating assessments, processing returns and issuing code numbers, i.e. PAYE.”

Apparently it took 18 months of training to do that, and she successfully passed the exam, as hon. Members will have gathered.

If we fast forward, she took a career break—if hon. Members are wondering why she took a career break, I am standing right here. She initially worked at the national insurance organisation, until that merged with HMRC. Her role was to help people with gaps in their national insurance records—basic investigation work and contacting employers. In 2003, she

“returned to HMRC ‘proper’—to employer compliance investigation team.”

He job was to visit employers and check their records. Very positively she found that

“most companies were compliant, but they made mistakes.”

There was a scheme—this is something I would suggest to the Minister if he was in his place—that ran courses to ensure that businesses got it right. That could be really important. When we talk about tax evasion, there are people who do that on purpose, but there are also some who just need that help and support.

At compliance reviews, my mother also checked that foreign employees had the right to work in the UK. She was subsequently promoted to regional manager—well done mum—where she managed 100 staff and eight managers who were below her. Her team met taxpayers face-to-face in their offices, or in their homes if they were vulnerable, and they

“helped people complete tax returns, claim allowances, and ensure they paid the correct tax.”

They also administered what were then child tax credits. She was also

“able to authorise hardship payments in this context.”

Sadly, in 2014, 20,000 staff in HMRC customer services were made redundant, and as Members across the House will know, that included my mother—[Hon. Members: “Ahh!”] Thank you. HMRC decided that customers—that is taxpayers—should telephone for assistance, but telephone staff were not given 18 months of training, and if people could not get through on the phone they were told to go online. Across Essex, there were a number of cuts to local offices, including in Chelmsford, Witham, Colchester, Harlow, Bishop’s Stortford—that’s not in Essex—and Hertford.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I will not; I may give way in a little bit, but let me make some progress.

We will ensure that we avoid another decade of under-investment in public services and infrastructure. I am sure we all agree that we owe it to future generations to ensure that the economy we hand down is secure, with debt under control. I would like to hear more from Conservative Members—perhaps they would like to intervene on me. Their motion makes no mention of the public services that would be cut. How many doctors, teachers, soldiers and police officers would they want to cut? I am happy to take an intervention.

[Jerome Mayhew]

If the hon. Gentleman is looking for ideas about how to cut spending, he could do worse than to look at the proposals set out at the Conservative party conference, in which we identified £47 billion of public sector cuts that would not require any of the cuts that he suggests.

[John Slinger]

That £47 billion seems rather like a number plucked out of thin air. Frankly, I do not think that that number holds any credibility.

The previous Government cut national insurance in 2024, which was deliberate sabotage. They cut public services from 2010 onwards, which was deliberate ideological recklessness and is still damaging the services that our constituents rely on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

rose—

[John Slinger]

I will not give way.

The Conservatives broke their triple lock promise in 2022 and 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Opposition motions are usually detailed—as, indeed, is the next motion on the Order Paper, relating to energy—so the brevity of this motion deserves comment. The most important line is, I think, the first:

“That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure”.

In the hands of this Opposition, that short and seemingly innocuous phrase is a euphemism for cuts to essential services, and a return to the austerity agenda that the public rejected so decisively a year ago. All that follows in the motion hangs on that intent. After all, the Opposition accept that were the positions reversed, they themselves would probably be putting up taxes.

Earlier in the debate the shadow Chancellor, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that he had been quoted out of context. According to the longer transcript, as reported by City AM, he said:

“If I was in exactly her position”

—the Chancellor’s, that is—

“and I had to deal with tax, and I was down the end of the spectrum where the black hole was really big, I would probably go for income tax…I wouldn’t want to be in that position but that’s the cleanest thing to do.”

[Jerome Mayhew]

As we are looking for clarity, what the shadow Chancellor was saying was that if he was in the Chancellor’s position, that is, if he could not cut spending and had to raise tax, perhaps that is what he would do, but that is not what his intention is. His intention, very properly, is to control spending, as any responsible Government would. Why will the hon. Gentleman’s Government not do the same?

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings me to my next point. The Opposition have come to the House today stating that all these difficult matters have been resolved and there is no need for tax increases at all. They say that they have a plan for cutting £47 billion of public expenditure. I have a copy of that plan with me, but it is not much of a boast, because it is a very sparse document. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) said, “Further detail will follow,” but a month has passed and we are still waiting. Perhaps the shadow Minister who winds up the debate can let us know whether the Opposition will be publishing a more detailed document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

This will be a very simple speech, because it has only a single fundamental point, which is that honesty in politics matters. That should not be a controversial statement. In debates in this place, we are advocates for a political philosophy, and for certain political tactics, and yes, we should put forward our case as attractively as possible, perhaps using statistics that make our case more effectively than others, but if we downright mislead the public, a line is crossed. That is wrong, because it is taking the public for fools.

In the election of 2024, the Labour party had a manifesto on which every single one of its Members was elected. There was an identified £7 billion that they intended to raise through tax rises, but a core promise at the very heart of the manifesto was that apart from that, there would be no tax rises—in particular, no increases to national insurance contributions, income tax or VAT. That is the very basis of their electoral mandate, and even then, they only managed to secure 34% of the vote. The first breach of those promises came in October last year: the tax rises were for not £7 billion, but £40 billion. That was justified by a wholly fictitious £22 billion black hole, a figure that the Office for Budget Responsibility refused to support, and that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Financial Times, among others, could not identify.

The Government raised taxes on employers; it was a tax on jobs of fully £25 billion. The IFS said that was a “straightforward breach” of their manifesto. We were told that this was a one-off, and that the Government had “wiped the slate clean”. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s words were that they were

“not coming back with…more taxes”;

they had fixed

“the foundations of our economy”,

and she said, “It’s now on us.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The second Budget is in just two weeks’ time, and no global event has blown this Government’s plans off course. There has been no pandemic, and there has been no European invasion sending electricity and energy prices through the roof. If things have changed, it has been as a direct consequence of the political and economic decisions of the Government.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that what has actually changed is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to control their Back Benchers, who now feel free to demand whatever public expenditure they think is convenient?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Prime Minister tried—half-heartedly, admittedly—to save £4.5 billion from the welfare budget. He put his Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the ridiculous position of starting a debate arguing for £4.5 billion of savings from long-term disability and health benefits, only for her to end the very same debate advocating for a £300 million increase in those same benefits. The Prime Minister has lost control of his Back Benchers, and he has lost control of his Government’s spending.

