Clause 1

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

One way we are seeking to support everyday working people and families across the country is by making the decisions—many of them have been opposed by the Opposition, I must say—to raise taxes on those with the very largest estates and the very highest wealth. In fact, over this Parliament, as a result of the decisions made in the Budget in 2025 and the Budget in 2024, we will be raising an additional £10 billion of revenue from wealth and from those with the greatest wealth, which enables us to minimise our ask of everyday families when it comes to the topic we will be debating later in this sitting.

Turning in detail to the clauses we are debating, clauses 1 to 3 are on income tax, which is the largest source of Government revenue and helps to fund the UK’s schools, hospitals and the other essential services we rely on. In the coming year, it is expected to raise £359 billion. Each year, the Government have to legislate to charge and to set the rates of income tax. The rates of income tax are not being changed by this Bill; we are confirming that they will remain the same.

Clause 1 imposes an income tax charge for the coming financial year. Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax at 20%, 40% and 45%. These will apply to non-savings, non-dividend income taxpayers in England and Northern Ireland. Income tax rates in Scotland and Wales are set by their respective Parliaments. Clause 3 sets the default rates at the same levels as the main rates—namely 20%, 40% and 45%. These rates apply to the non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers who are not subject to the main rates of income tax, the Welsh rates of income tax or the Scottish rate of income tax. Income tax is a vital revenue stream for our public services, and clauses 1 to 3 ensure that it will continue to be so in the year ahead—2026-27.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Just for the elucidation of the public, who the Minister knows will be glued to our proceedings this evening, I want to make a couple of points. First, he said that debt is falling. Will he confirm that it is levelling off as a share of GDP and may possibly fall slightly by the end of the forecast period, but is rising in absolute terms? Secondly, when he says that income tax rates are not changing in this Bill, he is technically correct, but fiscal drag means that, for hundreds of thousands of people, the tax rate on their marginal earnings will actually change very significantly in the years to come.

[Dan Tomlinson]

It is right to be precise, and I was being precise about the rates themselves, which are not changing. The right hon. Member raises the effective tax rate, which is a point I understand. On the specifics of what I said, I was talking about borrowing rather than debt, and borrowing is falling significantly over the course of the forecast. It is the fastest reduction in the G7, as far as I am aware, on the latest data. He is right that debt is broadly stable, but is falling, in the year that the fiscal rules are relevant, as a share of GDP, which is the traditional and I think more economically relevant way of assessing the stock of Government debt as a share of the economy. One of the ways our country was able to reduce the debt we took on after the second world war was through growing our economy and the debt becoming a smaller share of GDP, and that is something this Government will seek to do through continuing to beat the forecast when it comes to economic growth.

Clauses 4 to 8 will raise the tax rates for property, savings and dividend income to ensure that income from assets is taxed more fairly. Those with property, savings or dividend income currently pay lower rates of tax than those whose income comes from employment as they do not pay national insurance contributions. It is not fair that the tax system treats these types of income so differently. For example, it is not fair that a renter pays a higher rate of tax on their income than the landlord from whom they are renting their property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

The main drivers of rental prices in the UK are supply and demand. The Government are seeking to do all we can to reform and improve our planning system to increase the number of homes being built. If Liberal Democrat Members are keen on making sure that we support households with the cost of living, I hope they will change their approach to their votes in this place on our planning reforms, which are vital for supporting families with the cost of living and for lowering the cost of renting and owning their own home.

As I was saying, this change will narrow the gap between the tax paid on work and the tax paid on income from assets.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

If I may, I will make a little more progress.

Those with small amounts of income from assets will continue to be protected by tax-free allowances, and income from savings and investments held in individual savings accounts will continue to be tax-free. The vast majority of UK taxpayers are unaffected by these changes as they do not have taxable property, dividend or savings income. Changes to savings and dividend income will apply UK-wide, and the Government have engaged closely with the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales to provide them with the ability to set property income rates in line with the current income tax powers in their fiscal frameworks.

Clause 4 will increase the tax rates applicable to dividend income by 2 percentage points for the 2026-27 tax year. Clause 5 will increase the tax rates applicable to savings income by the same amount. Clauses 6 and 7 will create separate tax rates for property income, which will apply from the 2027-28 tax year. The property basic, higher and additional rates will be set at 22%, 42% and 47%, respectively, for the 2027-28 tax year. Clause 6 will also make changes to the income tax calculation so that general reliefs and allowances will be applied to property income, savings and dividend income only after they have been applied to other sources of income.

Clause 8 will make provision for the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd to set devolved property income tax rates. This power will be commenced by the Treasury if the Scottish and Welsh Governments agree—individually, of course—to take the power, which is the typical process to protect the powers and responsibilities of devolved Governments.

These changes will still ensure that those with the broadest shoulders contribute more. In 2029-30, around two thirds of the revenue from the increases to the dividend, property and savings tax rates is expected to come from the top 20% of households. Taken together, these measures are projected to yield £2.2 billion in additional tax revenue by 2029-30.

This Finance Bill is about delivering on choices—choices to protect ordinary workers; choices to cut their energy bills, freeze train fares and prescription charges; and choices to focus on reducing inflation to push down mortgage costs. It delivers the Government’s commitment to this country to build a stronger and fairer economy where living standards rise and child poverty falls, and to ensure that public services are improved, with every measure in the Bill geared towards those high-level goals. The choice at the Budget was austerity and decline or investment and renewal, and this Labour Government back investment and renewal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

I agree. We are trying to create a savings culture. We are trying to get people to take responsibility, and to put their income away for a rainy day and for their retirement. As I will go on to say, the Opposition’s position is that the Bill does not achieve that; in fact, it does the very opposite.

As I was saying, clause 4 increases the ordinary and upper rates of income tax charged on dividend income by 2%, a fact the Minister seemed to miss out in his opening remarks. The income tax rate hike will apply from the tax year 2026-27. Clause 5 sets the savings rate of income tax for the tax year 2027-28 two percentage points higher than it is this year, and than the rate set in the Bill for 2026-27.

[Kit Malthouse]

I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wonder if the shadow Minister shares my concern about the change in the taxation rate on dividends? Even more important than building a savings culture is building an enterprise culture. Sadly, by continuing the modern trend, started under George Osborne, of taxing the return on risk, we destroy any idea of having an enterprise culture in the UK. If fewer people see that the investment of starting a business, or investment in plant and machinery, results in a return that is taxed more lightly than un-risky income, they are less likely to take that risk.

The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 General Committees

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am hesitant to delay the Committee, but I am afraid that I have some quite serious reservations about this statutory instrument. In order that Members who may not have looked in detail at the instrument before us can understand them, it may be useful to explain a bit of the background to part 8C, which was introduced by section 38 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015.

