Public Sector Pay 2024-25

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for securing it.

First, may I say how saddened I am to hear that Tony Lloyd has passed away? I knew him for all my time here of some 15 years. He used to sit behind me in the Chamber, or I sat in front of him—perhaps that would be a better way to say it. We had many chats and much fun together. Along with others in this Chamber, I pass on my sincere sympathies to his family. He was a very good friend to Northern Ireland. We might have had some differences in how we looked at things, but I tell you what: no one can ever take away his dedication and commitment to Northern Ireland. I will sadly miss him on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I put on the record the burden of his passing.

This is certainly a timely debate. In Northern Ireland tomorrow, our schools will be closed because the teachers are on strike. Public transport workers will join them. Anyone who wishes to travel to work will do so on roads that are not gritted, while road gritters go on strike and temperatures fall today and tomorrow in Northern Ireland. More than 150,000 public sector workers, across 15 unions, are set to strike. If we took this to the nth degree and all public sector workers went on strike, we would find a total shutdown in Northern Ireland.

Some people here may be getting ready to chime, “Pay sector awards are devolved.” Yes, they are, but I will make my case. It has to be remembered that Northern Ireland is grossly underfunded, as has been acknowledged by the Secretary of State and by central Government. We need an appropriate uplift in Government funding. I am invested in this deal to ensure the Barnett consequentials. This has been discussed at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and is one of the issues that we have taken forward. All the officials who attend have acknowledged that the Welsh system of funding, with great respect to Welsh colleagues here, would make us better off in Northern Ireland. If that has been accepted on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, it is only right that we should see a reflection of any uplift and increase.

I cannot speak on this motion without highlighting the fact that, unlike in the English system, we have been held to ransom not by strikes but our own Secretary of State, who is on record as acknowledging that an enormous budget increase is required. He has sourced part of that funding but is withholding the money that would give the public pay sector increase required. He has tied the release of the extra £3.3 billion, which has been well bandied about and talked about. We have pushed him on the issue. The ham-fisted blackmail attempt has been highlighted by my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who has said about the pay rise:

“There’s nothing to stop that from happening—you don’t need to have a functioning Stormont in order for the Secretary of State to use the temporary powers that he has given himself for that purpose. He has the power to set the budget. He has the power to deal with this issue, and we’re saying to the Secretary of State that he should get on and do that.”

Why should the Secretary of State do that? Because the Government here have already done it on three occasions. They did it for sex and relationships education, they did it for the Irish language Bill and they did it for the abortion Bill. If they can do it three times, they can do it once more and create the money—the £3.3 billion, which would pay for the whole increase that the workers want. I support them. A number of unions have gone on the record, including on a television programme last week. They said, “Let’s focus on who can make this decision.” They went on record to say that this is not a matter for politics, but for leadership. Where does that leadership come from? It comes from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He can make that decision.

I put on record my support to others here and to my constituents back home. I have supported decent pay sector increases for hard workers in this place. Northern Ireland deserves no less support and action. I conclude by asking Members here to voice their concerns to Government in support of public sector workers throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, without whom we would be completely lost and much worse off. I support them in what they are doing. The thing about it this time is that the Secretary of State has the money to do it.

Inheritance Tax

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. I first thank the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this debate and giving us all the chance to participate. It is no secret that my politics are left of centre, and I very much have a social conscience about these things, but I have to say honestly to Opposition Members that perhaps it is time we disagree. Hopefully, they can appreciate my point of view, which I will explain. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) made it very clear in his contribution where he stands, and that is where I also stand. Opposition Members always have been and always will be good friends of mine, but I am on a different page to theirs on this one.

I welcome the opportunity today to make a strong case for why inheritance tax should be abolished in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Inheritance tax is a levy imposed on the estates of people when they die, and I believe it is one of the most unfair taxes in existence. That is my opinion, and I hope others will respect it. Inheritance tax punishes a lifetime of hard work, discourages saving and creates inequality. It goes against the very principles of meritocracy, aspiration and family, and I believe it needs to go.

I will tell a story, and it is not because I want to boast in any way. My dad will be dead nine years this March, and when my mummy and daddy got married, he started with £5. My dad was very talented; he was very good with his hands and he could turn them to anything. He fixed a cartwheel and sold it for £5, and that £5 got mum and dad married—my mum is 92, by the way, so this was a long time ago. My point is that dad then progressed, through four or five shops, from western Tyrone right through to Ballywalter, Millisle, Newtownards and back down to where we now have farm. I can tell hon. Members that mum and dad got that farm through hard work, through the sweat of their brow, and through their efforts to try and do something, starting with £5. That story is gospel truth, and perhaps it illustrates where I come from. I think it is about working hard and having a hard-working ethic.

I say this with great respect to Opposition Members, because I know that they have a work ethic as well—it is not about that. I just want to explain that my dad did what he did, and got to where he was, through those efforts. My father is now dead and gone, but that effort has been replicated by hundreds of thousands of people across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe we must address the fundamental principles that underpin our economic system. The accumulation of personal wealth through hard work, dedication and innovation is the basis of a thriving economy. In its current form, inheritance tax undermines that very principle by placing a significant burden on individuals who wish to pass on their accumulated assets to their loved ones.

I am not sure when I will pass away—it may be soon or it may be some time away, but whenever it is, I am ready to go, and I know where I am going—but I will wish to pass on what I have to my three boys. My will has already been made and that decision is done, because that is what I have worked hard for over all these years. Abolishing inheritance tax would allow families to retain the fruits of their hard labour, enabling the transfer of their hard-earned property from one generation to the next without any undue interference from the state.