We have had no global event, but we do have Government policies that have been economically disastrous. Labour is truly the tax-and-spend party. It has raised the tax burden to the highest in history—certainly since the second world war. As for spend, it raised £40 billion in tax, borrowed a further £30 billion, and increased spending by £70 billion. According to the Government’s own plans, they intend to borrow half a trillion pounds extra during the course of this Parliament. And for what? Has there been reform of public services? No. Public sector productivity has declined. We are getting less for our money—even more so in healthcare, where the decline in productivity is fully 8.3%. What they have done is increase wage inflation. For public sector pay, it is more than 6%, whereas in the private sector, it is a third less.

The Government are coming back for more. They intend, we are told through multiple briefings to newspapers, to breach their core election manifesto pledge and raise taxes, because they cannot reduce spending.

[Sam Rushworth]

What the hon. Gentleman says about healthcare is not quite credible. I appreciate that his researchers will have tried to find a statistic that works for his speech, but it is undeniable that we have delivered significantly more NHS appointments. Waiting times are coming down, and satisfaction levels are going back up again for the first time since the Conservatives broke the NHS.

[Jerome Mayhew]

One quick clarification: waiting times have actually increased in each of the past three months, so they are not going down at the moment. If we hose enough money at a system, we can get increased results, but what we get per pound spent has declined by over 8%. That is a very serious point.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), is my hon. Friend aware of the Office for National Statistics report from last week, which showed that NHS productivity has declined since the Labour party took office? Would he like to invite the hon. Member to retract what he just said?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I could not have put it better myself. These are not statistics made up by my researchers; they are from the Office for National Statistics.

The decisions that we are told the Chancellor is about to make in two weeks are not inevitable. There is another choice. She can grow a backbone—so can the Prime Minister—and impose some control over public spending. We have set out a plan to reduce spending by £47 billion. I have heard the criticisms and challenges from Labour Members. They have a budget of £1.3 trillion to work with; are they seriously saying that they cannot find £20 billion of necessary savings from a £1.3 trillion budget? If they cannot, then they do not deserve to be in government.

The motion is not a sleight of hand. It is a simple, short motion, which merely asks Government Members, when they choose which Lobby to go through tonight, to decide whether they will stick with their promises—their manifesto commitments. Will they treat their constituents as fools, or will they vote with the Opposition and defend their, albeit shaky, democratic mandate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

One thing that this Government are really good at is creating a feeling of fear and worry, particularly among my constituents. They are looking at what has happened to them as a consequence of decisions that were taken in the last Budget. I am talking about people from all walks of life, across the board—people who employ people, people who are employed, people who work in hospitality and people who work in the charities sector, who have had to make very difficult decisions as a consequence of the impact of the last Budget.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have talked about the fear that our constituents have, but there is another fear held by businesses. My hon. Friend will know that business confidence has plummeted to the worst level on record, and investment decisions taken by businesses have been delayed because businesses are worried about the impact of this terrible Budget that we are facing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the speculation fuelled by the anonymous briefings from No. 11 are already damaging our economy?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was pretty much what I was going on to say. We are seeing this constant kite-flying about various different potential taxes or cooked up schemes that could affect different walks of life, as the Government are trying to keep meeting their burgeoning and ever-growing spending commitments. That is making people lose confidence, and it has a real impact on the decisions they are making here and now, even without the policies having been enacted. Like it or not, the Budget on the 26th is already here and operating. It is operating through the media, and people are making decisions now that are having a real impact, particularly in my patch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition Government in 2010 with the Conservatives. We inherited a deficit of £156 billion in 2010—11% of GDP—and it took 10 years, to 2020, to reduce that steadily to 2% of GDP. For all the moaning and whining from the Labour Benches about austerity, what we were trying to do—as a coalition Government for five years and as a Conservative Government for the remainder—was to live within our means, and that is tough. That is really difficult. It is about improving public services, but without necessarily hosing money at them. We see that most successfully in the field of education. In England we have seen a dramatic increase in reading standards and the standards of examination of English pupils caused by genuine reforms. That compares very favourably with what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where those reforms did not take place. The skill of government is in improving public services without always spending more money. The Liberal Democrats used to have a few Members who were called “Orange Book” Members. It is a shame there are so few of them left.

Who does the Chancellor think she is kidding when she says she has not increased taxes on working people? Try telling the farmers in my constituency that they are not working people, or the young family where both parents work and are saving to pay the stamp duty on their first home. As Labour Members will recall, that first Budget was not well received, so to draw a line under her broken promises, the Chancellor said:

“We’ve now wiped the slate clean. It’s now on us. We’ve put everything out into the open, we’ve set the spending envelope for the course of this Parliament. We don’t need to come back for more.”

Except we know that that is not true. She is coming back for more. She is now set to break that promise again by putting up taxes again.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea why the Chancellor has changed her mind or what it is that has affected her decision? Just a year ago, she said that she did not need to come back for more, but now she says she does. Has there been any great global shock, or does he think the problem lies closer to home?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I would suggest two reasons. First, our economy has slowed down as a result of the very tax increases that the Chancellor has imposed. Secondly, the feral Labour Back Benchers have made them lose their nerve. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor therefore cannot control public expenditure in any way at all. The British people are already paying the highest tax burden in 70 years and Labour wants to increase it further. It is sad to say that this Government have no clue as to how the economy works. I genuinely believe that their Front Benchers want to reduce unemployment, but have they ever considered that if they increase employer national insurance charges and the cost of employing labour, businesses might use less of it? If they pass an Employment Rights Bill that increases the cost of labour, might businesses use less labour? Might that be why unemployment has increased every month since they took office? Is that why unemployment increases under every Labour Government?

Labour is just as ignorant on the effects of taxes and spending. If the Government tax entrepreneurs, there will be less enterprise. If they increase benefits, they should not be surprised if it becomes more attractive to claim them. Unfortunately, Labour’s answer to every question is more spending because, of course, it is what they do best: spending other people’s money. We never hear about its plans to improve efficiency or get better value for the taxpayer because there are no such plans.