The 2015 Act was snuck through in the first few months after my election as the MP for North West Hampshire, when I was still learning the tricks of the trade, and as a result I did not spot what is actually quite a pernicious part of the corporation tax landscape. So that colleagues are clear, this part of the 2015 Act says that in cases where HMRC has deducted tax unlawfully and is ordered by a court to return it, and where interest is then charged on that, because litigation may have taken years, the Revenue gets 45% of it back. It does not bear the full cost of the interest that is payable and it therefore does not bear the full economic cost of its unlawful behaviour.

I have never understood why the Revenue should get special treatment over the interest payable by any other litigant in a commercial case, particularly as these restitution cases follow unlawful behaviour by the Revenue, and the litigation has often taken over a decade to come to some kind of conclusion. While they appear and are presented as benign and clarificatory, the problem with the regulations is that what they are actually doing is embedding that unfairness and asymmetry, and giving particular advantages to HMRC in the litigation process that I am not sure are entirely warranted.

First, we have to bear in mind that the situation under the legislation at the moment is that the normal rules of corporation tax apply in terms of limits. The Revenue has to assess whether interest payable under part 8C falls within the scope of the 45% charge within four years of the end of the period in which it arises, even if the litigation has gone on for longer than that. That creates an incentive for the Revenue to act swiftly in the conduct of the legislation. The regulations give a bespoke new two-year time limit from the end of the accounting period in which the case is decided and the restitution is paid. That means that all the litigation delay risk is transferred on to the private sector company, which gives an enormous advantage to HMRC. Effectively, the regulations mean that the cost of the error by HMRC is capped, whereas the taxpayer is now exposed to prolonged uncertainty in the conduct of that litigation. Those two things together seem to entrench the asymmetry that the Revenue enjoys.

The second issue I have is around one of the principles that I hoped was embedded in tax legislation, which is that it should never be retrospective. The regulations create a retrospective charge and will apply to cases where litigation is ongoing at the moment. There are litigants at the moment who believe that the case may have run beyond the four-year time limit, and that whatever they are awarded in interest will not now be assessable. The regulations will change that rule and are effectively using a retrospective logic that means that taxpayers cannot confidently close the books on their liability or otherwise, even after prolonged litigation that may have absorbed much of their energy and time.

Those two measures seem to me to be particularly pernicious. I am interested to understand the Minister’s thinking on providing HMRC with this much more generous time limit to reach its assessment. I recognise that he is not here to justify the inherent unfairness of part 8C, but the new time limit creates the perverse incentive that HMRC can take its time. We know that since the amalgamation of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, the culture of HMRC has changed significantly over the years.

When I was a trainee chartered accountant in the City, decisions on taxation were a question of two professionals sitting down together to decide what tax was actually due. The Revenue has a much more aggressive attitude towards tax collection—do not forget that this team has the ability to bust down doors without a warrant in pursuit of duty, an inheritance that it maintains from its time tackling smuggling. Those members of the Committee who are Daphne du Maurier fans will know that the excise men were well known for kicking in doors in those days—and they occasionally still do. That culture overtook, and many businesses now find themselves feeling bullied and living in fear of a call from the Revenue because of its much more aggressive approach towards tax collection, and it not necessarily collecting the tax that is properly due but collecting whatever tax it can get.

As I am sure the Minister knows, businesses will often settle with the Revenue for more than is entirely due, because they just do not want the hassle and they want it to go away. To me, that is not a proper way to run a tax system; nevertheless it happens on a daily basis. My nervousness about the regulations is that they may give the Revenue the incentive to use as much time as it can and to absorb as much energy as it can from its counterparty in litigation, to the extent that in the end the counterparty will sue for settlement, which may not necessarily be to its advantage or even be the correct amount of tax that is due.

Those are broadly my views. I understand from colleagues that they do not necessarily intend to divide the Committee, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire for his contribution, and for sharing his knowledge and expertise on this matter and many other matters relating to tax and economic policy.

There are two separate changes. The first, as he points out, is more a clarification to ensure that this provision applies only on compound interest and not on simple interest.

[Kit Malthouse]

I realise that this is being painted as a concession, but as I hope that the Minister knows, in the most serious restitution cases, where unlawful behaviour by the Revenue has occurred, it is very rare that courts award simple interest. Actually, most of the awards are interest according to part 8C. Presumably, that was what was behind the original introduction of part 8C and the Revenue was saying, “Oh my God, we’ve got this massive financial exposure; what are we going to do? I tell you what: we’ll introduce a penal tax rate on this interest that doesn’t apply to anybody else.” I would caution the Minister against throwing these regulations in as some kind of concession, because in truth, in the biggest, most important, expensive and difficult cases, simple interest is very rarely awarded.

[Dan Tomlinson]

My understanding is that the majority of companies that are affected are likely to be awarded simple rather than compound interest, but I am sure there will be some cases—I am not privy to the individual details; as the tax Minister, that would not be appropriate—where compound interest potentially could be applied.

On the second point, the right hon. Member is raising a broader issue about why a tax rate is applied at all here, and about the incentive structures. One thing that this Government are seeking to do in the way that we oversee HMRC is to bring more focus on its delivering for taxpayers and providing value for money for us all. I now sit as the chair of the HMRC board, with an intense focus on scrutinising the work of the Department. As the Minister responsible, when cases are brought to my attention, I always ensure that HMRC is treating taxpayers fairly and proportionately.

My understanding is that when the specific change around the application of 45% interest was made back in 2015, there was a concern that without the changes made in part 8C, those payments would be taxed at the lower corporation tax rate that applied at the time the payments were due to be made, and because the payments may have accrued over many years, when the rate of corporation tax was much higher, companies receiving that interest would receive a significant financial benefit relative to the counterfactual, at the expense of the public purse. That is why the decision was made in 2015 to apply the rate of interest in such a way.

The right hon. Member raised a point about retrospection. The regulations will not apply to those businesses that have already settled and reached an agreement with HMRC, but he is right to point out the shift here—we are moving the time window to the end of the period, when a final decision has been made, rather than the start.

[Kit Malthouse]

Anybody who is currently in litigation with the Revenue that has passed the four-year mark from the period in which the liability may or may not have arisen would now have the expectation that if they win and an award is made, it would not be assessed under part 8C. Will the Minister confirm that now it will be assessed, so people in that situation will need to recalibrate almost completely their assumptions of risk around the litigation?