I come from a farming background. I live in the farmhouse on my farm, and I will quote the old saying, “A father farms for his sons” or his daughters. A father does so in order to pass to the next generation a work ethic and whatever has rightly been earned from that work. If there is one reason to work hard and save wisely, surely it is doing so for one’s own family. I believe that inheritance tax punishes people, and many hundreds of thousands of others have the same opinion.

Inheritance tax is ineffective and inefficient. It raises a small amount of revenue for the Government but imposes a high administrative and compliance burden on taxpayers and their families. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, inheritance tax currently raises £7 billion per annum and will reach some £15 billion by 2032-33. However, that is only 0.5% of GDP, and it comes at the cost of complex rules, loopholes and avoidance schemes.

My mum and dad had a clear work ethic. I remember my mum taking me down to Northern Bank with £10 when I was 16, so that I could open a bank account. I am still with the bank, having received a £10 contribution from my mum to get me started. She instilled in me and my family a willingness to save for what we want and for what we need to get for our houses on so on.

Inheritance tax distorts economic behaviour, as it discourages people from saving and investing. Instead, it encourages them to spend or give away their possessions before they die, which I think is not entirely correct. Critics argue that abolishing inheritance tax may increase wealth inequality, but I do not believe that. It is essential to recognise that the tax affects not only the wealthy but many middle-class families, who may be asset rich but cash poor. That is the way I see it. In the area where I live, most families are middle class, and they express the same concerns that I am expressing today on their behalf.

Forcing families to liquidate assets to pay inheritance tax can result in the sale of family businesses or properties, leading to economic instability and job losses. Abolishing the tax would protect family-owned enterprises and allow for the preservation of businesses that contribute to local communities. Inheritance tax is unfair and inequitable. It hits people with different levels of wealth and different types of assets in different ways. The very wealthy effectively pay a lower rate of tax than the moderately wealthy, as they can use trusts, gifts and other legal devices to reduce their liability. I understand that and, to be fair, the hon. Member for Hemsworth referred to it earlier. I cannot say that people are abusing the system because, by its very nature, the system lets people find loopholes.

Inheritance tax violates the principle of double taxation, because it taxes people on income or savings on which they have already paid tax during their lifetime. They have already paid tax, and then they have to pay it again. That is not right. Inheritance tax also violates the principle of autonomy, as it restricts a person’s freedom to dispose of their property as they wish—the freedom to give what they own to their children or grandchildren, or to a charity.

I honestly see the tax as wholly un-British because it goes against the values of the British people who have traditionally believed in rewarding hard work, supporting family and achieving social mobility for the next generation. That is what I believe in my heart. We should always work to make the next generation better off than the previous one. That is why I have a social conscience. I am not saying that nobody else has a social conscience, but that is why my politics lie left of centre. I will always fight for the wee man and the wee woman to make sure that they have rights.

However, I cannot go along with what was proposed in the debate. Inheritance tax is consistently rated as the most hated tax in the country. There is a strong public demand for its abolition. I have no idea what the Minister will say, but if he says that inheritance tax will be abolished, I will cheer and I suspect the hon. Member for Darlington will do likewise. There might be others of the same opinion. It is 330 years since its inception in 1694—a long time to have a tax in place. There have been many changes in how we look at things today and differences in wealth dispersion, not just among those who are very wealthy but among the middle classes. My daddy and mum started off with £5 when they got married.

It is time to re-evaluate the tax. It seems to penalise success and undermine the family. I am a great believer in the family being the core of society. It is time to respect the wishes of the people who have worked hard to earn what they have and let them decide how to use it for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing the debate, which has been quite informative and good-mannered. I pay tribute to my colleague and comrade, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who I am sure was here to advocate a 5% inheritance tax.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Member for Strangford. He knows that I hold him in high esteem. But to gently push back on his argument, I suggest that perhaps his parents started with only £5 because of the inequality that exists. Perhaps if inheritance tax was properly in place, his parents might have had more money.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps I did not make my point in the right way. My mum and dad started with £5. They worked hard, developed all those shops and the farm that they owned through hard work and effort. What I am trying to say—I hope I can convey it in a sensible way—is that with that hard work ethic they made their £5 go far. It is like the story in the Bible of the 10 talents. They got 10 talents and a whole lot more.

[David Linden]

I appreciate that. Anyone watching this debate will know that, given how we are debating this, some of which is based on Bible principles, this is just something that we will disagree on. I none the less appreciate how the hon. Member put his point and I respect it.

I have listened with great interest to the points made by Members today. As we approach the spring Budget, I suspect it will not be the last fiscal event of the year if we are heading for an autumn election. As with last year’s autumn statement, I am sure that the issue of inheritance tax—we got to the crux of this with the contributions from the hon. Members for Darlington and for North East Hampshire—or more specifically the issue of scrapping inheritance tax, will feature heavily in the debate leading up to the Chancellor’s announcement this spring.

As we debate this issue it is important to be cautious and take stock of who this debate favours and at what cost. Who are the winners and losers? I appreciate that, in the cosy consensus of Westminster, talking about the royal family is not often appreciated, but there is an elephant in the room here: there is no inheritance tax for the royal family. Indeed, recently, the King, following his mother’s passing away, benefited enormously from inheriting the Duchy of Lancaster, and his son benefited enormously from inheriting the Duchy of Cornwall. Neither of them paid any inheritance tax—we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds being inherited by the King and the Prince of Wales, and not a single penny of inheritance tax being paid on that. I am at risk of upsetting either the Clerk or you, Sir Robert, so I will not make any more comment on that, but simply leave it on the record that my constituents and I find the situation deeply unacceptable.

Just last week, I stood in this Chamber outlining the dire situation that people currently face as a result of the cost of living crisis—a crisis that shows no real signs of improving any time soon. As I go around my constituency of Glasgow East and people talk, quite rightly, about the impact of the cost of living crisis and the upcoming Budget, not a single constituent who has spoken to me in person, emailed me or come to my surgeries has said, “Do you know what, David? The biggest solution to the cost of living crisis is to abolish inheritance tax.”

