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.

VAT: Independent Schools

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I have a child at a private school. Government Members say that is not a problem. They say, “This is not a criticism of private education; this is merely a revenue-generation exercise, not social engineering or socialist class war.” It must be a coincidence, then, that this policy punishes aspiration, pulls children down rather than lifting them up, and is being rushed through, as we have heard time and again. It is a socialist, red-meat policy to placate the Labour Back Benchers who are having the gradual and terrifying realisation that they may well be single-term Members of this place.

The Government need to think again. We have heard serious objections to this policy—not to its implementation, because the mathematics of this place mean that the Government have sufficient support behind them to force anything through, however ill-advised, but we have heard serious recommendations for review, improvement and tweaking to undo some of the significant damage that this policy, unamended, will cause.

Introducing the policy on 1 January, halfway through the academic year, will damage children and children’s education. These are real people. Some 10,000 children have already left the independent sector. Their education, and that of thousands of others like them, needs to be considered by this Government. On children who are sitting public examinations this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made a brilliant and serious point, which should be not cast aside but considered: if children studying under one exam board are transferred, in the exam year, to another system, what do they do? What is the Government’s answer?

On the subject of pupils who are applying for education, health and care plans, 34% of pupils at Langley school in my constituency are treated for SEND, and only nine of them have EHCPs. What do those other students do? Surely there should be a delay for pupils who are applying for EHCPs. We have also heard from gallant Members that military families are taking decisions now about their future in the armed services. There are also specialist schools for music and dance, which are important for the fabric of our community and the quality of life in this country; those things are not offered in the state system.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Does this not further make the case for the Government publishing in full their assessment of the impact that the measure will have on schools and children right across the country?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have published no evidence to support their stated objective. There has been no impact assessment. This measure is rushed, and vulnerable children are paying the price for internal Labour politics. Shame on you.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

We have been told by the Government that the rationale for this policy is not class hatred or class warfare; it is a revenue-generation mechanism for state schools. It is a sort of novel, hypothecated tax: education has always been tax free in this country and, in fact, around the world. Even going back to the last flowering of Labour’s socialism in the 1970s, when there was beer and sandwiches in No. 10, there was no suggestion that we should take socialism into the classroom in the way that this Government are.

If tax take is in fact the rationale, where is the impact assessment? How much will actually be raised by this policy, and what costs will be associated with its implementation? We have already heard that some 10,000 students have left the private sector and are going into the state sector just this September. What impact will there be on the education of those children?

On Friday I went to see a local headmaster at a private school in my constituency—the only one that I am aware of. At this stage, I should register my interest: I have one child at a fee-paying school. The headmaster said that there are primary schools locally that are totally full and there is no space for those children leaving the private sector to go into local primary education. Where is the impact assessment on SEND children? Some 34% of the intake of that private school are pupils with special educational needs. Partly because of the delay in the EHCP process, will they be penalised? What happens when they get taken out of their educational setting and put into a new school with new friends, or a lack of them? What will be the impact on their personal education? What will be the impact on SEND provision in the county of Norfolk?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I have always had great concern about segregation in our education system, but parents in York say that due to the different pedagogy environment and culture, certain independent schools provide the only way that their children with SEN, anxiety or care experience can currently access education. It is through necessity, not choice. Does he agree that the Government should publish an impact assessment not only for this, but for the Budget, so that we can assess the full analysis of this policy?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sorry that she waited so long to intervene. I quite agree with the point that she makes. We need to have an impact assessment on another issue, which is the provision of boarding facilities for children in care, which again are provided in my constituency. The school provides full boarding for not just children in care, but the boarding pathway programme put forward by Norfolk county council for children on the edge of care. Their education is the single point of continuity in their lives, and this policy has a real risk of reducing that support and removing them from their school and their friends halfway through an educational year.

What assessment have the Government undertaken before the Budget on these policies and their costs, and what mitigation will they put in place? We have already heard about the impact on military families. Is it right to target the children of our servicemen for this hypothecated tax? Was targeting poor pensioners not enough for this Government?

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy disproportionately affects families on lower and middle incomes, which the vast majority of these students come from? Parents I have spoken to in my constituency are really concerned. They have forgone foreign holidays, a new car and a bigger home because they have chosen to invest in their children’s education. Should the Government not encourage people to make those right decisions on behalf of their families, rather than penalising them?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It feels as though the Government have a cartoonish characterisation of what a private education looks like—top hats and tails—but that is not the real experience of the modern private educational sector.

That brings me nicely on to the impact on bursaries. At the school in my constituency, 20% of fee revenue goes on bursaries. It is exactly that level of support for people with greater financial disadvantage that will be the first casualty of this unfair and ill thought-out policy. Again, it is an odd target for a tax take. What about the impact on local businesses? The school employs 286 people of all different types in my constituency, and job cuts are already under way. I ask the Government to think again. Surely the introduction of this ill thought-out policy halfway through the academic year needs to be revisited.

Then there is the impact on children who are sitting for public examinations. It is always bad when children have to change schools because of circumstances that are forced on them, but even more so when they are sitting for their GCSEs or A levels. At the very least, the policy should not be implemented for people in those years. For pupils applying for education, health and care plans, the delay in the Government process of undertaking those assessments should not mean that costs are forced on parents who are taking active steps to support the education of their children. For military families and for specialist music and dance schools, the Government have put forward no evidence to support their stated policy objectives. The policy feels rushed. The only people here to support it are those who are paid to do so, and it is vulnerable children in our society who will pay the price of these internal Labour politics.

[Several hon. Members rose—]