[Dan Tomlinson]

A very small number of companies are affected, but yes, my understanding is that this change will mean that the decision point where the interest is applied will shift from the beginning to the end. As the right hon. Gentleman says, that will change the financial considerations for the small number of businesses that are in litigation at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Taxes

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we borrow more money, we pay more for that borrowing. Of course, that has fed through to inflation. We know that inflation this year, according to the International Monetary Fund, will be the highest in the G7. The IMF also says it will be the highest in the G7 next year. The consequence of that in monetary policy is interest rates being higher for longer. Of course, if we have a mountain of debt and add to it ruinously, the cost of servicing that debt goes through the roof. It now stands at about £100 billion a year, rising to £130 billion at the end of the scorecard. That is more than twice what we spend on defence every year.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor is laying out compellingly the calamitous choices that were made at the last Budget. Does he agree that fundamentally underlying them is the most calamitous choice of all, which was the strategic decision that the public sector would be expanded and the private sector contracted? The crowding out of the private sector is resulting in this doom loop that we are trapped in. We have fewer and fewer wealth creators and businesses paying for this bloated public sector, and their ability to shoulder that burden gets weaker by the day.

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely incisive and correct point. If a Government spend huge amounts of money, there is an opportunity cost to that and it comes through in various forms, including, as he rightly says, raising the cost of capital and crowding out labour, skills and so on. It is a fine and important balance to get right and this Government, palpably, have got it wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As a Treasury Minister, what I am very used to in the run-up to a Budget is members of the media and Opposition Members finding more and more convoluted ways of trying to work out what is going to happen in the Budget. My answer would be the same at every turn: they simply have to wait until 26 November to see what the Chancellor announces in her Budget. The official Opposition are entirely entitled to put forward what they say they would do differently.

[Kit Malthouse]

I hear what the Minister is saying about us waiting for the Budget. Could he reassure the House that he has not discussed anything that might be in the Budget with any journalist, and certainly that he has not authorised any members of his office or anybody within the Treasury press team to brief out some of the kites that have been flown about the Budget in the media over the past few weeks?

[James Murray]

Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation, I am not going to engage in speculation ahead of the Budget. I am not going to feed the speculation that he is trying to wind up. I understand that the Budget is an important day in the parliamentary calendar, and it is an important day for the Government. Rightly, Conservative Members and Members of all parties want to know what is in the Budget, but they simply must wait until 26 November to find out.

[Kit Malthouse]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Minister has said that he is unwilling to discuss what might be in the Budget with the House. He did not, however, deny that he may have done so with journalists, or that he may have authorised others to brief to the media what may or may not be in the Budget. In the absence of that denial, are we within our rights to demand that the House be privy to what those conversations contained, in the same way that the business pages of The Times may have been?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I can calm Members’ nerves by saying that it is not many more sleeps until Budget day.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am very sorry to hear about the antipathy of the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) towards the south-east. I can assure him that it is not reciprocated, and no doubt the London Members who may or may not be present for this debate will have something to say to him about the wealth and welfare of their residents.

Since this Government were elected, I have often called to mind the famous aphorism uttered by Ronald Reagan about Governments’ approach to the economy:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

It feels to me as if, with housing in particular, we are moving into the third of those phases. I contemplate with some alarm the idea that in chasing their huge housing target—noble though it is, and shared by the Conservative party—the Government are about to pump enormous subsidies into the housing market in the Budget. That is precisely the wrong thing to do, particularly for a Government who are struggling to create growth in the economy.

What the Government seem to have failed to realise is that if we allow capitalism to function—to do what it is supposed to do—it is brilliant at creating abundance. It has been the single greatest tool for alleviating poverty across the world that humankind has ever known, yet here in this country, Governments—not just this Government but, to my alarm, previous Governments over the past 20 years or so—have not appreciated the formula of incentives required for capitalism to function. It is particularly damaging for it not to function within the housing market, and that is especially salient for the United Kingdom, whose economy is so closely tied to its domestic housing market. Looking at the correlation between the two, it is pretty much one to one: if the housing market is doing well, our economy is doing well, and vice versa. That points to the problem that stamp duty poses.

I want to raise a few points about this motion, as well as to say that I agreed entirely with the shadow Chancellor’s excellent opening speech. First, stamp duty is not a tax on wealth, or even on property; it is a tax on decision making. It skews people’s ability to conduct their life as they wish to, and it deters decisions from being made within the housing market and bungs it up so that it does not work for anybody, wherever in that market they sit and whether or not they pay stamp duty. For capitalism to work—for a market to work—there needs to be lots and lots of transactions. There needs to be fluidity and liquidity. That is what achieves a steady price and creates abundance; people know that they can take a risk in a market, because they will find a counterparty. Scarcity is what raises prices, and that is exactly the position we find ourselves in at the moment. Punitive rates of stamp duty do to the housing market precisely what none of us wants them to do, which is to reward scarcity. They push people into other forms of economic activity, with the result that they cannot fulfil the wishes and aspirations of their family.

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

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of creating abundance in the housing market. Does he therefore think it was wrong for his party and the Prime Minister at the time to come to my constituency during the general election and campaign against the new homes being built there, which this country so desperately needs?

[Kit Malthouse]

I was Housing Minister for 12 golden months, during which, I am pleased to say, the United Kingdom achieved its highest starts and finishes of housing for 10 years either side—not entirely due to my stewardship, but nevertheless, I will take the credit. I am with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to encourage the building of a significant number of houses, and I am very pleased that large numbers are to be built in my constituency, but they have to be built in the right places. We have to protect our landscape, our countryside and our heritage, while at the same time recognising that many of our market towns need to grow and reach a sustainable size. We can have the houses; they just have to be in the right places.

I also think that we would be able to embrace more housing if we were somehow able to breach the conspiracy of crap. Excuse my language, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a crass word, but it is a great way of summing up the fact that we are building terribly badly designed houses. There is a conspiracy between planners and the development community to produce ersatz housing across the country, rather than to build beautifully designed houses, as generations of housebuilders did before us. It will not come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) that in his constituency, as in mine, the most valuable houses—irrespective of size—are often the oldest ones, dating from the Victorian era and even earlier periods. Georgian houses command huge prices, as they are seen as desirable because of their beauty. We can have the houses, as long as we put them in the right places and they look good.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

This stamp duty policy will help to lubricate the system, but my right hon. Friend is talking about putting the houses in the right places. Does he agree that this Government really do need to follow through on that? They have to prioritise brownfield sites and stop bringing in policies that will rip up the green belt, which represents the heart and lungs of areas such as mine.

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

[Chris Curtis]

Back to scarcity again.

[Kit Malthouse]

No, the people best positioned to decide where houses should go are local people. That is why, for many years, I have been a strong proponent of neighbourhood planning. It has been proven time and again that neighbourhood planning produces more houses—15% to 20% more—than other forms of planning, especially local plans. If we get the design right and put power in the hands of local people, they will very often make the right choices, not just for their community but for the next generation.