I suspect that if we challenge people on the issue of polling and go out there—whether to Westminster tube station, Hemsworth or Worcestershire—abolishing inheritance tax will be so low down in people’s priorities. That is why, in the midst of this cost of living crisis, debating whether to scrap inheritance tax—which less than 5% of people pay, despite bringing in nearly £7 billion to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—seems ludicrous. Against the backdrop of a British Government intent on bringing forward draconian measures to force ill and disabled people into work in order to balance the books, it is ludicrous that they are floating the idea of scrapping an inheritance tax that is paid by only the wealthiest households on these islands.

However, the British Government’s commitment to reducing taxes for the most well-off is a timely reminder of just how out of touch they are. As people struggle to turn on the heating this week in -4° conditions, it is simply absurd that the British Government should be even considering getting rid of a tax that goes at least some way, albeit a very small way, to alleviating the entrenched wealth inequality that is so prevalent in our society. The UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe, so scrapping or even reducing inheritance tax only deepens further the chasm of inequality that no modern or fair society should have.

Fuelling speculation around the scrapping of inheritance tax, the Chancellor has previously stated:

“I think that inheritance tax is a pernicious tax because one of the main reasons people invest is because they want to pass on savings to their children”.

Inheritance is an emotive subject of debate. It makes us consider life after we are no longer here and what that may look like for the generations after us. This is where my friend the hon. Member for Strangford and I entirely agree: we both know where we are going after we have been here, because of our belief in Jesus. I also happen to believe that people should not have a removal van or a bank van following them to their grave, but that is a separate issue.

As a parent myself, I understand the logic of wanting to be able to provide for our children, even from beyond the grave, but here is why I take that statement and the Chancellor’s line of argument with a degree of incredulity. I recently—in fact, only yesterday—spoke with Daniella Jenkins, a senior lecturer at the University of Bristol, who made an important point about recognising the existing inequality of intergenerational wealth. Like the hon. Member for Darlington, the Chancellor made a sweeping statement without giving any consideration to what I would argue are the huge disparities in intergenerational wealth that exist across these islands.

Pre-existing parental wealth is often overlooked in this debate. It is worth noting that while some children are set to inherit from their parents, some stand to inherit absolutely nothing, either because they do not have any parents or because their parents themselves face dire levels of income inequality, meaning that they will have little to leave behind. Sadly, that issue is probably more the case in constituencies such as mine, Glasgow East; I respectfully suggest that perhaps that is why I bring to the debate a different view from that of my friends on the Conservative Benches.

Although the Chancellor frames his argument around the desire to transfer wealth to children, we cannot escape the fact that the national trends across the population show that parental wealth is very, very unequally distributed. We should also remember that the value of wealth being passed on has also increased over time. If that cycle continued, it would only further entrench wealth inequality among millennial children and younger children, because—frankly—the difference between having rich parents or poor parents is now shaping what economic resources are available to children. That is why it is so important that the discussion about inheritance is centred on fairness and equality.

In Scotland, the issue of taxation has been under intense scrutiny over the last few months, following the Scottish Government’s latest reforms to their progressive tax framework. Only today the Prime Minister spoke about Scotland being the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that is not something that keeps me awake at night. As a higher earner, I am quite happy to pay more tax, because the tax that I pay goes towards the education that my children receive at the local school; the tax that I pay goes towards the salary of my mother, who works in the national health service. As a higher earner, I have no issue whatever with paying more tax, although I know that view is not shared widely in this place.

Although the Scottish Government currently have no ability to introduce measures related to income tax, within their income tax framework they have been able to create a progressive tax system conducive to a fair and more prosperous Scotland. With the limited powers that they have, the Scottish Government have ensured that the tax and social security system is progressive and equitable, so that everybody in Scotland—regardless of their background—has the opportunity to thrive. It is within those guiding principles that progressive policies have resulted in Scottish households, particularly in the lower half of the income distribution bracket, being £400 better off a year than they would be in other parts of the UK.

While we are faced with these elevated levels of income inequality, scrapping or reducing inheritance tax would simply deepen and perpetuate the existing disparity. If the British Government are determined to make an already deeply unfair inheritance tax system more unfair, the only conclusion that I can draw is that they must transfer the necessary powers to legislate on inheritance tax to the Scottish Parliament, either through the means of further devolution or—my desired option—independence. Only then will Scotland be able to build a comprehensive and progressive tax system that puts fairness and equality at the centre, representing the values of a modern and equitable society and not those of a Westminster system that frankly does not have the confidence of the people of Scotland.

Public Services in Cornwall: Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady actually read the subject of the debate, which is specifically about funding and delivering public services in Cornwall. She can make her points in her own debate about her part of the world; I am here to talk about Cornwall this evening.

There is a need to reflect on these challenges and this combination of factors that we face in Cornwall when it comes to the funding that we receive for our public services. My first point is about geography. Cornwall has a unique geography within the British Isles. We are long and narrow peninsula, unlike any other part of the country. We are almost an island. As I have said in this place before, if the River Tamar was 2.5 miles longer, we would actually be an island, and there is many proud a Cornishman who has talked about taking their shovel and finishing the job to create an island. The challenges we face often have more in common with those of an island than with being a part of the mainland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wishes to intervene and I will happily give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I trust the hon. Gentleman will adhere to the subject of the debate.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope you will be impressed, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the significance and interest of my comments, and how much they tie in with what the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) has said. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is my Gaelic cousin, which means that his interests are similar to my own. Has he ever considered working with other regions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to help address the matter of public services funding? We have Gaelic cousins in Wales, Scotland and, of course, in Northern Ireland. We are united by culture, history and language, and we have mutual interests. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our Gaelic strength is better within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Nice try, but this is an intervention not a speech.