Labour’s higher taxes and borrowing are leading to higher unemployment and lower growth. We are in a doom loop created by the Chancellor, and if we are to revitalise our economy, the first step is for the Government to control public expenditure. That is why we have outlined our plans to reduce expenditure by £47 billion. We will reduce welfare spending by £23 billion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and other high-spending left-wing parties, we would keep the two-child benefit cap. We would reduce the size of the civil service to where it was in 2016, saving £8 billion, and reduce overseas aid by a further £7 billion. We would use those savings to cut both borrowing and taxes to bring about a new spirit of enterprise and confidence in our country.

It is ironic that it is the Conservatives calling today for the Government to stick to their manifesto promise not to increase taxes. The British people will notice if they break that promise for a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation. I have said that is what I will say if people continue to intervene. We are two weeks out from a Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation from the Dispatch Box today.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have heard what the Minister says and I do not ask him to comment on the Budget, but can he confirm whether he thinks that manifesto pledges are important?

[Dan Tomlinson]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask questions about the manifesto, I am glad that he is interested in the change that this Government are bringing through their manifesto. We have invested in our NHS and introduced new taxes on non-doms. We have introduced free breakfast clubs, and invested in HMRC to reduce tax avoidance—we will come on to talk about that, after the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We have set up Great British Energy, and we are implementing the National Wealth Fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his years of work and experience supporting public sector workers and our proud trade unionists.

Conservative Members have mentioned the statistics that have been published of late. There is much that we need to do to ensure that the investment that we make in the NHS comes with improvements in productivity and output. The Health Secretary was talking about that today in reference to our reforms to NHS England, and about ensuring that we are not duplicating spending in both the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England. I thought that Conservative Members were against quangos, but it turns out that they are against that reform.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am encouraged to hear that the Minister wants to link increased funding with productivity increases. In that spirit, why was the resident doctors’ pay rise not linked to any productivity increases?

[Dan Tomlinson]

In the end, in order to sort out the strikes we needed to give public sector workers a fair deal. The situation that they were left in was not fair, with their wages going up significantly less than prices over the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power. The Health Secretary has been clear about not wanting to go as far the pay settlement demanded, but the situation that we reached last year is right and proportionate, and we hope that we can continue to invest in reform of our NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I was glad to attend the hon. Member’s Westminster Hall debate last night on wine producers across the UK. I am impressed by his close reading of all the words of members of the Cabinet; I hope one day to be as diligent as him in following the utterances of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all Ministers.

When it comes to the inheritance that this Government and the British people are dealing with, let me say that if wage growth since the financial crisis continued at the pace that it had before, it is not that families in my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and across the country would be £1,000 or £2,000 a year better off; they would be £12,000 a year better off. Imagine the difference that that would make to the businesses and communities across our country if we had not had that productivity stagnation.

In the end, we will see at the Budget that the OBR is implementing its review of productivity. I will not pre-empt that review, but it is right and proper that we ensure our fiscal forecasts are based on accurate understandings of what has happened in the past to our productivity, because the past is a guide to the future. I hope that this Government will continue to beat the outcomes that happened under the previous Government, when productivity almost flatlined, and that is exactly what this Budget will be about.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will happily give way—it might be the final time I do so.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) asked the Minister a specific question. In October last year, the Chancellor said, “We are not coming back for more. We have wiped the slate clean. From now on, it is on us.” What has happened between then and now? What has changed?

[Dan Tomlinson]

One of the things that has changed is that Conservative Members seem to have found £47 billion down the back of the sofa and are coming forward with plans that are not deliverable, just like they did when they were in government. They have done the job of a losing Opposition—we have been there in the past—whereby numbers used in opposition are not serious or credible. We all know where that ends up.

The Conservatives said recently that they would slash taxes and pay for it with £47 billion of fairyland spending cuts. For context, that is the equivalent of firing every police officer in the country. Of course, I am not saying that they will do that or that they have joined the “defund the police” brigade, but what would they do? We do not really know, because all we have is a menu without a price list.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I am indeed aware of this issue. I know that it affects people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in plenty of other Members’ constituencies, too. I also know how concerned he and other Members are about it. It is for the Financial Conduct Authority to consider whether it is appropriate to take any further steps, but I have asked my officials to engage with the FCA on how it is approaching this.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Economists have told the Chancellor that stamp duty is a terrible tax because it damages growth. The Government’s response is to double stamp duty on a £300,000 house. Why?

[Dan Tomlinson]

In the end, when it comes to property taxation, we have to make sure that we have a fair and sustainable system that brings in revenues from a range of sources. Scrapping individual taxes without any realistic and plausible plan to fund them is the road to economic ruin in this country. We have seen what happened in the past when Conservative Governments came forward with plans to cut taxes without the means to afford it. We on this side of the House will not be making that mistake.

Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to appear before you, Mrs Harris.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate. I know he is a long-standing supporter of independent lifeboats, and he hid his light under a bushel by understating his involvement in the creation of the National Independent Lifeboat Association. I will pause to remember the efforts of Anthony Mangnall, the former Member for Totnes, who was an excellent contributor—a very good orator—in the Chamber. He had his own style, stood with his hand in his pocket, right at the Front Bench where there is no protection at all. He was a very impressive Member of this House.

I should declare an interest. I do not think it is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but since my early 20s I have been an offshore member of the RNLI, having been a sailor and boating enthusiast all my life. During the debate I played a game with myself to see whether I had sailed or been on a boat in every constituency mentioned. The answer is that I have. I was a bit nervous when the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke, because that constituency is quite a challenge, but then he mentioned the Thames, and I have been there. I was also concerned when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke; I have of course been on Strangford lough, but I was challenged by Lough Neagh. I have been there, and I think I have been on a boat there. The hon. Member could have mentioned Lough Erne—I have been all over that. So I know of what I speak, having followed every Member round their constituencies and their references to the lifeboats.