A point that the shadow Chancellor has made powerfully is that we should recognise that a gummed-up housing market, which is currently stagnating, suppresses the renovation and construction supply chain. When people move house, they invest in redecoration; they invest in extensions, put a new roof on the house, build on the side, and do all sorts of things to their new house that are good, valuable, productive economic activity. At the moment, we are missing out on that activity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for what he is saying, and I commend the Opposition on bringing forward this debate. In Northern Ireland, house prices have risen by 7.7%, which is the highest in all the United Kingdom. What is happening in my constituency—I suspect other Members have had this—is that young people are coming up to me and saying, “I cannot get a mortgage.” They need help. I hope that the proposal brought forward by the Opposition can give that hope. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the aspiration, which I have as well, that every person wants to own their own house. This proposal would be a method of ensuring that young people have that opportunity.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s hope for the next generation, and I completely agree with him. As somebody with three children, I hope they get the same housing opportunities and economic opportunities as I did. Sadly, given how the housing market has gone and is going, it does not look as if that will be the case, but he neatly makes the point that I made in opening my speech. To get young people on the housing ladder, a subsidy scheme would see us come full circle. Instead, we should think again about how we can have a deregulated free market that functions for them and allows the houses to be built that can accommodate them. Taking tax off young people and then giving it back in the form of housing subsidy is nonsensical.

To return to my point on the supply chain, thousands of small builders around the country are desperate for this kind of work and are seeing the housing market stagnating and their work reducing. Worse than that, in areas of high property value, those who do have capital decide, instead of moving, to build down, up or out. We therefore get densification, particularly in areas such as central London, which often causes significant problems.

Moving on, this tax does not work very well for Government either. First, as Members will know, it is pro-cyclical and crashes when the Government need it most. During the 2007-08 crash, stamp duty receipts fell by 60%. We saw a surge in stamp duty receipts during the window a year or so ago, but since then, they have been falling significantly. The Chancellor, who is facing significant fiscal problems, will see that fall even further, so the tax does not work for Government on that basis.

Secondly, stamp duty is a bad tax because of its salience. Economists have this idea that taxes have a salience, which is how much people notice they are being taken. VAT has low salience, because we do not really notice it. It is in the prices that we pay. Income tax and pay-as-you-earn have low salience. Stamp duty is enormously noticeable at a moment when people are making a huge decision about their lives. They are trying to progress their families and wham, here come the Government saying, “We are going to have a slice of your wealth.”

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. On salience, does he acknowledge that stamp duty has had a particularly pronounced effect in the capital, particularly for those who come to this country to invest here and create jobs? One of the prime reasons we have seen such a significant number—perhaps 16,000 people—leave this country is the incidence of that tax in the capital.

[Kit Malthouse]

My right hon. Friend is completely right, and he makes a powerful point. Anybody, whether overseas or here, who comes anywhere in the country, but particularly to London and the south-east, and wants to make a significant purchase is immediately presented with a massive bill that cannot be borrowed. It comes out of any equity that they may have spare lying around or that they may have saved up for years to build towards their housing decision. For the Government to show up and take it at that moment of significance in anybody’s life is extremely damaging. It is the same when the Government show up on the death of a relative and say, “We will take our slice.” Such taxes have enormous salience. As a result, stamp duty and inheritance tax are easily the two most unpopular taxes in the country.

[Rachel Taylor]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time and is putting forward interesting points. It surprises me that nobody on the Opposition Benches brought these points forward in the 14 years they were in power. Stamp duty land tax is not a new tax; it is a tax that went up under the last Government, yet the Conservatives had brought forward no proposals on it until this unfunded announcement at party conference a few weeks ago.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady should not assume from the outward utterances that there was not an internal conversation going on within the party about our tax strategy. Those in the Chamber who shared the Cabinet table with me will know that that was often a vigorous conversation. I will leave it at that.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will in a minute. The third point I want to make, which I guess is the one that might appeal most to Government Members, is that this tax is generationally unfair. Younger people move house more often, so they are more exposed to this tax. The younger someone is, the more likely they are to be building a family, to require more space, and to be moving up the ladder. Older people tend to sit still. They sit pretty on their capital, which is often in unmortgaged houses. Because of the lack of a market, they generally under-occupy the houses they own. When looking at stamp duty, we have to look at generational fairness, too.

In my constituency, hundreds and hundreds of aspirational families need more space. They would like to move up the ladder. They have worked hard and accumulated a deposit and the money that would allow them to move, but they want to spend that money on curtains, carpets, decoration and all the rest of it. They are deterred from moving by this tax. If we are to be fair to the next generation, we have to not only build the houses that they want to buy, but make it cheap for them to buy them, and that means cancelling stamp duty.

For all those reasons—to ensure fluidity and liquidity in a market that is skewed to produce artificially high prices; to ensure a market in which developers take a risk and build more houses, and landowners put land forward; but fundamentally for a generation who are being denied access to housing—we need to take seriously the idea that stamp duty is at the heart of the problem, and we need to abolish it entirely. The Liberal Democrats say that abolishing it will raise prices. It of course raises prices if we tell people that there is a window. That would result in frantic activity from those who are desperate to buy. If the abolition becomes permanent, we get a liquid market that achieves a real price, notwithstanding the initial bump.

As for those who say that the savings cannot be found, we should be able to find this amount of money, given the size of the Government’s budget, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said. I had a look this morning, and I could find 50% of the amount in the Department for Transport’s budget, no problem. The other half could come from the welfare reforms on which the Labour party bottled it. We could easily find the money and do the whole country and the economy an enormous favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

First of all, it would increase mobility in the housing market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) stated in an incredibly eloquent speech, it would also mean that the construction industry and all the peripheral jobs would start to mobilise. It would create economic growth—I suspect that the figure of £1.2 billion is probably a bit of an underestimate, and that abolishing stamp duty would actually create more growth. We are talking about creating jobs, making people wealthier and being aspirational for the aspirational, whereas Labour Members are talking down a credible policy that would put money on the table for some of our poorest people. Ultimately, abolishing stamp duty would mean that more and more people are able to get on to the housing ladder.

Let us face it: the Government are not going to meet their housing targets. It is already quite obvious that they are massively behind, and it will not be possible to meet their targets. They are killing off aspiration and confidence in the economy, and house builders will not want to meet the targets—unless, of course, they are met with huge subsidies. The question I have for those on the Government Benches is this: given the current economic situation, how much representation have they made to their Chancellor about introducing growth principles and cutting taxes so that people have more money in their pockets? The answer will be none, because that is not happening.