Financial Advice and Guidance: Consumer Market

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the consumer market for financial advice and guidance.

It is an absolute pleasure, Mrs Harris, that you are in the Chair for this debate on the consumer market for financial advice and guidance. I am very grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate, which follows up on a cross-party amendment I tabled to the Financial Services and Markets Bill a year ago. I am grateful for all the hard work done by officials from the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority over the past year under the leadership of the former Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who championed this cause. I am also grateful to the current Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for taking things forward and for his support.

I welcome the proposals published in December for closing what is called the advice gap and completing the first part of the advice guidance boundary review. This morning, I want to cover three things. Why is this review important for our constituents? How will these changes help them? And what more can we do to help them? I will start with why this is important for our constituents.

Now more than ever our constituents need personalised help and advice about their financial situation, and when I say “help”, I do not mean just the billions of pounds of financial support that was given through the energy price guarantee, the money off electricity bills and so on. I mean the kind of help that will make our constituents more financially resilient over a lifetime.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward, and I commend her for her work on improving facilities for providing financial advice and guidance in the consumer market—that has been noted in the House, and I congratulate her on that. I wholeheartedly support her view that we must give individuals and businesses the best possible opportunities to grow their wealth. Does she agree that we should particularly target help to smaller businesses that are looking to start up locally, to ensure that they can take advantage of high-quality and, most importantly, affordable services and advice to help them make informed financial decisions?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I want to limit my remarks today to consumers and their access to financial advice, but the Treasury Committee is doing an inquiry into access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to share with us any evidence he might have in that regard.

Our constituents need more personalised help to make them more financially resilient over their lifetime. We want them to be more prosperous, better informed and more able to prepare for the inevitable highs and lows of financial life. With the success of auto-enrolment, we now have millions more people taking personal decisions about saving for their retirement, possibly across a multitude of different pension schemes over a full working life. They need an expert hand to help them to make good decisions and yet, despite our world-leading financial services sector, it is surprisingly difficult to get help. That is because of the advice/guidance legal definitions.

Mrs Harris, I want to try out an analogy on you. Imagine a supermarket where, if you pay an up-front fee of several hundred or perhaps even several thousand pounds to join, you will, over your whole lifetime, be allowed to go into a section where you have a full choice of delicious, healthy food and other goods, offered at competitive prices. Someone will ensure that you are buying things appropriate for your age and dietary needs; they will suggest some terrific, easy-to-cook, healthy recipes and wonderful meal plans.

However, to make it worth paying the up-front fee, you have to buy exceptionally expensive goods or sufficient quantities, and only 8% of our constituents would in fact choose to pay the fee; everyone else in the supermarket chooses to avoid it. They wander round the generic aisles of the supermarket. They may see some generic NHS advice about healthy eating or something on the supermarket website. They pay much higher prices for the same range of goods and often choose the unhealthy and expensive options. They even find scam and rogue options that scam them out of their shopping money altogether, because anyone can set out a stall in the supermarket I am describing.

It is a slightly stretched analogy, but I know that you know what I am getting at, Mrs Harris. The quality and cost of financial advice in this country mean that we have created a marketplace where only the richest 8% of the population choose to shop and benefit from the healthy financial choices that our excellent financial services firms can give.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

Under the industry-led Mansion House compact, 11 of the UK’s largest defined contribution pension schemes have signed up to the objective of allocating at least 5% of their funds to unlisted equities by 2030. We believe that could unlock £50 billion of investment in high-growth companies and should help increase returns to savers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will appreciate that the greatest investment that anyone can make is in themselves and their own country—Northern Ireland and all the United Kingdom. What steps can be taken to ensure UK-wide investment by pensions schemes in cutting edge businesses such as Wrightbus and Thales?

[Bim Afolami]

There are a couple of things that we need to do. We need to ensure that the industry abides by its commitment to the 5% target. Working with the Exchequer Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), we must present the right investment opportunities so that the capital goes into the UK in the right way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his campaigning on these issues. I just note that on electric vehicle manufacturing alone, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that in the past year we have had more investment pledged for UK electric vehicles than in the previous seven years combined.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The life sciences sector is worth £2.4 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. What steps have been taken, with counterparts in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to increase funding for employment within this worthy sector?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that life sciences is one of the key growth industries for this country. I would be happy to meet him to discuss all the things we are doing for the sector, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Bank Profits: Windfall Tax

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Today I am calling on the Government to introduce a windfall tax on the banks, which have exploited the cost of living crisis to make super-profits, just as the energy companies did before them. Such a tax could create much-needed funds to invest in our public services and to help bail out those hit hard by the ongoing economic crisis. Before I make the case for that, however, I want to look at where we are after 13 years of Tory misrule.

British economic growth was recently downgraded again. Britain has now seen well over a decade of economic stagnation. We are living through the largest fall in living standards since records began 75 years ago. This will be the first Parliament in history in which people are poorer at the end of it than at the beginning. What a record! Wages are set to be no higher in 2028 than they were 20 years before. That is the slowest wage growth in 200 years, and it has cost the average worker £10,700 a year in lost pay growth. Shockingly, 9 million younger workers have never worked in an economy where they have seen sustained average wage rises.

Income inequality in the UK is higher than in any other large European country. We have a much weaker economy and much lower living standards. That is the record of the Government’s agenda of austerity, deep public service cuts and trickle-down economics. They have created a social nightmare, too. Fourteen million people live in poverty, including over 4 million children. One in seven people is facing hunger, and 6 million households are in fuel poverty. As the cost of living crisis continues to hit families across the UK, this should be a time to bail them out. It should be a time of public investment to boost economic growth and living standards, and to rescue our public services. Instead, the Government are plotting another £20 billion-worth of cuts to public spending. I cannot think of a single policy that would cause more economic and social harm.