I can say I have been in those areas, but actually I was under the unseen protection of each and every independent lifeboat that was standing ready and willing to come to my aid had something bad happened. We need to remember that. Being out on the sea is a wonderful recreational experience. It is fun until it is not, when it becomes very dangerous very quickly. These men and women stand ready to put their own lives at risk to protect us, whether we are working on the sea or there for recreation. It is important that we remember that throughout this debate.

Independent lifeboat services offer important support for lifesaving, both on the sea and on inland waters, such as those in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham. The National Independent Lifeboat Association says that more than 80 independent lifeboat organisations operate along the coastline and inland waterways, and it estimates that in 2024 there were getting on for 3,500 volunteers, of whom over 1,000 were operational. They attended almost 2,000 incidents, assisting more than 2,000 people in distress or need. As has been mentioned, that work has been valued at £2.6 million in savings to the Government. This selfless work, carried out by inspirational people, many of whom have been mentioned by name in the debate, not only saves lives but saves the taxpayer money.

I want to join in the local celebrations. I am a bit stretched, because I represent an inland constituency, although it includes a part of the Norfolk broads—the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and I share them. At Great Yarmouth we have Caister lifeboat. I am told, although I stand to be corrected, that it is the oldest lifeboat in the country. It has existed since 1791—consider that: well over 200 years. It is at the heart of the Norfolk coastal community that raises the money to support it. That money goes towards lifesaving equipment and training.

This year, Caister came out not just to save lives but to save a historic vessel. As a keen sailor, I have watched the complete restoration of the former royal yacht Bloodhound—I read about the progress in the sailing press over the course of months—which sprung a devastating leak off the Norfolk coast. The Caister lifeboat went out, helped to pump out and secure the vessel, and escorted it safely to the shore. Bloodhound is the vessel in which Prince Philip taught Prince Charles how to sail. It was a royal yacht from 1936 until 1969.

On the other side of the Wash is the Humber Rescue lifeboat. On 23 May this year it was launched multiple times over a 10-hour period to deal with a series of serious incidents on the Humber, and it saved three lives in a single day. That is just one example of the incredible work that independent lifeboat has done.

An interesting point, which some Members have raised, is that a local lifeboat knows its waters, some of which have particular characteristics that mean that specificity of training pays dividends. Where we have local conditions, we need local lifeboats—independent lifeboats, in particular—to provide the coverage we are all looking for.

Last year, the Felixstowe coast patrol and rescue saved six lives and provided assistance to 58 people while taking part in 55 patrols covering thousands of miles. Closer to home, the hon. Member for North Norfolk will recall that, just last month, Hemsby Broads rescue was tasked by Humber coastguard to assist in the rescue of six people on the lower Bure on its approach to Great Yarmouth. We fight over the Bure; it is the barrier, or the demarcation point, between our two constituencies. I have not researched sufficiently to know whether it happened on my side of the river or the hon. Gentleman’s, but the vessel that ran aground was listing heavily near Great Yarmouth. All the casualties were safely evacuated, but without that swift and co-ordinated approach, the situation could have ended very differently. We owe a debt of gratitude to independent lifeboats, whether they operate in inland waters or out at sea.

There is a wider point here. For all these institutions, their strength comes from their independence. Although state provision can provide funding and coverage, it comes at the very significant cost of disenfranchising local communities. It comes at the cost of undermining their sense of belonging and the network of social ties—the community resilience—that supporting, running and manning a local independent lifeboat brings about. The strength of independent lifeboats is their very independence.

More widely, this is a model for devolution—not the Government’s version, devolution from above, where we destroy the lowest level of government and bring it up to county or bi-county level as a vehicle for undertaking the directions of the national state, but devolution down to communities that empowers them to take decisions on their own behalf. That is the kind of devolution towards which independent lifeboats lead the way.

Although these organisations are a celebration of independence, there is a difference between independence and funding, which remains a huge challenge. We have heard that between 2014 and 2020, the previous Government granted a total of £5.66 million to 104 different independent inshore and inland rescue boat charities through the rescue boat grant fund. Sadly, that was stopped in 2020. I hear the lament of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, and I join him in it. It was a mistake that, to save £1 million pounds a year, the capital advantage given to these independent charities, which do so much for their local communities, was stopped. That leads me neatly into my request to the Minister to consider that as we approach the Budget on 26 November. What is she going to do about it?

We need to make sure that independent lifeboats are able to act to protect those in need. Are regulations in place to that ensure independent lifeboats can act effectively? Does the Minister agree with everyone in the Chamber about the importance of independent lifeboats? If so, will she update us on the Government’s approach to funding—that is important—and on how she can encourage local lifeboat institutions to thrive?

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) made a very important point about the bureaucracy of volunteering. That is an increasingly significant constraint. There are lots of requirements, each of which is no doubt sensible on its own, but the accumulation of bureaucracy, when taken en masse, prevents people from volunteering. We need to do something about that. Will the Minister commit to a permanent position for NILA on the search and rescue framework?

This debate has been a celebration—of civic society, not the state. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley on drawing our attention to this very important part of our civic society and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I ask her to wind up by 4.11 pm, so that we can allow Mr Holmes two minutes to sum up before I conclude the debate?

Property Taxes

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) for opening the debate. I can tell that he spent his summer polishing some of his rhetorical flourishes, which he has shared with us today, but I suggest that he could have spent his time rather better.

Thank you for your words of congratulation, Mr Speaker. It is a real honour to be here as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. May I put on record my tribute to my predecessor, now the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for all his fantastic work, notably delivering the spending review? I welcome the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), to his new role. I thoroughly enjoyed the role myself, and I am sure that he will be excellent in it.

Conservative Members will appreciate that today’s motion, as tabled, simply cannot form the basis of a specific debate on individual tax measures. Members from across the House will know that the Government do not respond to speculation in advance of a Budget, which the Chancellor has today announced will take place on 26 November. This has long been the case: the shadow Chancellor knows it well and he knows that it would be irresponsible to engage in that speculation. Whatever political rhetoric he and his colleagues will use in today’s debate, and no matter how many variants of the same question they ask, I know that he will understand that I cannot engage with speculation about individual tax measures ahead of the Budget.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot speculate on individual tax measures, but will he deny that the No. 11 machine has been leaking these stories to the national press over the summer?