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said that he was not making an argument for not cutting welfare, but he did not put a figure on the table. We know that the welfare bill is ballooning, and it started ballooning post covid. We intervened during the pandemic, which had to happen. We saved a £2 trillion economy, we saved businesses and we saved jobs. We did all those things—sometimes with the support of those on the Opposition Benches and sometimes without, I am sad to say—to save the economy. Of course, all of that comes with a cost. It is now right that we look forward to make sure that we are putting proposals on the table that help grow the economy and, by the way, help the Chancellor to get out of this mess. I want her to do better, because right now I have constituents who are struggling, who are anxious and who are worried. Her policies, backed by those on the Labour Back Benches, have contributed to higher inflation and a higher cost of living. These are all consequences that they backed by walking through the voting Lobbies.

There is a Budget coming. Although Labour Back Benchers may be talking in silos, the Government are already briefing the papers about all the taxes that will rise. They talk about “serious Government”, but they are not talking seriously about the cuts that they will have to put on the table, because the Chancellor knows that the moment she does that, it will be her Back Benchers who stab her in the back. That is her fundamental conundrum, because she also has to placate the bond market, where we have highest bond yields. I see Labour Members shaking their heads, but that is the reality of what Back Benchers are dealing with. We are putting good proposals on the table that would mean that young families who want to get on the housing ladder—[Interruption.] I am happy for the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) to intervene if he wants. No? I was offering him an opportunity, because I was getting distracted by his chuntering.

The reality is that most serious economists, such as Dan Neidle and those at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have said that stamp duty is a bad tax. In fact, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who I hear has been instrumental in writing the Budget, has talked about stamp duty being a “bad tax”. We all agree on that, so we have put a funded policy on the table that the Chancellor is going to need. Surely this is something that we should all take seriously, because the Government will need answers. I suspect we will come back to that.

A lot has been made of the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. The Chief Secretary to Treasury said that they are “ironclad”, and I suspect they are until the next ones. We have a golden rule. In the spirit of rules, the Leader of the Opposition has created a golden rule, which is that for every £1 saved, half will go to cutting our national debt. Surely we can all get behind that. When the interest on our debt is something like £100 billion a year, surely we can get behind that. When the Chancellor is borrowing more month after month to meet everyday spending, as is obviously happening, we should get behind that rule.

The last point I want to make is about the cliff-edge argument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire mentioned, we had the window during covid. I was one of those on the receiving end of not being able to buy a house at that time. I was looking for a house for my new family, and houses were going quickly because people were trying to beat the cliff edge at the end of the stamp duty window. This proposal is not the same, because this gets rid of such a window, and it means that more and more people will be able to buy houses.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am perplexed by the argument the Liberal Democrats have advanced that abolishing stamp duty will raise prices. Presumably the quid pro quo is that raising it would lower prices, so why are they not proposing that policy?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will address it, but that speaks to the economic incoherence of what they have presented.

Fundamentally, we believe in property rights. We believe in the ownership of property and the rights that derive from it, which are among the freedoms—the fundamental freedoms—in this country. It was a moment of great pride when I got the keys to my first house, and I am sure it is the same for others. Cutting stamp duty is the right thing to do, and if we win the next election, that is exactly what we will do.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have no desire to detain the House for long, but I have some questions that I hope the Economic Secretary can address, continuing our conversation in the Delegated Legislation Committee earlier this week.

The Economic Secretary and I are both alumni of TheCityUK, so she will know that what financial services want most of all is certainty of regulation and decision making. They need to know that the playing field is level and predictable. While we are all patting ourselves on the back about Silicon Valley Bank, the consensus that everyone did a good job makes me slightly suspicious.

The Bank of England effectively made three decisions during the unravelling of Silicon Valley Bank that I want to put on the Economic Secretary’s desk for her to consider. Is more certainty required from the Bank of England on the triggering of those decisions?

First, the Bank of England denied Silicon Valley Bank short-term funding. SVB UK was solvent, as it would have to be as a UK subsidiary regulated by the Bank of England. It applied for £1.8 billion of short-term funding when it became clear that its parent company was in trouble. That funding was denied by the Bank of England, and I do not think there has ever been any significant examination of why the Bank took that decision.

Obviously, there was a run on Silicon Valley Bank, with depositors seeking to pull out their money, and the bank was unable to honour those withdrawals, which is why it applied for short-term funding. A possible alternative route could have been a temporary freeze on withdrawals and/or the provision of short-term funding, which could have allowed the bank to remain solvent in the UK. Understanding what triggered that decision, and how other banks in similar circumstances might be handled by the Bank of England in future, is key.

Secondly, as the shadow Minister said, the Bank of England initially decided to put Silicon Valley Bank UK into insolvency and rely on the £85,000 depositor guarantee and the £170,000 joint depositor guarantee. We do not know why the Bank changed its mind.

[Emma Reynolds]

I can tell I am going to enjoy discussing these matters with the right hon. Gentleman. I have looked into this since our exchange on Monday, and I want to clarify what happened on the Friday before the Monday in March 2023. The Bank of England issued a statement on the Friday evening saying that it intended to apply to the court to place SVB UK Ltd into a bank insolvency procedure, absent any meaningful further information. However, a buyer came forward over the weekend, which is what changed between the Friday and the Monday. It was judged to be both in the public interest and in the interest of SVB UK customers that this resolution on the Monday morning was preferable to the insolvency procedure that had been announced on the Friday.

[Kit Malthouse]

That is useful information about the Bank’s decision making. However, the Bank still decided to go for insolvency prior to a resolution mechanism. I find it hard to see that, within that 36-hour period, it had not canvassed whether there was a market for the bank. My point remains: if I were an investor or an overseas bank trying to establish and invest significant funds in a UK branch, I would like to understand why the Bank of England makes these decisions, and the criteria and parameters by which it is likely to make a decision either way. Then, of course, the final decision was taken to sell or transfer the bank to HSBC—for a minimal consideration, I think. I really want to understand what value was placed on that bank going to HSBC, as opposed to any of the other banks that might have been bidding for it.

At the heart of this is my worry about competition. When a bank is put in this resolution position, obviously it needs to move to another bank that has significant assets and can fulfil the rightful demands of its depositors to withdraw their funds. That will naturally be a bigger bank, and there is a possibility—although hopefully this will not happen, as we will not use resolution very often—that small, higher-risk challenger banks will find themselves unable to obtain short-term funding from the Bank of England because of their size, and will therefore be gobbled up by the leviathans of the banking system. Over time, there might be a natural move back towards where we were prior to all these challenger banks appearing—to having four or five massive banks that dominate the system in an uncompetitive way.

I am asking the Minister not necessarily to change the legislation, but to consider setting out in a code of conduct what consideration the Bank of England has to give to the competitive landscape when it is resolving a bank. When it transfers one small bank to another small bank as part of a resolution, for example, that wheel might be oiled with a bit of short-term funding, in the interests of maintaining that competitive landscape. The cost of that should not fall on the taxpayer; effectively, it should be a loan for repayment. One of the benefits, if you like, of the 2007-08 crash—one of the silver linings of that cloud—is that we have a much more diverse banking landscape than before. There was recognition that having these huge organisations that crash the entire global economy if they fail was dangerous for the western economy, and that a much more diverse landscape was therefore desirable. The problem with that, obviously, is that there is more inherent risk in those smaller banks. If there is more inherent risk, we are likely to see more resolution, and in time we may end up back where we were.