When we talk of a worsening economic and social crisis, we cannot forget the class politics of it all: how it affects the 99% and how it affects the 1%. We hear a lot about the cost of living crisis, but it is not a crisis for the elites. For them, it has been boom time. There have never been so many UK billionaires, and British billionaires have increased their wealth by £120 million every single day over the past decade. The profits of the UK’s largest companies are now 89% higher than before the pandemic. Bankers’ bonuses have hit record highs. Bosses’ pay at the largest 100 companies has been going up and up, and has increased by 16% in the past year.

One sector that has been doing very well out of the crisis is banking. Just like the oil and gas companies, the banks have used the crisis to line their pockets. While millions of people struggle to pay their mortgages and rents, the banks have been cashing in. Higher interest rates have enabled them to charge households more for mortgages and firms more for loans, but those higher interest rates have not been passed on to savers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate; I spoke to him beforehand. Does he not agree that the closure of high-street banks—there have been some 11 in my constituency of Strangford— especially in rural communities, has left a massive problem of rural isolation and that there should be a windfall tax on the banks making profits, with that money routed to the rural communities who have felt the brunt of the banks’ thirst for enhanced profits over service, which seems to be their calling card?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The example he gives of the closure of so many high-street banks, which disadvantages people in my community as well as in rural communities, just goes to show that the banks’ huge increase in profits has not been achieved through delivering a better service to consumers at all. Higher interest rates have not been passed on to savers; they have been hoarded by the banks, creating a windfall for them of many billions for doing nothing productive.

Such a transfer from the public to banks would be unjustifiable at any time, but it is especially so when so many people are struggling to cover the essentials and our public services are on their knees due to Tory cuts. The banks should face the same type of tax on their unearned and underserved windfalls as the energy companies.

The pre-tax profits of the big four banks—Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC and NatWest—show why that would be a just tax. In the first nine months of 2023, they made a staggering £41 billion in pre-tax profits, which is almost double the £23 billion they made in the same period last year, according to research by Unite the union. The question we must answer is this: will we allow the Government to claim that more austerity and cuts are inevitable and that public investment is unaffordable, or are we to build a better tax system that focuses on making the wealthiest pay their fair share?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Member makes a valuable intervention. I will come to how it was unjustifiable for the Government to reduce the surcharge in that way. Both approaches are possible and desirable, with yes, a windfall tax, but also reversing that cut.

If we build a fairer, better tax system that focuses on making the wealthiest pay their fair share, we can invest in rebuilding the economy so that it serves the majority of people, we can invest in renewing our public services, and we can give people back some hope. A windfall tax on unexpected and undeserved bank profits can play an important role in creating that fairer tax system. Banks are not reinvesting their profits in the economy; they are handing out huge pay and bonuses, which could go even higher, aided and abetted by the Government’s decision to scrap the bonus cap.

That all comes at a time when the banks are turning their backs on local communities. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, bank branches have been disappearing from our high streets at an alarming rate. Since 2015, almost 6,000 branches have permanently closed their doors. At a time of deepening social crisis, while banks collect record profits, they have made it even more difficult for working people to access their finances and get financial advice.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Member not feel that there is something immoral about banks making high profits, closing branches and seeing their profit margins actually grow, while people are being left disadvantaged? There is something immoral about that. People are being disadvantaged, while others are making more.

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman is completely correct: there is something immoral about the way that banks’ profits are soaring while they are not delivering a better service for their customers, particularly vulnerable customers—the less affluent, the disabled and the elderly. That is not how we should be going about things, and he makes an important moral case.

Based on the latest quarterly results, a windfall tax in the UK could raise between £4 billion and £16 billion this year from the profits of the big four banks alone, depending on the form that that windfall tax takes. That is billions of pounds that could be used to boost public investment and to tackle the soaring inequality that we are facing. Spain’s progressive Government offer us an example. They introduced a 4.8% windfall levy on certain bank incomes and commissions above a threshold of €800 million. Replicating that here could raise almost £4 billion this year. Even Margaret Thatcher introduced a form of windfall tax, with a 2.5% tax on banks’ non-interest-bearing deposits. In words that sound all too familiar today, Thatcher said that the banks had

“made their large profits as a result of our policy of high interest rates rather than because of increased efficiency or better service to the customer.”

Such a tax in the UK, according to Positive Money calculations, could raise up to £11 billion today, and a windfall tax, in whatever from, would be popular. According to a poll commissioned for the TUC, three quarters of the public support a windfall tax on banks’ excess profits, including 76% of people who voted Conservative in 2019.

Perhaps the simplest move—we heard this in an earlier intervention—would be to reverse the tax break for banks that the Government introduced in last year’s autumn statement. They slashed the bank profits surcharge from 8% to 3%, saying that this was to cushion them against the impact of higher corporation tax rates. But this surcharge, along with the banking levy, was one of the special taxes raised on banks after the financial crash due to the greater risks that banks posed to our wider economic stability. The risk they pose clearly still remains and so too should the surcharge.

The TUC general secretary, Paul Nowak, rightly described the slashing of the surcharge as starving our public services of much-needed funds at the worst possible time. Reversing it could provide key funds to, for example, introduce universal free school meals, scrap the two-child cap or fund a proper pay raise for junior doctors. The TUC estimates that the Treasury will lose at least £1.5 billion a year over the next four years, although it believes that it is likely to be more given the recent boost to bank profits.

Positive Money estimates that reversing cuts to both the bank surcharge and the levy could raise more than £4 billion this year. We need to be clear about this: it was a political choice for the Prime Minister to slash the surcharge on the banks just as it was a political choice to scrap the cap on bankers’ bonuses. Doing so is a sign of what is so wrong in our current taxation system.