[James Murray]

I am not going to engage in speculation about tax measures or any of the mechanics around them. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends will simply have to wait until 26 November to hear the specifics of the Budget. At that point, I am sure that he and his colleagues will have plenty to say.

Property Taxes

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) pointed out, the motion we are debating is based purely on media speculation. It also conveniently overlooks the Conservatives’ own disastrous record. Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who presided over 14 years of failure, during which the very foundations of our economy rotted away. It was on their watch that taxes were increased 25 times in the last Parliament and the costs of mortgages soared, crippling family finances across the country.

We have heard Conservative Members talk about covid, and Russia and Ukraine—and some even seem to acknowledge the travesty that was Liz Truss. However, a 2021 report from the cross-party Treasury Committee highlighted that the OBR had been warning since 2011 about an “unsustainable” fiscal trajectory in the public finances, although the Government failed to engage with that fact. Who was the Chair of the Treasury Committee making that shrewd analysis? It was of course the current shadow Chancellor. Before we got to Russia, covid and the disaster of Liz Truss, the Conservatives had already been mismanaging our economy.

Now the Conservatives come to this House to complain about a Budget that has not even been written, offering no credible economic plan of their own and continuing to make unfunded promises. This Labour Government took immediate emergency action to stabilise our economy, and made difficult but absolutely necessary decisions. We are already seeing the early signs of promise: wages are now rising faster than prices; we have had five interest rate cuts, bringing down the cost of mortgages; and we have secured three major trade deals.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member and a number of his colleagues have referred to the reduction in interest rates as the sign of a growing economy. If he even googled it, he would realise that the first explanation for the Bank of England reducing interest rates is that it is worried about a weakening economy. Does he not realise that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I have been told that we are speculating today, so I do not know whether I have to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, in an abundance of caution, I declare that I am a homeowner and I also have properties for rent.

The kids in Downing Street—whether in No. 11 or No. 10—think it is clever to fly kites about tax rises. We had it last year, from 4 July onwards, with briefings to the press saying there would be tax rises because of a wholly fabricated £22 billion black hole in the economy. That was fabricated as a fig leaf for tax rises that were not in the manifesto. From July to October, those stories dripped in one after the other—and what was the impact? It has been the collapse in business confidence to pandemic levels, the collapse in consumer confidence as a result, and unemployment beginning its inexorable rise month after month for every single month that this Government have been in office.

Now the Government are at it again. They have not realised their past terrible mistake, and they are doing it once more. Despite raising taxes by £40 billion last October and increasing borrowing by another £32 billion, they have created a genuine black hole, which the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests means that about £51 billion is required in higher taxes or lower spending. The briefings have started again—a property levy on mansions, the replacement of stamp duty with a national property tax, national insurance contributions on rental income and capital gains tax on primary residences with a value of more than £1.5 million. Even Which? magazine has said there may be changes to the in-life gifting regime to reduce inheritance tax.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my hon. Friend accept that speculation about all those new additional taxes causes more uncertainty, which itself causes the economy to slow further?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Do the Government not recognise that posturing from the Government Benches does not come for free? Construction activity has had a bigger fall recently than in the last five years due to the leaks from No. 10 and No. 11. The commercial property sector is in recession. There are hiring freezes and staff are being laid off. People are losing their jobs because of the Government’s kite flying. Residential property prices had a surprise fall last year.

We are asked to believe that growth is the No. 1 priority of this Government. They say they are going to build 1.5 million houses during this Parliament. Merely saying that does not make it true, when their policies serve to do exactly the opposite. If Members do not believe me, look at the markets—they are not politicians. Look at the 30-year gilts that the Government are paying today. Government debt is now running at 5.73%. That is the highest rate this century. The markets think that further tax increases will damage growth. That means they will damage the fiscal environment in the future. We will have less tax in the future because of the tax-raising decisions the Government are apparently going to take in November. Labour is planning, literally, to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is no way to run an economy.

As someone much more famous than me once said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Stop now. Stop before it is too late to avoid a vicious debt spiral. I fear—I genuinely fear this—that the Government will be forced to cut spending. They have two options: they can be forced to do so by the markets in a chaotic fiscal event, or they can take the responsibility of government seriously and take the difficult but necessary decisions on spending that the country needs them to take as a responsible Government. Otherwise, they will be swept away by their own incompetence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Here we are, well over a year into this new Administration, this new Labour Government, and it is clear that they have fundamentally mismanaged the economy in their first year in office. What do we see? Borrowing costs up, growth flatlining, taxes rising and businesses being absolutely hammered. To fix this mess to the tune of £50 billion—who knows what it might be—Labour is now threatening to hike taxes on anyone they have not already squeezed into submission.

It is clear that the Labour Government are coming after people’s property. It was not enough for them to legislate to compulsorily purchase people’s gardens and homes by giving local authorities and Natural England more power through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to acquire them not at market value, but at a disregarded value relating to agricultural property value if they are a farm. If the Government do not manage to grab it, they certainly intend to tax it.

As if that tax on people’s homes or gardens was not bad enough, Labour is also coming after people’s businesses. Through the changes to inheritance tax relief, agricultural property relief and business property relief, the Government have destroyed one of the sole business environments that our communities and businesses rely on—the ability to pass an asset on to the next generation and for them to earn an income from it. Across my constituency, soft furniture makers such as Fibreline, brewers, farmers, hotels and those involved in the hospitality sector have all actively taken the decision to slow the amount of investment they are willing to put in to grow their own businesses. Why? Because of the threats coming out of the Labour Government’s previous Budget in October last year and the Budget coming down the line.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He mentions the hospitality sector. Does he recognise the Government’s cruel decision to reduce the business rates discount for the hospitality sector from 75% to 40%? It does not sound too bad, but it is actually a tax increase of 140% on the struggling hospitality sector. What impact does he think that has on future investment plans?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many of our family businesses, whether in the hospitality sector or in other sectors, are actively withholding a level of investment in their businesses which they want to grow and thrive. I have spoken to many farming businesses and many family businesses in my constituency who have worked out what their BPR or their APR liability is likely to be over a 10-year plan, and are therefore holding the level of investment back, because they may have to give it to the Chancellor and not invest it for the future growth of their business. That is not good for the health of the communities and businesses we represent.