I support the Bill. I think that resolution is exactly the right way to go, and we should obviate the risk to the taxpayer. There are also negatives to the system, though, so I hope that the Minister, who I am sure will do the job with aplomb, will think carefully about the impact on the world of the Bank of England’s decision making and predictability; about what the Bank can do to provide transparency, whether through a code of conduct or indicators of practice; and about the impact of resolution on competition.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 General Committees

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I have no wish to detain the Committee, but I do have some questions about the particular process we are discussing, not least because, as I understand it, it was the first time that the Bank of England had used its resolution powers as they currently stand. What happened has wider implications that we need to think about for the health of financial services in the City of London.

My first question is this: could the Minister confirm that there is no litigation outstanding either in the UK, or contemplated in the UK or in the United States, that this measure seeks to obviate? If that is the case, will she elaborate a little more about the decision making of the Bank of England during the process? Although she outlined what happened at a very high level, she did not fill in all the detail. For example, as I understand it, Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd, the subsidiary, was a perfectly solvent banking entity within the UK. It applied for £1.8 billion of liquidity funding to the Bank of England when its parent was getting into trouble. A decision was made by the Bank of England at that point to deny funding to that bank. Has there been any review of that decision? Is the Treasury aware of why the funding was not made available? What assessment was made by the Bank? In future, if other banks apply for similar liquidity funding when overseas parents are in distress, what criteria will be applied so that everybody knows exactly what they are doing?

The Bank then initially made a decision to put SVB UK into an insolvency procedure—it did not immediately go for resolution—and in that insolvency procedure, obviously depositors were due to get their £85,000 as guaranteed, or £170,000 for joint accounts. But something changed over the weekend, because by the Monday, the Bank had changed its tune and was going for what has now resulted, which is the sale to HSBC for nothing. Do we know why it made that initial decision? My guess is that it changed its mind because the depositors went nuts. Lots of tech start-ups had large deposits with that SVB UK, and much of it had been money raised from shareholders. There was obviously quite a lot of political intervention, but what were the influences on the Bank’s decision making? If it changed its mind because the Treasury, the PRA or the FCA said that it should change its mind, why was its initial decision therefore deficient? What does that say about the Bank of England’s decision making?

Finally, given that that was the first time that those powers were used, I wonder whether there has been a review by the Treasury—as one might expect in such a petri dish experiment situation with such a valuable industry—as to whether what happened was overall beneficial both to the UK economy and to financial services. The Minister will understand that financial services are extremely valuable to this country and that anything that creates a sense of instability will detract from the attraction of the UK for financial services. The structure of Silicon Valley Bank, specifically—that it had a subsidiary in the UK, rather than a branch—was meant to promote the sense of stability and independence of regulation that would, in theory, have allowed it to trade independently.

All those questions need to be asked. If there has not been a review, I would be grateful if the Minister, given that she is new to the job, might acquaint herself with the issues in a little more detail and satisfy herself that this measure is not a negative for overseas banks establishing branches here, because since this situation, I cannot see —I have had a look, although I may have missed it—that any overseas bank has done so. If they have not, is this why?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, for his kind words—we will be spending a lot of time together this week. I also thank him for what he said about shareholders and the principle of risk and return. We know that there is a correlation between the risk taken and the return due, but that does not always work out. Proportionate regulation encourages considered risk-taking, which we are in favour of; we want to see entrepreneurship in our economy. Maybe this is a more philosophical debate that we could have on another occasion, but I agree with a lot of what he said about shareholders providing scrutiny. We certainly should not criticise them for being shareholders, because we need good shareholders for the functioning of the economy.

Let me turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and attempt to answer all of his questions. Obviously, I was not in the Treasury that weekend—one of his colleagues was—so if he wants a very detailed description of those events, he probably should speak to the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). That is my first recommendation.

Secondly, there is certainly no litigation in this case. It is for the Bank of England, as the independent regulator, to weigh up and balance the different trade-offs involved in this sort of decision making. I cannot speak for the Bank of England, but I point out to him that only 14% of deposits would have been covered by the financial services compensation scheme. He might think that that would have been a better eventuality.

[Kit Malthouse]

That is not what I am implying at all. In this instance, I think that resolution was the right thing to do. What I am saying is that the Bank of England’s first decision, on the Friday, was to go for an insolvency and only pay out 14% of the deposits. It was only after pressure was brought to bear on a supposedly independent bank over the weekend that the strategy was changed to a resolution and the bank was transferred to HSBC. In fact, the Bank of England issued a press release to the effect that it was putting the bank into the insolvency procedure, and then over the weekend changed its mind. I am asking about the integrity and quality of the Bank of England’s decision-making procedure, given that it initially proposed to do exactly what the Minister says should not have happened.

[Emma Reynolds]

I cannot speak for the independent Bank of England, so I gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he has questions or concerns about the timing of the issuing of a press release on the Friday in March 2023, he should convey them to the Bank of England.

I will take up the right hon. Gentleman’s recommendation to look into the issue more closely, but I also gently say to him that—due to the work of officials in the PRA, the Bank of England and indeed the Treasury—overall we had a good outcome, because by the Monday morning, before the markets opened, we had a smooth transfer from SVB UK into HSBC. My point is that in the end depositors were in a much better position on the Monday morning than they had been on the Friday; regardless of the choreography, we got to the right outcome in the end.

I think that there has been consideration of the resolution process, although not necessarily of the timing of the events mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, on Wednesday, myself, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—and other hon. Members here present will debate the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill on Second Reading. That Bill has already been through the Lords. It seeks to ensure that in cases such as this one, we are protecting taxpayers. Indeed, what was good about this case was that SVB UK was in a relatively good economic position, but I could envisage a situation where that was not the case, and we will discuss such issues on Wednesday.

I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend, who has once again made a very astute intervention. It marries very clearly with what we have seen in business confidence. He mentioned the record since the pandemic. Business confidence has tanked to low levels that we have not seen since the economy had to be shut down during the pandemic. A survey by the CBI, which makes for stark reading, says that 62% of businesses have said that they will have to reduce recruitment, while 48% have said that they will be reducing existing staff levels. That is all because this Bill will impact them in ways they never imagined and were never told about. Whether businesses freeze or cut jobs, or, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned, shift employees to a self-employed basis, or, even worse, offshore workers to overseas destinations, the potential impact on employment should absolutely worry us all.