It is clear that more of the same Tory dogma of the past 13 years of cuts and trickle-down economics is not the answer. All that that would succeed in doing is deepen the social crisis that is harming so many families in Britain. It is time that we put a stop to that. It is time to tackle the tax perks handed to the wealthy. The banks were bailed out when they were in trouble during the 2007 global financial crisis. It is now time for them to be taxed fairly to help bail out communities that are suffering because of the Tory party’s focus on building an economy that serves the wealthy few while the vast majority fall ever further behind. A windfall tax on bank profits is a just policy, it is economically sound and it would be welcomed by people across this country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the work of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I am here today because the reputation of Parliament matters, and how we conduct ourselves here matters. Like many workplaces, we are grappling with issues around bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, and we are looking for ways to not only give people routes to redress but change the culture of our organisation to ensure that such issues do not find any solace in our midst.

I stand here today representing a number of colleagues who, through the establishment of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, have become Ministers but still have very strong opinions on this issue and want to see it dealt with in the right way. I refer in particular to the pivotal role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who introduced the ICGS in July 2018. She has recently taken up a ministerial position and is unable to take part in the debate, but I note that she is here in body as well as in spirit.

I also note that I was a member of the recent Speaker’s Conference on the employment conditions of Members’ staff, and the excellent report which came from that underlines the importance of the changes recommended for the ICGS, some of which have not yet been carried through in full but were part of the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference.

This is a timely debate, because there is an independent review under way into how the ICGS has developed over the last five years. The review issued a call for evidence on 22 November, and I know that a number of colleagues will want to provide feedback through that. Because we are midway through a review, the Minister responding to the debate will inevitably be somewhat curtailed in what she is able to say. I hope that this debate gives some individuals the opportunity to recognise that they can contribute through the review and to hear from the Minister the Government’s support for this important programme of work within Parliament.

The vision of the ICGS, introduced in the wake of the #MeToo scandal, was to ensure that everybody who works in or visits Parliament is treated with dignity and respect and to underline that there is absolutely no place for bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in any workplace, including Parliament. The scheme is there for all current and former members of the parliamentary community, not just MPs, and it is the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

The initial working group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, was made up of Members of all parties in this place, noble peers from the other place, members of staff of both Houses and trade union representation for House staff. It was a thorough piece of work, embracing a huge range of views, and it demonstrated the importance of not only enshrining those views in the process that was developed but getting their support for the recommendations.

The research into the problem and the possible solutions was incredibly detailed, taking advice from legal experts and employment advisers. A number of hearings were held, to hear the sometimes shocking stories of colleagues who work here. The result was widely consulted on with Members right across the House and was agreed on the nod; there was no dissent to what was put forward. It is important to note that the House chose to vote on the specific processes to be followed because of the possible serious sanctions involved and the nature of the allegations. When we come to review this, it is important that we also look at the fact that the process needs to closely echo what this House agreed to and ensure that there has not been any mission creep along the way.

The ICGS proposals took a holistic view, looking at change processes, and, importantly, changing the culture of the organisation—as I say, as many other organisations are doing across the country. The key features of the scheme as it was originally envisaged were: the development of a behaviour code that would apply to everyone; the development of new training to support continuous professional development; the maintenance of respectful behaviour, proper induction courses and exit interviews to identify bad practice wherever it occurs; and, of course, the independent scheme itself. Again, that is very much what other organisations are doing to try to address these sorts of problems.

The scheme was designed to enable any complainant to call a strictly confidential helpline with their grievance and have it assessed in a timely fashion by an independent case examiner, who would also invite the complainant and respondent to give their sides of the case, with witnesses if necessary, and provide for the appropriate mental health support for all parties. The issues are difficult.

Should the independent case examiner find that there was no case to answer, the matter would be dropped with no publicity or consequences. Should, however, the case be upheld, the findings would be escalated to the employer or manager of the person accused and the ICGS would identify appropriate sanctions, which would include written or oral apologies, training, a requirement to prohibit contact, and, in serious cases, dismissal of the respondent.

In instances where an MP was the respondent, an escalation through the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Committee on Standards, which could recommend perhaps a suspension, including potentially allowing for a recall vote if that was triggered. The House had to agree the scheme and the process to be followed because of the implications of the sanctions. More recently, for sanctions against MPs the Independent Expert Panel was introduced as an extra layer in the process. That was not originally considered necessary by the working group, but has been put in place subsequently.

Were the complainant to report an issue that could break the law, the ICGS case examiner offers support and guidance to the complainant to go to the appropriate police force. Should the complainant not wish to do that, the ICGS has a protocol with the Met police to enable anonymised reporting to take place to ensure safeguarding of the wider public.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Lady has put forward a very detailed and constructive case that needs to be looked at. Over the years, lots of constituents have come to tell me about issues to do with workforce bullying in the constituency. They tell me that their biggest concern is the time it takes for things to happen. Frustratingly, it means that sometimes they almost give up. Can the right hon. Lady confirm for all of us here, but for me especially, that the timescale will be sufficiently fast to ensure that the complaint, if upheld, can be dealt with within a 28-day timescale? Is that possible?

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention. I will come to the specifics of that point later in my remarks. One reason for calling the debate today is that there is not that surety. The cases go on for months, not weeks, because of the number of cases that are being referred to the ICGS. There needs to be a review of how the organisation operates to address the very remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made. He is absolutely right to say that if there are allegations of serious bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, they need to be dealt with in a timely manner. Delay helps no one—not the accused or the victim.

One working group recommendation was that Members’ staff should have access to proper human resources support and advice, which is not routinely available in Parliament at the moment. That recommendation has not been implemented, despite it being one of the important recommendations from the working group. That means that Members’ staff with a complaint have nowhere to go other than the ICGS, which is unsuitable if their complaint does not relate to harassment, bullying or sexual misconduct.