Then there is council tax, with the looming threat of council tax revaluations potentially coming down the line, raising the council tax liability on many constituents, with properties potentially moving into higher tax bands. Bradford residents, who include those in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley, have already had our council tax raised by 10%. This threat is being added by the Labour Government when council tax is increasing. And then there is the cut to business rates relief, which is impacting many of our businesses.

With the threat of a revaluation process coming down the line, I want to raise the case of the Valuation Office Agency. Just this morning, I spoke to the Rock family, who have developed Providence Park in Keighley, with a huge amount of public funding going into the project. Despite the project completing its construction phase in April, they are now being told that despite an application being submitted, the valuation office is not even progressing with providing the business rate liability. It will therefore be more difficult for the Rock family to let those business premises. What is the Minister doing right now to put pressure on the valuation office to get a grip, pull its finger out and get those rates looked at, not just for Providence Park, but for the many businesses up and down the country that are struggling to get understanding from the valuation office?

This debate is about property taxes. We know that the Government have indicated that they are going to come for property owners in the Budget that is coming down the line—they indicated it in the previous Budget through the changes they made to inheritance tax. The Government must change course for the health and the good of the economic prosperity of our country.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I can confirm that in the design and funding of NISTA, I have funded a particular team to work on the management of disputes under the old PFI contract schemes to make sure that we are getting the best outcomes and best deal for the public sector.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I cannot believe it, but I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). It is a shock to the system, but the Chief Secretary has announced the return of the public-private partnership. The last Labour Government were a byword for disastrous contractual negotiations, and that led to the infamous £1,000 lightbulb. Given that Labour was so bad at these contract negotiations last time around, what confidence does the Chief Secretary have that he will be any better this time around?

[Darren Jones]

I am usually confident in my abilities, to be frank. We will be consulting on some of the design details. We will be using private capital for social infrastructure only in particular potential use cases. We mention in the strategy today certain types of primary neighbourhood healthcare centres. We will be transparently consulting on that detail, and we will only allow such capital to be used in a way that is value for money. We will not be returning to the PFI contracts of the past.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

The Government persist in their tendentious references to additional funding, all of which is capital and none of which can soften the blow of the measures contained in the Bill. They do not want to support, in particular, Lords amendment 21B, because they would rather continue to cloak the effect that the Bill will have on care services and contractor elements of the national health service up and down these islands, and the effect that it will have on the real economy, which Labour is a stranger to.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am just flummoxed by the Government’s approach to the Bill. Clause 1 raises employer national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. Almost more damagingly, clause 2 reduces the threshold at which they start paying it from £9,100 to just £5,000. The Government know how damaging this measure is for healthcare. We can see that because they have taken action to exempt the NHS from it. That will cost billions of pounds, because healthcare providers cannot just diversify as other sections of the economy might be able to. They cannot raise prices. A general practitioner’s customer is the state, and prices are fixed by the Treasury. As a result, the Government know exactly what the impact of this proposal will be on hospices. We have already heard that without an exemption, they will face an additional £30 million of costs every year as a result of these changes.

When the Bill was first announced, I assumed that there had been an oversight by the Treasury and that it would be addressed as the Bill progressed. But both last week and this week, the Lords have moved to fix what was originally considered to be perhaps an oversight. Today’s decision to seek to reverse Lords amendments 1B and 5B in particular demonstrates beyond doubt that it is not an oversight but a deliberate decision taken by Labour to penalise hospices for the care of the dying, and to do what with that money? We may be in the obscene position in a few weeks’ time of funding for state-assisted dying being raised by taxing palliative care. This is absolute madness. If Members wanted any other reason why they should not support the Government, that is an overwhelming one.

I make one last reference to the emptiness of the Government Benches. There are now two Labour Members sitting there who are not required to be—[Interruption.] I take it back, there is only one. That indicates to me that Labour Members do not want to be associated with the Bill. They will scurry through the Lobby later, but they are not brave enough to stand up and defend the decision of their Government.

[Gregory Stafford]

You do not need any convincing of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but were you to, the Lords amendments demonstrate why we need a House of Lords. They are the ones standing up and delivering the amendments that this Government are trying to wriggle out of this afternoon. Amendments 1B and 5B, which the Government are trying to derogate from, are essential for our care services. The financial strain that the Government’s national insurance contributions will put on the care sector is astronomical—some predictions are of around £2.4 billion on social care alone. Ultimately, that will lead to reductions in services and, unfortunately, closures, especially in the hospice sector.

The Minister has repeated what he and other Ministers have said on many occasions: they are giving a certain amount of money to the hospice sector, but as Opposition colleagues have stated, that is capital spending. What they desperately need is revenue spending to cover the cost of the rise in national insurance contributions.

Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

There still seems to be confusion among Opposition Members about what the OBR publication set out. It reiterates the costings that were published at the time of the Budget, on 30 October. It explains how those costings were arrived at, so that people can understand the calculations behind them, but the costings are the same as those published at the time of the Budget.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, if you look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, you will see a reference to my family farm in my constituency. Last Sunday, I drove one of our tractors to Fakenham racecourse to support the farmers’ protest against the APR and BPR. I talked to other farmers, and the key complaint was that there had been no consultation on the changes, and no time for older farmers to adjust their affairs. All those concerns have been rubbished by Ministers time and again, most recently today. Now that the OBR confirms that it is more difficult for older people to restructure their affairs quickly, will the Government finally listen, show some humility, and consult on how best to tackle the tax shelterers while still protecting our farmers?

[James Murray]

The comments in the OBR publication yesterday about older individuals reference a point that has been made since the Budget in debates in this place and elsewhere. We have pointed out that our reform of agricultural property relief and business property relief maintains generous exemptions from inheritance tax; £1 million is subject to relief, and there is the 50% relief beyond that, the existing nil-rate bands, and other exemptions in the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know she studies closely the work of Professor Michael Marmot on life expectancy and the impact of health inequalities on our country. At the Budget, we increased the minimum wage. In addition, we extended the household support fund and reduced the amount that could be taken in deductions from universal credit, all to try to put more money in the pockets of ordinary working people, to reduce some of those inequalities and tackle the cost of living crisis.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

One of my GP surgeries called me this morning to highlight the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions, which will cost it £40,000. It can only respond by freezing cost of living pay increases for all its support staff. Does the Chancellor finally accept that working people up and down the country are paying the price for her tax rises?