That is why we have tabled new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of this tax rise on the employment rate within a year of the passage of the Act. It is not controversial; it just seeks clarification and an assessment.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

This impact assessment is extremely important, not least because at a macro level—given that the UK is essentially a services-based economy in which human capital is the most expensive fixed cost, effectively—there is no way to escape this tax. Unlike corporation tax, which is levied on profits, this tax is levied whether a business is making a profit or not; businesses that have been marginal but struggling may well be forced into a loss, and may therefore choose to close down. It therefore has to be essential that we look backwards, if this tax goes ahead, and ask what the impact has been from a services point of view.

[Gareth Davies]

That was a classic case of how to make an intervention, because it added to the debate. I had not mentioned that point, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on employers, who will pay the tax whether they are profitable or not, is absolutely right. That is, again, not something I think the Government have fully appreciated.

Finance Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

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

Clause 51 makes the same rate increases as clause 50, but applies to land transactions with an effective date on or after 1 April 2025. These two clauses will provide an advantage for first-time buyers and those moving home, helping to support home ownership. The OBR-certified costing estimates that increasing the higher rates for additional dwellings by 2 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.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I am surprised she has not declared her interest because I believe she is herself a landlord. She presumably owns another property, so to cast aspersions on people who do as some kind of plague is, I think, a little unfair.

I assume from this measure that the Minister would expect there to be some impact on the rental market. This is designed to deter people from becoming landlords. Given that 90-odd per cent of our rental properties in the UK are owned by people who have two or fewer properties, what is the scale of the impact she is expecting? How many people are likely to either exit being a landlord or, particularly in somewhere like London, not bother being a landlord at all? What will be the wider impact given that in the capital, such as where she represents, lots of people have no option but to rent, because they are unable to accumulate the deposit required to buy a property at an inflated value? Are we going to see fewer rental properties in the capital?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am a landlord, and that is absolutely declared in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If I was meant to declare it for the purposes of this debate, I do apologise, but it is referenced very clearly in my entry. I would say that, as a landlord, I am very happy to pay extra tax if it is necessary to fix the foundations of our economy.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment of London. I think we are more resilient than that, especially in Camden, and I think we will be fine.

Clauses 50 and 51 will provide an advantage for first-time buyers and those moving home, and it will help to support home ownership. The OBR-certified costing estimates that increasing the higher rates for additional dwellings by 2 percentage points is expected to result in 130,000 additional transactions over the next five years by first-time buyers and others buying a primary residence. I hope that addresses some of the concerns of Conservative Members.

Clause 52 introduces special transitional rules to ensure no additional tax is payable for land transactions substantially performed before 1 April 2025. In most cases, SDLT is charged at the point of completion in the property-buying process. In some cases, however, such as where the buyer has performed their purchase by paying for the property or taking possession of it, the tax is chargeable at that earlier point. The clause in question ensures that buyers who have performed their transactions will not pay more tax as a result of the changes in rates brought about by clauses 50 and 51 when they complete their purchase.

Clause 53 increases from 15% to 17% the single rate of SDLT payable by companies and other non-natural persons when purchasing dwellings worth more than £500,000. The single rate of SDLT was introduced alongside the annual tax on enveloped dwellings to deter the practice of buying and owning UK residential properties within a corporate wrapper by increasing the rate companies pay. The single rate applies where companies and other non-natural persons buy a dwelling for more than £500,000 that they do not intend to use for a relievable purpose such as renting the property or developing it. Increasing the single rate keeps it aligned with the highest rate of tax paid on purchases of the most expensive residential properties, so that the tax remains effective as a deterrent to enveloping.

In summary, increasing the higher rates of SDLT will ensure that those looking to move house or purchase their first property have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords, and companies purchasing dwellings. The measure will raise more money than the manifesto policy, and go further to rebalance the housing market. The changes will raise £310 million per year by 2029-30, which will be used to support the Government’s first steps and other priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I do. This is just another example of the impact of the Bill. The impact assessments, such as they are, are incredibly thin and do not get into the detail of the measures and the complications that arise. They are, I would say, wholly inadequate. Under clauses 50 to 53, taxes on property purchases will, as the Minister said, go up by £310 million. Clauses 50 and 51 increase the rate for additional dwellings, such as buy-to-let and residential properties, from 3% to 5%. Nationwide estimates that that could bring extra costs of £4,000 on the purchase of a typical rental home. At least clause 52 ensures that if transactions have been substantially performed before the increases come in, no additional tax will be charged. Clause 53 amends the single rate on purchases by companies of dwellings for more than £500,000. Let us not forget that the Government have also chosen not to renew the nil-rate stamp duty threshold, which is currently £250,000 but will halve to £125,000—I do not think the Economic Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that.

As I said, experts have warned that the changes could have damaging effects on the rental market, making it less attractive to provide homes for private rent; rents could increase as a result of the limited supply. Every hon. Member will know from their constituency the huge demand for rental properties. According to Zoopla, on average around 21 people are chasing every property that is put up for rent. This tax will do nothing to encourage the supply of new, decent, rented housing.

[Kit Malthouse]

I hope that the shadow Minister shares my surprise at the Minister agreeing to pay the stamp duty retrospectively on her flat. Let us hope that the cheque makes its way to HMRC. When stamp duty reaches penal rates, it not only diverts people away from becoming landlords, but means they may operate differently. Is there not a strong possibility that we might see a large number of properties in places such as London owned by foreign corporations that are domiciled in other jurisdictions? Transfer of those properties could take place by transferring the corporation’s ownership in the Isle of Man or the Caymans or somewhere like that. That would mean that no stamp duty was payable at all on the transfer of the property. If that proliferated, we might find that large numbers of properties in the UK were owned by overseas entities, precisely because of the penal taxation here.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I bow to his knowledge of the situation in London, which is far greater than mine. Our new clauses are about reviewing the impact of the measure, partly so that if we saw such activity, which would go against the Government’s objectives and weaken the rental market, action could be taken. I hope that the Government will look at the evidence.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also criticised the change, stating:

“It again reduces transactions, increases again the bias in favour of owner occupation, and against renting, and at least part of the consequence will be to reduce the supply of rental housing and so increase rents.”

The National Residential Landlords Association has said that the tax changes in the Budget will make it less attractive to provide homes for private rent. It has warned that the measure will exacerbate the shortfall that Members will all be familiar with, and an assessment it commissioned a couple of years ago showed that increasing the rate to 5% could lead to the loss of more than 500,000 private rented homes over 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have to admit that I have found this debate a little baffling, given some of the arguments made from the Opposition Front Benches. However, I will respond to some of them now.