The report from the recent Speaker’s Conference has also highlighted that issue. Its recommendations recognise that if staff have concerns about their employment or if their relationship with their Member of Parliament starts to break down, there are few routes through which they can seek support. The ICGS may be the only route they are aware of, even though it may not be appropriate for their complaint. Unfortunately, that means that a significantly higher number of general complaints on issues such as working conditions or contractual disputes are being reported to the ICGS helpline, because staff have nowhere else to go.

The fifth annual report of the ICGS was published last month. It stated that only 31 of the 479 contacts to the helpline—under 10%—were about bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. Any complaints are distressing and unacceptable in a modern workplace, but the ICGS helpline is getting clogged up by the many complaints that are outside the remit of the ICGS.

With that in mind, the Speaker’s Conference recommended that the budget of the Members’ Services Team be expanded to hire more HR professionals to deliver an HR service to Members’ staff. The ICGS was set up to deal with bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. The lack of a clear pathway for issues that would normally be dealt with by an HR department has inundated the ICGS throughout its life so far. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that means that the grievances of many complainants are not tackled swiftly enough, which results in further distress.

The 31 serious cases in the ICGS report show that the average time taken for a serious case to conclude is not a matter of weeks, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned in his intervention, but 184 working days. That is far too long for someone who has been subject to bullying or sexual harassment in the workplace. For the benefit of both sides, these things need to be dealt with swiftly.

The new director of the ICGS, Thea Walton, is committed to reducing that time, but the system has been working in that way for the past few years. We should fully implement the initial proposals that Parliament agreed when it established the ICGS. The Speaker’s Conference supported many of those recommendations, particularly the creation of an HR department for Members’ staff. That will provide a swift and timely service, and lead to the sort of culture change we all want to see—whereby people who work in this place feel valued, heard and supported if need be.

First, the review must prioritise the improvement of the timeliness of investigations through ensuring that cases are dealt with in the appropriate way and that the ICGS is not inundated; secondly, we must set up the HR department; and, thirdly, we must implement the other elements of the ICGS programme that was agreed in this place, including the establishment of induction courses for new joiners. To reiterate, I am not talking only about Members of Parliament, but the whole parliamentary community. There should also be exit interviews for those who leave abruptly, and we should promote the take-up of training courses to upskill team managers and staff more generally.

The review must consider the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the ICGS. The commissioner was specifically identified as the individual to whom MPs could appeal should they be subject to allegations and the case find against them. That was to ensure the possibility of an independent review of the case, and therefore to take into account the level of public of scrutiny when an accusation of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct by an MP is made public. That appeal process meant that there was an additional check, which was capable of ensuring that decisions had been taken fairly and correctly, and had been based on evidence not bias. Should the PCS uphold a case against an MP, the process is now that the case is sent to the Independent Expert Panel, which investigates the findings and makes a recommendation. That then goes to the Committee on Standards, which will bring a recommendation to the House. That process is different from other investigations by the PCS—such as those in relation to the misuse of stationery or other more day-to-day matters—and reflects the sensitivity of these complaints about bullying and sexual harassment.

The nature of the sanctions also needs to be considered, particularly given the possibility of further appeals and the complexity of what we are talking about. The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme deals with some of the most difficult complaints. It does matter not only to those complainants who are reporting abuse, but also to the reputation of Parliament, that we have an effective system by which to deal with those sorts of allegations. In having an effective system, we do not only have sanctions in place; we create an environment that will enable the culture of our organisation to evolve. Too often, the ICGS is seen as being there just to punish MPs, but it is actually there for the whole parliamentary community, and there are around 14,000 non-MPs working in and around Parliament and across the country who rightly want an effective process by which to tackle bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct when it occurs.

I urge hon. Members and right hon. Members to have a look at and take part in the review, because it matters not only to our staff and ourselves that we get it right; it matters for the way that our Parliament is perceived across the country and the world.

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

I think by my count none, which is unfortunate and I think speaks to their lack of the commitment to cutting tax that we have on this side of the House. The Bill will cut taxes for 29 million working people. It has three measures: the reduction in national insurance contributions in class 1 primary main rate; the reduction of the NICs class 4 main rate; and the removal of the requirement to pay class 2 NICs. We are prioritising national insurance for two key reasons. First, we want to put more money in the pockets of working families, and NICs are the most targeted way to do that. Secondly, better reward for work makes working more appealing, and the more people work, the more there is a boost in growth.

Let me take the House briefly through the measures in the Bill. The first is the reduction in the employee class 1 NICs main rate, which the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement. By reducing the main rate by two percentage points, from 12% to 10%, on earnings between £12,570 and £50,270, we will cut taxes for more than 27 million employees. That will save the average worker more than £450 a year, and they will see the benefit in their payslips right at the start of the new year, as this legislation will come into effect on 6 January.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, and the Government, for what they are bringing forward. The cut in national insurance in the autumn statement is a welcome step, and my constituents tell me that. Unfortunately, many are also saying that the average working-class family, including many in my constituency, will still be facing the highest taxation levels. I am not being churlish, not for one second—I want to make that clear—but can the Minister encourage me and my constituents that there is more to offer from the autumn statement and that those people have more to gain?

[Laura Trott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to talk about this, because it is important. Taxes for the average worker will have gone down by £1,000 since 2010. We have not hidden from the fact that we had to make some very difficult decisions to pay back our covid debts, and those have fallen on the highest paid, because that is the value that we espouse as a party. Because of those difficult decisions, which were opposed every step of the way by the Opposition, we are able to cut taxes for everybody—that is what the values of Conservative Members are all about.