Finance Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, we believe that before making any changes to the tax rates that people pay, it is vital that we do everything we can to close the tax gap. That is why, in the Budget, the Chancellor announced a step change in our ambition to do so, with a package raising £6.5 billion of additional tax revenue by 2029-30. This package will ensure that more of the tax that is owed is paid, and that taxpayers are supported to pay the right tax first time. Our plan involves boosting the capacity of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure compliance and reduce debt, alongside changes to legislation, some of which this Finance Bill delivers, to remove loopholes used to reduce tax liabilities.

That is why this Bill includes measures such as introducing capital gains on the liquidation of a limited liability partnership, closing a route increasingly used to avoid paying tax. The Bill reforms rules for overseas pension transfers, closing a gap that allows individuals to transfer significant pension savings overseas tax-free. And the Bill implements the cryptoasset reporting framework, tackling complex compliance cases where a significant proportion of offshore risk sits.

In our manifesto, we said that we would take on the tax gap, and that is what we are doing in government.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Minister recognises the importance of reducing the tax gap, so will he commend the previous Conservative Government for halving the tax gap they inherited from Labour in 2010?

[James Murray]

As we all know, efforts to close the tax gap thoroughly stalled under the previous Government, and we have brought renewed focus to this effort. It is one of our top priorities. Before increasing any tax rates, we must ensure that people pay the tax that is owed. Frankly, if the previous Government had been doing such a great job, how is it that our Government have been able to find an extra £6.5 billion to close the tax gap in our first Budget alone? That was in our manifesto, and that is what we are delivering.

In our manifesto, we made other specific commitments on tax, and I will set out now how the Bill seeks to implement them. First, let me turn to non-doms in the tax system. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, this Government believe that everyone who is a long-term resident in the UK should pay their taxes here. That is why this Government are removing the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system, and why we are implementing a new residence-based regime from 6 April 2025. We have long argued for such a change to be made. Although the previous Government ended up being forced towards our position, they never implemented any changes. Under this Government, we will finally make the reforms necessary to make the system fit for the 21st century.

Our new regime will be internationally competitive and focused on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK. Our reforms will scrap the planned 50% reduction in foreign income subject to tax in the first year of the new regime; introduce a new residence-based regime for inheritance tax; retain and reform overseas workday relief, encouraging employees to spend more of their earnings in the UK; and extend the previously announced temporary repatriation facility to three years, from April 2025.

The new rules mean that, from April 2025, anyone who has been tax resident in the UK for more than four years will pay UK tax on their foreign income and gains, as is the case for other UK residents. That is a much simpler and clearer test than exists under the current regime. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that these reforms will raise £12.7 billion in revenue over the five year forecast period. That funding is crucial for meeting our commitments to fixing the public finances.

Secondly, in government we have decided to go further than our manifesto commitment to increase the non-resident stamp duty surcharge, and we will instead increase the higher rate of stamp duty on additional dwellings, from three percentage points to five percentage points above the standard residential rate. That increase to the higher rate of stamp duty will raise more money than set out in the manifesto—a total of £310 million by 2029-30—and will go further to rebalance the housing market.

The OBR’s certified costing assumes that an increase in the higher rate of stamp duty by two percentage points is expected to result in 130,000 additional transactions over the next five years by first-time buyers and other people buying a primary residence. We estimate that approximately half those who paid a non-resident stamp duty surcharge also pay the higher rates of stamp duty, so the change will improve the comparative advantage of UK resident home movers, while ensuring that no additional barriers are faced by those coming to the UK and buying their main home.

Thirdly, the Bill delivers our manifesto commitment to introduce the 20% standard rate of VAT on private school fees. That will apply to any charges charged on or after 29 July for terms starting after 1 January 2025, and it sits alongside our changes to private schools business rates relief in the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. Ending tax breaks for private schools is a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help the Government deliver their commitments to improve education in state schools across the country, and achieve the aspiration that every parent has for a high-quality education for their children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

No. I can tell those Members that when additional money is spent on the state sector, it improves the life chances and opportunities of my constituents.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she identify which subsidy she is talking about?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I am talking about the VAT relief that existed for private schools. [Interruption.] Yes, it was a subsidy. Politics is full of choices, and a Government’s first responsibility is to ensure that they balance the books. If a Government are responsible, they will invest in decent public services and create conditions for economic stability. I want to concentrate on that final point for a moment. We have heard remarks from Opposition Members on small and medium-sized businesses; I say to those Members that when I speak to local businesses in Barking, they say that the economic instability over the past few years is what has created pressure for them.

I welcome, in particular, the Government’s tax announcements on non-dom loopholes. The Government changing the residential base means they will increase revenue by almost £13 billion. The rate changes on capital gains mean we will maintain our position as having the lowest capital gains tax of any European G7 economy. These measures are a collection of decisions that show we are prioritising investment in public services, alongside an absolute commitment from the Government to create economic stability to achieve the future growth that this country deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

We are debating the Finance Bill following an election. In usual times, such a Bill would enact what was said in the winning party’s manifesto, but not this time. On the electoral trail, all the Labour Members who are now Ministers repeated what was said in the Labour manifesto time and again: their plans were “fully costed” and “fully funded”. They repeatedly said that they had no plans to raise taxes beyond VAT on private schools or to increase public borrowing. The manifesto said, in bald terms, that

“we will not increase National Insurance”.

There was no qualification to that—it was there in black and white.

It is extraordinary that we are debating a Finance Bill that has no correlation to the manifesto that it comes after. The electorate were profoundly misled. The reality is that the Labour party is increasing spending by more than £70 billion. Labour Members use the argument of their fantasy black hole, which has been thoroughly debunked by the independent Government body, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent IFS and the Financial Times. No one believes Labour, because that black hole is not there. It is not a black hole; it is more like a red herring.