[Kit Malthouse]

Our concern is that there has been no assessment of the impact on the rental market. All that the Opposition new clauses are asking for is a review, because no evidence has been adduced in this debate. There are three people who have spoken in this debate who have second properties—who are landlords—and that is completely fine. What we are saying is that there will be an impact on future landlords and on future behaviour from this tax, as there was from the tax that was introduced by the previous Government.

The second thing to say—forgive me for the slightly extended intervention, Madam Chair—is that when the Government are setting levels of tax, there is an optimal point at which to levy tax in order to collect the maximum revenue, beyond which it starts to become penal and has a deterrent effect on activity. I suppose what we are saying is that we have got this far, and wish to go no further.

VAT: Independent Schools

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is correct: substantial export earnings come from the sector, and from a globally mobile set of families. But I would go further; in addition to the direct export earnings effect, there is also an indirect effect. For companies deciding where to site their European headquarters, English education is a big factor. That is partly because of our brilliant state schools, which have improved so much over the past 14 years, but the availability of independent schools is also a factor.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State makes a strong point about the sanctity of zero-rating VAT for education. I am concerned that children’s clothes, which are currently exempt from VAT, may be the next target. Notwithstanding the impact that the change to VAT will have on individual families, does he agree that private and prep schools—my constituency has five—are enormous employers of people involved in building maintenance, such as electricians and plumbers, and that the impact on the wider economy could well be profound?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind Members to look towards the Chair when they are speaking, or what they say will not be picked up by the mics; I then struggle to hear them. I know that the Minister was struggling as well. If Members keep the chatter down, it will help us both.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

I thank the Opposition for bringing forward the debate. While the focus has been on private schools and the implications of the planned tax changes, it has allowed us to consider what is important in education. It is important to support the aspirations of all young people and their parents, and it is essential that all young people receive a good education in a safe and supportive environment.

It is certainly true that many parents choose to seek that provision in the private sector. The Government will always support their right to choose where to educate their children, but most parents do not have that choice, and all parents have high aspirations for their children. We therefore need to prioritise our efforts and consider how we can better serve the 94% of children in our state-funded schools.

Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a necessary decision to drive high and rising standards across our state schools and give every young person the best start in life. It will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to children and young people.

This money will allow the Government to expand early years childcare for all by opening 3,000 new nurseries, thus helping parents back to work. The Government will recruit 6,500 new teachers and improve teacher and headteacher training as part of restoring teaching to the career of choice for the very best graduates. The Treasury is of course responsible for tax policy and has led on the publication of the draft legislation and technical consultation since July. As the Exchequer Secretary set out, VAT will apply to tuition and boarding fees charged by private schools for terms starting on or after 1 January 2025. It is right that we end tax breaks as soon as possible to raise the funding needed to deliver those educational priorities. The Treasury is assessing the impact of these changes in advance of the Budget. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility will certify the Government’s costings for these measures at the Budget and that will also include the interaction with other VAT receipts.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am going to make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier. I know that many Members are concerned about children with SEND. [Interruption.] Members can shout as much as they like, but I have some really important points to make about SEND. I know I speak for the country—the right hon. Gentleman certainly does not. I assure Members that the Treasury has sought to ensure that these changes do not disadvantage pupils who need provision that is unavailable in the state sector.

Let me be clear: pupils who need a local authority-funded place in a private school, including those with a local authority-funded EHCP, will not be affected by the changes. That is because local authorities are able to reclaim VAT when they are charged. For other pupils, this change should not mean that they will automatically face 20% higher fees. The Government expect private schools to take steps to minimise fee increases, including through reclaiming VAT incurred in supplying education and boarding. I also note that IFS analysis shows that the number of children in private schools has remained steady despite a 20% real-terms increase in average private school fees since 2020 and a 55% rise since 2003.

Members from both sides of the House mentioned transfers to the state-funded sector. There are always some pupils moving between the private and state-funded school sectors. Approximately 50 maintained private schools close every year, for a range of reasons. Where schools do close, pupils may transfer to another private school or move into the state sector. We simply do not accept, in the case of recent closures, that this has had any connection to our policy on VAT. Quite simply, the evidence does not bear that out. The number of pupils who might switch following these changes represents a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector. Any displacement is likely to take place over several years, and will mostly come from parents choosing not to place their children in the private sector to begin with, rather than children leaving the private sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one. I understand that moving schools can be a challenging experience, and local authorities and schools already have processes to support pupils moving between schools.

A number of Members also raised concerns about capacity. There are always a range of pressures on state-funded school places, and the Department for Education works to support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient places for children who need them. That is business as usual and local authorities and schools already have a range of options to increase capacity where it is needed. We are confident that the state sector will be able to accommodate any additional pupils and that there will not be a significant impact on state education as a whole.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) on her maiden speech. I know she will be a real champion for children and young people in her community. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) back to this place and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) on his maiden speech—he spoke eloquently and with passion about his constituency and the needs of his constituents. It was also a real pleasure to hear the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who described so well his beautiful constituency, a place I enjoyed holidaying in as a child. I look forward to working with him on issues affecting the Solent region. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) gave an excellent maiden speech. It was evident that she will be a strong voice in this place, nationally and for her community. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on his maiden speech, and I wish him well on his unexpected new role in this place and on delivering opportunity for all.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and others mentioned military families; I know that colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will closely monitor the impact on affected military families, considering support via the continuity of education allowance scheme. Small faith schools were raised by a few Members; those schools meet the needs of dedicated faith communities, often at low cost. I know that Treasury colleagues have met representatives from those schools to ensure fairness. A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the impact assessment. As my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury set out, we are considering the impact of the policies and will publish a tax information and impact note at the Budget in the usual way.

In conclusion, this Government were elected to deliver change across our country, not least in our schools. Our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity is exactly what our country needs. This party is showing that education is once again at the forefront of national life. I urge Members across the House to demonstrate that by voting against the motion.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Winter Fuel Payment

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

The Opposition did not like to be reminded of their legacy when they were in government, but let us have a look, shall we? What do they have to show for their years of reckless overspending? A failed asylum system, prisons at breaking point, more than 1 million people waiting for council homes, 4 million children growing up in poverty, and more than 7.5 million people on NHS waiting lists. This Government and every Member of this House who stood on my party’s manifesto were elected to turn things around.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Yesterday, in the other place, the Transport Minister cast doubt on the continuation of travel concessions for pensioners, which has caused significant alarm in my constituency and others. Notwithstanding the discussion we are having today, could the Minister reassure us that travel concessions for pensioners will continue under a Labour Government?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Chancellor will take all decisions in the Budget on 30 October—[Interruption.] Let me make one important point to him as we approach the Budget on 30 October: we know there are going to be difficult decisions that we have to take in the Budget and, frankly, that is a direct consequence of the decisions taken by him and his colleagues when they were in government.