National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. The Labour Government say that they want to deal with this situation, and that they effectively protected secondary care, but the NI applies to GPs at the front end and care homes at the back end. That means that it will be the hospitals who hold the responsibility—the acute places that we need to keep clear if we are to help the backlog move through. Without getting an answer now, we risk recruitment decisions being kept on hold over the next three or four months and cutbacks being made. Does the hon. Member agree that, on top of the difficulties of an already hard winter, that will cripple the NHS?

[Pippa Heylings]

I agree with the hon. Member. I will give one example: the Arthur Rank hospice, which serves all of Cambridgeshire. I had a tour there and saw the work being done by its dedicated professionals. I was informed by its senior leadership that these hikes in national insurance contributions for employers will be the equivalent of £230,000 in additional payroll costs on top of the fundraising that it already has to do. That is money that it does not have. We know from the debate on assisted dying, assisted suicide and the terminally ill how critical palliative care and end-of-life care is. That is one hospice that will struggle severely to deal with these charges.

Hon. Members have spoken about the GP crisis. According to the British Medical Association, 1,387 GP practices have closed since 2015 and the NHS has lost the equivalent of 1,333 full-time, fully qualified GPs. Each GP is responsible for an average of 2,294 patients, and about 3 million people have been directly affected in the last decade by shrinking GP numbers. At a time when we desperately need more GPs, we are introducing a tax that risks driving even more practices out of business. It is not just me saying that; I am sure that hon. Members across the House will have heard from GPs in their constituencies.

In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, I have heard from the Harston, Comberton, Queen Edith, Eversden and Melbourn practices. I have spoken in particular to Dr Gee of Harston surgery, who has told me that his practice with 7,600 patients faces a £20,000 bill from April just to maintain its current services—just to stand still.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about the need for the Bill and the continued assault by the Conservative party on public trust and the public finances. When I go out in my constituency, I speak to people who are appreciative of the “bin fire”—that is the term that one of my constituents used—facing Treasury colleagues when we assumed office. Money for projects and half-baked plans was used more to launder the Conservative party’s reputation than to improve our public services.

When someone comes into office and finds out that the job is not as had been advertised and that the previous person in post set fire to the office, they have to do things differently. They have to begin to rebuild trust with the people they serve and to have honest conversations with the public. That is what the Government are determined to doing. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can chunter as much as they like, but they know that they gambled with public trust and undermined every aspect of themselves and the institutions of the British state. That is not just a failure on their part but a failure on the part of everyone in their party and everyone who knocked on doors. Ultimately, they were judged harshly by the British public for that.

The Bill is necessary to repair the public finances and rebuild public trust. We did not want to do this. We had to maintain our manifesto promise not to see tax rises for working people, but we must ensure that the country that we hand on is in a significantly better state than the country we inherited. That is the Government’s task.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am enjoying the hon. Member’s exposition of his thinking on this matter. Will he set out how this works for national insurance contributions, which is what we are talking about? Those on the frontline—the likes of GPs and care homes—are private, but they are commissioned only by the NHS. Is he aware of where the funding will come from? Will it come from the £22.6 billion? That would make sense, but if so, the Government need to clarify where that money is going. Part of the problem is that it does not add up for the Government to say that they want to support the NHS yet tax those very people—the doctors, the hospices and the care homes—to fund it. Will he elaborate on how that will work?

[Joe Morris]

I was not sure if the hon. Member would take interventions during that. Ultimately, we need to support the NHS, our care homes and our GPs. It is very rich of the Conservative party to lecture us on supporting GPs and care homes. I have been out speaking to GPs in rural communities, who have been consistently undermined by the Conservatives’ failure to appreciate the challenges facing the modern countryside. I have been out speaking to care homes; I spoke to the Charlotte Straker care home, which looked after my grandmother, to hear its concerns. I have had those meetings, as is my duty as a constituency MP. Ultimately, perhaps if more of the hon. Gentleman’s Conservative colleagues had done the diligent thing as constituency MPs, there would be more of them on the Opposition Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

The hon. Gentleman was not here at that time, but those of us who were in Parliament then faced an incredibly challenging time in very difficult circumstances. Billions of pounds went to support businesses in his constituency; if he has a conversation with the average business that benefited from the furlough scheme, I am sure he will correct the record.

The problem is that socialists fundamentally do not understand or care what it means to have an idea, to take a risk or to work hard day in, day out to make a business a reality. That is the problem. They think it is all so easy—that profits just flow in. They think it will all be all right, because Government can step in and take us much tax as they want. That is not the case. If Government Members talk to the average business in their constituencies, they will find this out; if they set up a business, they will see it for themselves.