The reason for that red herring is that Labour needed it as the excuse to do what it always intended to do—put up taxes and increase spending on public workers. Why did it do that? Because Labour Members—all of them— knew that if they had been honest with the electorate and told them that Labour was going to be a tax and spend party, no one would have voted for them. Even then, only 34% of the public did. It was a big con on the electorate. That is why we have a petition live on the Government website that says:

“I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.”

As of this afternoon, 2.75 million people have signed that petition because they feel misled by this Government.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Budget provided £2.6 billion for education, £1 billion for SEND, £22 billion for the NHS and several billion more for things like councils. Would the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Broadland and Fakenham welcome the contribution of those funds to the NHS, schools and councils, or would he not like that investment to go into his constituency?

[Jerome Mayhew]

There were a number of points in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First, how much money should be spent? Secondly, what should it be spent on? And thirdly, where should we get it from? I will go straight to the heart of where we can get the money from: if we return public service productivity back to 2019 levels, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; if we return the size of the civil service to the 2019 level, before the big covid expansion, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; and if we return welfare spending on disability back to pre-covid levels, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was in process of doing before the general election, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved.

[Kanishka Narayan]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

In a moment. If we add that all up, there would be £50 billion that could be spent on the frontline. However, the problem with the Labour party is that it takes money and spends it on inflation-busting wage rises for its union paymasters, but not on increasing and improving the outcomes for the people who use services. That is the big difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The focus of our spending is not the people providing the services; we are for the people who use those services—the people of this country.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is making a typically eloquent and excellent speech. I challenged a number of Labour Members to outline that public services can be invested in if, in addition to some of the tax-raising mechanisms they have chosen, we have economic growth. Will my hon. Friend outline how much growth has been cut by under the Government’s proposals compared with ours? Am I correct in thinking it is 0.7% over the Parliament?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct: over the course of the forecast period, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that growth will be cut by 0.7%. It is worse than that, however, because we also have an increase in taxes on businesses of £25 billion through the national insurance contributions, which the OBR tells us will be paid for overwhelmingly by reduced pay for workers, amounting to £7.5 billion. It also forecasts that more than 50,000 full time-equivalent jobs will be lost as a result of the policies that Labour Members plan to vote for.

[Kanishka Narayan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will on that point.

[Kanishka Narayan]

The hon. Member keeps talking about his Government having been in the process of making a mark on productivity. Having left us with the worst productivity slowdown in 250 years, will he tell us how long the process would have taken?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was not on the point that he rose for, but there is one thing that he does not mention, and that is the covid impact. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can laugh about it, but we spent £400 billion supporting the economy and the people of this country in a once-in-a-century impact on our economy.

[Paul Holmes]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, will he give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Yes, I will. That was extraordinary.

[Paul Holmes]

Does he agree with me that there seems to be a collective amnesia among colleagues on the Labour Benches? If we had taken their advice during covid, when we were making reasonable decisions, not only would we have seen the longer lockdowns that the now Prime Minister was calling for, but more economic damage, which they now deny ever happened in the first place.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is a point worth making here. Since covid, the private sector has improved productivity by about 6%. Productivity in the public sector has yet to improve, although before the general election it was starting to do that.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not. I want to make some progress because I have been quite generous in giving way.

The OBR says that more than 50,000 jobs will be actively lost as a direct result of the decisions Members on the Labour Benches are about to take. I think that is an underestimate. I have been talking to businesses in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham over the past few weeks and, as a former entrepreneur, I have been taken aback by quite how badly the tax and spend decisions of the Labour party have gone down with my small and medium-sized employers. Their accounts to me suggest that those choices are affecting their decisions on employment, and particularly on employing young people.

One employer said to me just two weeks ago that 18-year-olds are harder to employ than, say, 25 or 26-year-olds because overall more of them will fail in their job as they get used to the working environment. Employing 18-year-olds used to be worthwhile because the national minimum wage was lower and national insurance contributions did not have to be paid on the first £9,200 of their employment. That advantage has been removed and it is now disproportionately more expensive to employ an 18-year-old than older members of staff. That is a real-life case, where the employer told me they will stop employing young people in their business. Is that really what Labour Members wanted to achieve? That is what is happening already.

[Dr Arthur]

I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he advising businesses in his constituency not to employ 18-year-olds, or is he telling 18-year-olds in his constituency that he wants them to be paid less?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not telling anyone anything; I am reporting what businesses are telling me. As a direct consequence of the actions of the Members on the Labour Benches, young people are not being employed who otherwise would have been. The OBR says that will lead to more than 50,000 jobs being lost. Time will tell, but I think that is an underestimate.

We have a reduction in recruitment, a reduction in the employment of young staff, a reduction in investment and, as a result, we will have a reduction in growth over the course of the forecast period. But worse than that, we will have a reduction in living standards. This cost of living crisis, which has now been caused by Labour, will reduce living standards by 1.25% by 2029. That reduction is a direct result of the Budget, so if Labour Members vote for this Bill, they will be voting for increasing the cost of living crisis by 1.25%.

None the less, we have seen some increases: debt costs are increasing; inflation is increasing, which will exacerbate the cost of living crisis; and mortgage costs are increasing.

[Tom Hayes]

You talk about increasing inflation, yet we saw record levels of inflation—11%—under the Conservative Government, one third of which was caused by our exposure to gas shocks. Does he agree with this Labour Government that we need to invest in clean energy, so that we are no longer left vulnerable to foreign dictators and their control of fossil fuel markets?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before the hon. Member answers that intervention, I remind Members not to use the word “you”. Moreover, this is a debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, so can we please make comments, interventions and speeches relevant to the Finance Bill?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention. Inflation 11% was a direct consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as everyone knows, but what is important is that the Conservative Government took the difficult decision to get it down to a target of 2%. It is already creeping up under Labour, and it will be higher than it otherwise would have been as a direct consequence of these measures. Do not trust my word for that; that comes directly from the OBR. Again, the OBR tells us that mortgage rises will occur directly because of the decisions of Government Members. Union activity will be up, with the consequential impact on productivity and efficiency of our private sector. The size of the state will go up and, shamefully, the tax take will be the highest since records began. I will not support this Finance Bill, or its Second Reading, so Labour Members will have to take the consequences of their own decisions.