Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This is fantastic, and I think it is a recurring pattern, Mr Speaker. We have positivity, optimism, and confidence in the future of the UK economy from Conservative Members, but absolute negativity from Opposition Members, because they have no plan, they have no clue and they have no hope. We have a plan and it is working.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

Why does the Treasury Minister think people feel worse off after 14 years of Conservative Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott]

The Scottish Government are well funded to deliver their devolved responsibilities, and receive 25% more funding on average per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in other parts. That translates to £8.5 billion more a year on average.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. First, it is important to note her consistent championing of this issue for her constituents, for which she deserves huge commendation. To her precise question, it is important that industry, not the Government, makes decisions about bank branches or banking hubs, but she has made her case very ably. I urge her to work with Cash Access UK and LINK to ensure that she has the best chance of securing one of those new 225 banking hubs, as outlined by the industry, in her constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

After the Budget, the Chancellor wrote to Conservative party members telling them that the Government planned to abolish national insurance. The Economic Secretary said that “national insurance will vanish”, and the Prime Minister said it was his “ambition” to abolish it. Will the Chancellor confirm whether he asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to cost the Government’s unfunded plan to abolish national insurance contributions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the precise circumstances of his constituent’s case. In general terms, it is a priority for us to ensure that people get access to that money if it is due to them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Did the Chancellor see an article yesterday in which the independent director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the average earner in the UK now has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975—lower than in America, France, Germany or any G7 country? Someone on £35,000—the average earnings for those working full time—faces an income tax and national insurance bill of nearly £2,000 less than they would have done on the same real earnings back in 2010. Does the Chancellor agree that now he has changed the rules on residence and domicile, the Opposition’s unfunded spending plans could lead to higher taxes—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are topical questions, and I want to get to the Members who have not yet been called.

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. She is right that it is not just the lowest effective tax rate for someone on average earnings since 1975, but the lowest headline tax rate and the lowest tax rate in the G7. That is the fundamental divide in British politics: taxes have gone up, and on the Government Benches we do not think that we have to accept the status quo; on the Opposition Benches they do. Why is that? Because lower taxes mean higher growth.