Perhaps most worrying of all, not only do the Government not understand the private sector, but they have completely overlooked the different ways in which the public sector provides for our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) set out. Whether healthcare, childcare or the charity sector, organisation after organisation has warned Ministers that this tax rise will impact the services they provide. That may not have been intended, but the Government have yet to act. That is why we have tabled amendments 13 to 15 and 16 to 18, which seek to protect certain key sectors from both parts of this tax in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, and the Treasury really needs to answer this question. Did it knowingly implement these tax rises on these industries, which would be a travesty in itself, or did it do so by mistake because it does not understand these issues? If that is the case, will the Government look to rectify the matter so that hospices, GPs and childcare providers are protected?

[Gareth Davies]

I could not have put it better myself. These amendments highlight the fact that Labour’s attempt to paint this tax rise as a necessity for public services is nothing but plain politics; Labour has always intended to do this, and now it is hiding behind public services to justify it.

Those working on the frontline of healthcare in and alongside the NHS will be deeply impacted. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the tax bill of each GP surgery will increase by £20,000 a year, likely resulting in a reduced number of appointments. The Nuffield Trust has said that providers in the adult social care sector will face a £940 million increase, dwarfing the social care support announced in the Budget. Community Pharmacy England says that community pharmacists will be hit by an additional £50 million each year, inevitably causing pharmacies to close and services to deteriorate. Hospice UK warns that £30 million will be added to the bill for 200 hospices across the country, which will lead to greater pressure on NHS palliative services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

Once again, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I have said already, I am not sure that this was intended. I do not think the Government understand what these measures will do to our communities, to the sectors I have outlined and to the businesses that I will speak about in a minute. The Minister will have to address my right hon. Friend’s point. What will the Government do to mitigate the damage of the Bill on the communities and organisations that I have highlighted?

A sector I have not yet highlighted is childcare, without which millions of parents across the country could not go to work—including, by the way, many in this House. The Bill will contribute an average of £47,000 in additional costs per nursery next year, according to the National Day Nurseries Association. The previous Government did so much to extend childcare to more families, boosting workforce participation and economic growth, but this tax hike will pull us back from that progress. That is not what people voted for. There is no mandate for this harm. I urge the Government to think again.

Ideally, all employers would be made exempt, which is why the Conservatives voted against the Bill. At this time of year, people should be reflecting on another year gone by all too soon and looking to the new year with hope, ambition and optimism, but so many employers will now enter 2025 with fear. Many will be thinking again about that planned expansion or the investment in new equipment or premises. Worse, some will be thinking about who they need to let go—never mind awarding the pay rises in the spring they once hoped to give.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend is an astute man, and he has picked up on something that I fear. According to S&P Global’s purchasing managers’ index, this has been the third consecutive month of job losses; December has seen the highest number since 2021, in the pandemic. It has said:

“Barring the pandemic, the survey has not seen job losses on this scale since the global financial crisis in 2009.”

That is a direct impact of the choices in the Budget and this NIC increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is something the Government really need to think about?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yuan Yang]

I will take two interventions. I will take one from the. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am very grateful. The hon. Lady makes a fantastic point about wanting to set out the tax base. The difficulty is that the Government are also spending on the NHS. Fundamentally, GPs are private contractors to the NHS. Care providers are private contractors. Therefore, the Government have to make a choice: are they going to exempt them or will those private contractors have to pay? At the moment, the Government have done neither thing. That is the fundamental argument we are having on these amendments in trying to protect those contractors, because the Government have not made a choice. They have said that at some point there may be some payments along the way. That is the concern on the Opposition Benches. What is her answer to that?

[Yuan Yang]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for highlighting the perilous state of GPs in my constituency of Earley and Woodley after 14 years of the previous Government stripping away the NHS. I am very confident in the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which he has made several times in this Chamber, to take all funding decisions in the round. I very much look forward to seeing the quality of GPs improve. I also highlight the funding already announced for increasing the number of practitioners in GP surgeries. I expect to welcome them in my constituency, as well as across the UK.