We will cut and reform national insurance contributions for the self-employed by cutting the class 4 rate by one percentage point from 9% to 8% from April 2024. Finally, we will remove the requirement for self-employed people with annual profits above the national income tax personal allowance of £12,570 to pay class 2 NICs, also from April 2024. Those who pay voluntarily will still be able to do so, and I assure hon. Members that low-paid self-employed people who make voluntary class 2 contributions will not pay more.

The Bill simplifies the system for self-employed taxpayers, bringing it closer to the system for employees, and not only putting more money in their pockets but reducing the administrative burden. As a result of changes in the Bill, a self-employed person who is currently required to pay class 2 NICs every week will save at least £192 per year. Taken together with the cut to class 4 NICs, an average self-employed person on £28,200 will see a total saving of £350 in 2024-25. That will benefit around 2 million people. Importantly, those with profits under the small profits threshold of £6,725 and who pay class 2 NICs voluntarily to get access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, will continue to be able to do so.

The Government are committed to tax cuts that reward and incentivise work, and that grow the economy in a sustainable way. These measures do just that. The Office for Budget Responsibility states that the autumn statement package will reduce inflation next year, and measures in the Bill will be worth more than £9 billion a year, the largest ever cut to employee and self-employed national insurance.

A vote for these measures is a vote to give 29 million people an average yearly saving of more than £450. These reductions in tax will not only benefit those in work; according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, they will lead to the equivalent of almost 100,000 people entering work, because they will ensure that work pays and will drive more people to seek employment.

There is another point here, and that is about choices. I hope that the Opposition will support these measures today, if only for the reasons I have already set out. The public support them and business supports them. If the Opposition do not support them, it will represent a choice. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has often spoken of her fiscal rules that will have debt falling in the final year of the next Parliament. At the autumn statement last week, the OBR confirmed that public sector net debt is set to fall in that final year, with headroom of £30 billion. Implementing the permanent tax relief for business investment, plus the legislation before the House today, represents a choice to use around £20 billion of that £30 billion of headroom on these measures.

There is a path here, if the Opposition want it, to deliver the £28 billion a year. They could use up every penny of headroom, reject full expensing and reject today’s tax cuts, but what they cannot do—what the OBR, the financial markets and every secondary school maths textbook will not let them do—is vote for our policies today, borrow an extra £28 billion a year and still meet their own fiscal rules. The numbers simply do not add up. That is what I mean by choices.

The Opposition have to choose. Do they stick to their plan to borrow an extra £28 billion a year, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies says risks sending inflation, interest rates and mortgage rates up, or do they choose our plan to bring inflation down, taxes down and debt down? They cannot have it both ways. If the shadow Treasury team has no answer today, it will fall to the Leader of the Opposition to grasp the issue. Rather than anonymous briefings to the BBC over the weekend, he will have to make a choice. That is the difference between being the party of opposition and being the party of government: credibility with the public over credibility with their activists.

This Bill represents the choices made on this side of the House. I have spoken at length about why we have made them. I hope that the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), can inform us honestly and straightforwardly on which side of those choices his party will land. If he cannot, we can all conclude, as Lord Mandelson himself said only a few months back, that Labour is not ready to be the party of government. I commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. [Interruption.] I do; I know how much he cares about these issues and campaigns on them frequently in the House, and I commend him for it. The Government are committed to delivering on a UK green taxonomy to provide investors with clarity on which economic activity should be labelled as green. We expect to consult this autumn. The green taxonomy will provide an important tool for enabling the supply of relevant and reliable sustainability information for the market, and information will come in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the things that concern Northern Ireland MPs is the fact that when it comes to defence jobs and getting contracts, Northern Ireland falls behind. The Minister will be aware that Thales, on the border of my constituency, was recently able to secure its workforce. What steps can he take to ensure that each region of the United Kingdom, but especially Northern Ireland, can benefit from defence spending for the workforce? We can do the job the same as everywhere else; we just need the opportunity.

[Bim Afolami]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, which is incredibly important. As he knows, this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that jobs in the defence sector, within an ESG framework, are protected. I am happy to meet him to discuss further the issues relating to his constituency and Northern Ireland.

Economic Growth

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for her strong and wise words. Like me and others in the House, she believes that the life sciences sector can grow and do much more. In 2019, the pharmaceutical sector alone provided 18% of research and development spending. There are almost 600,000 jobs in the industry and it contributes £36.9 billion in gross value added to GDP. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if we are to ensure that everyone can gain from life sciences, there must be better distribution across all of this great United Kingdom of GB and NI, and that NI must be a part of that?

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Our life sciences sector is key for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and yet too many businesses are looking to relocate, including to the Republic of Ireland, but we want those jobs and those investments here in Britain.

There was no legislation in this King’s Speech for fairer tax measures. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been so quick to raise taxes—they have done so 25 times between them—that we now have the highest tax burden in 70 years. It is the biggest tax hike ever in a single Parliament, with working people and businesses hit hard, yet the Government allow unjustifiable tax loopholes to remain. I believe that if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here, too. That is why we will abolish the non-dom tax status and introduce a modern scheme for people who are genuinely living in the UK for short periods. Why is it so hard for this Prime Minister to say the same?

There was no legislation in this King’s Speech to increase security at work or to update employment rights. Having confidence to plan a family’s future should be not a luxury but something that working people deserve, and we need to grow our economy from the bottom up and the middle out. If an economy is not working for working people, it is not working at all. This King’s Speech has no serious plans for tackling the cost of living crisis or for growing the UK economy.

The Conservative economic failures are piling up high: a failure on growth; a failure on infrastructure investments; a failure on the cost of living; a failure on public services; and a failure on tax. The responsibility for such disappointment and damage has been a Conservative team effort these past 13 years. The Government cannot get our economy back on track or make our country better off. The Conservatives cannot and have not tackled the cost of living crisis because they are the cost of living crisis.