I return to my point about long-term fiscal planning. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) made the point that we need to make choices. Over and over again on the doorstep I have been told that public services are broken, that crime too often goes unpunished on our high streets, and that mortgage rates, which have shot up wildly over the past few years, are too much of a burden on everyday families. All that creates uncertainty and it is that economic uncertainty that hurts businesses. That is why I welcome, for the first time in many years, a credible Budget that addresses the fundamental problems facing our society. Yes, we have to understand the current fiscal situation in the context of the bad decisions that were made before us. We all know about the tax giveaway mini-Budget under Liz Trust and the perilous effects it had on gilts, pension funds and, of course, mortgages, for which we are all now paying the price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I refer her back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). Our tax system has got even more complicated, particularly after the last 14 years, and we do not want to see the level of complexity, which costs businesses and organisations, continue to spiral out of control. It is important that we make these changes in a simple way, but extra money is going into our NHS and will be flowing through the system. At the moment, the Department of Health and Social Care is looking at how to make sure that the extra funding is spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. I look forward to hearing soon from the Health Secretary about how that money will benefit all elements of our national health service, but I do not think that that is a reason to add extra complexity to an already complex tax system.

We do not want to raise taxes, and I appreciate that decisions like this are never easy—[Interruption.] The Conservatives laugh, but they raised taxes to record levels, broke our public services and left us with a £22.6 billion black hole. The reality is that they left us with no choice. Our goal is to lay the foundations for a thriving, resilient economy, where businesses can grow, communities can prosper and future generations can thrive.

What we have heard from the Opposition today is a repeat of what got us into this mess time and again. Liz Truss promised unfunded tax cuts and crashed the economy. The last Tory leader promised unfunded tax cuts and left a £22 billion black hole. The Tory party is promising unfunded tax cuts again, and will not say where the money is going to come from. That is what got us into this mess, and it is ludicrous to think that it will get us out of it. However, the mess that the Conservatives got this country into is about more than basic arithmetic; it was a complete failure to achieve any economic growth.

If growth in the UK had simply matched the OECD average, workers would have £5,000 more in their pay packets and the Treasury would have £50 billion more in tax revenues, without having to raise a single penny in tax. Just imagine how much better families would feel with that money in their pockets. We would not need to raise any taxes today if we had the extra tax revenue that was stolen from us by the Conservatives’ failure. Instead, they trapped us in a cycle of low growth, low productivity and low investment. That is the grim legacy of a Government who failed to create conditions for businesses to thrive. From a chaotic planning system to a revolving door of four Chancellors in five years, they have sown uncertainty at every single turn. Let us not forget the economic self-harm of Brexit, which was executed without a clear plan.

The Budget, including the NICs changes—

[Dr Luke Evans]

On a point of order, Ms Nokes. We are debating the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, in which I am not sure that Brexit is mentioned. I look to your leadership to decide whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will be aware that it is important that Members stay in order. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) has given some context in his speech, but he might be reminded of the need to stick to national insurance contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sandher]

The young and the lowest paid work in the smallest businesses. Some analysis, including that from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, does not include these measures, and does not have matched employer-employee datasets. Indeed, Paul Johnson admitted as much when he came before the Treasury Committee.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful to my fellow Leicestershire MP for giving way. One of the ways that we can judge the market is by looking at vacancies. James Reed, who runs the Reed recruitment agency, has seen a 13% drop in advertisements on the company’s website. He has sounded the alarm that that could be a sign of recession, and that is the implication of what we are voting on today. How will the measure support young people if there are no jobs out there for them?

[Dr Sandher]

I direct the hon. Gentleman to today’s labour market statistics. Employment is still high; unemployment is about the same as it was; and I think inactivity is falling. In the official statistics, the picture looks good.

More broadly, vacancies are not the measure that we want to look at. Instead, we want to look at the number of people in jobs. The revenue that we are raising today will be invested in actions that directly create those good jobs. The warm homes plan will upgrade 300,000 homes, which is tens of thousands of good jobs. The expansion of early years childcare is tens of thousands of good jobs. Businesses need to know that they have the healthy workforce that they need, and more people who are available to work. This is a Budget for growth and for jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Lady has always been an advocate for childcare. One way the previous Government tried to address the issue was to try to stop the cliff edge for childcare by looking at households rather than individual parents. In the last Budget, the Government were looking at the proposal to consider households as one unit. Does that mean the hon. Lady has changed her mind and would support that mechanism being looked at again? It would solve a lot of the problems caused by, for example, a single parent having to pay for childcare because they are exempt, whereas a household containing a couple who earn under £45,000 are not eligible.

[Ms Creasy]

Let me reach the hand of co-operation across the House to the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to finally work on what would be a genuinely affordable and accessible childcare system in this country. However, I will temper his enthusiasm, because his party made things worse. Under the previous Government, there was a 50% reduction in childcare place. We saw nurseries closing time and again because of the changes his Government made. We are starting from a foundation where the places simply do not exist. For the places that are there, too often it is those who can well afford childcare who are taking them.

If we are to get to a position where we have the childcare places we need, so that every child can get the best start in life in this country, we need to invest. We need to ensure that we save what is there and encourage those nurseries that can expand to do so. If we do that, we will reap the rewards, both in the Exchequer and in society. That is why early years provision matters to the future of this country.

Research by the Education Policy Institute shows that 40% of the disadvantage gap at the age of 16 has already emerged by the age of five. Equally, investment in early years means we could save £16 billion a year later, according to the London School of Economics. It also means we will get more money, because more people—mothers, fathers and carers—can make the choice to work and pay tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I am greatly concerned about the consequences of this Bill. There are consequences for businesses, for employees and for essential primary care providers in my constituency and across the country. The Bill represents an unfair jobs tax that risks harming the livelihoods of countless individuals and the viability of small businesses at a time when they are already grappling with a multitude of challenges.

I wish to begin by highlighting the impact that this legislation will have on community pharmacies, which are at the frontline of healthcare in our local areas. The owner of Horton Pharmacy and Travel Clinic in Epsom has expressed grave concerns about the financial burden that this increase in employer national insurance contributions will impose. He told me:

“We are estimating that it’s going to cost an extra £12,000 a year. It’s very distressing and making it harder to keep our doors open and help reduce the burden on other parts of the NHS.”

Community pharmacies such as Horton Pharmacy play a critical role in alleviating pressure on our overstretched NHS by providing accessible healthcare and advice, yet the Bill threatens their financial viability, which in turn risks leaving constituents without the local care they rely on, thus increasing the burden on the NHS.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the National Pharmacy Association has agreed to collective action for the first time in its history, directly as a result of this Government’s Budget? Does she have any comment on that?

[Helen Maguire]

Yes, I am aware of that and I agree that it is a good way forward.

Another business in my constituency, the Family Building Society, is also facing substantial repercussions. Last Friday I met its chief executive officer, Mark Bogard, who shared that this national insurance increase will cost him approximately £300,000 every year. He said:

“Even as a mutual building society, with no shareholders to generate returns for, we cannot simply swallow that cost. So, going forward, we will inevitably now employ five or six fewer people.”

Madam Chair, these are real-world examples of the damaging ripple effects of the Bill. It will hit not just businesses, but employees, with fewer jobs, lower wages and missed opportunities. This Government claim that they want to kickstart economic growth, but how can firms grow when they are forced to cut jobs instead of investing in their business. How can the economy thrive when ambition is replaced with survival? This Bill does not kickstart economic growth; it slams on the brakes.

Across the board, this Bill threatens sectors vital to our economy and to society. Social care providers, GPs and hospices, already at breaking point, will now face further financial strain. Most of these organisations do not qualify for the employment allowance, meaning that they are exposed to these increases.

The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt these essential providers from the tax rise, but those calls have been ignored. This decision will worsen the crises in our NHS and social care system, pushing more providers to the brink of bankruptcy.

Six in 10 care homes in the UK are operated by companies vulnerable to even mild economic shocks. How then can the Government justify imposing additional financial burdens on a sector already struggling to stay afloat? Let us be clear: the Government’s own analysis admits that nearly four times as many employers will lose out under this Bill as will benefit. For many employers, this will translate into an average annual tax increase of over £26,000. This is not just a jobs tax, but a growth tax, a productivity tax and, ultimately, an attack on people’s living standards.

This is a deeply inefficient way to raise funds, especially when fairer alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats have proposed several measures that would raise revenue without harming jobs and growth. These include reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax to ensure that ultra-wealthy people pay their fair share. These measures would protect small businesses, support families and safeguard essential services, while still addressing the country’s fiscal challenges.

The people of Epsom and Ewell deserve better. They deserve a Government who support, not stifle, innovation, enterprise and community spirit. They deserve a Government who listen to small businesses, healthcare providers and families who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs and stagnant wages. This Bill is not the solution to our economic challenges; it is a blunt instrument that will do more harm than good, jeopardising jobs, living standards and essential services. I urge the Government to reconsider this unfair and counterproductive measure and to work with us to develop a fairer, more sustainable approach to taxation that prioritises people and communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady has not been in the House quite as long as I have. I was first elected in 2005, and in that Parliament I spent a lot of time—mostly in Westminster Hall, as I recall—in debates with then Labour Ministers talking about the importance of having a joined-up, coherent approach to the national health service and social care. It is clearly fiendishly difficult. The coalition Government, of which the hon. Lady’s party was a part, and the Conservatives kept working at it. We changed the name of the Department of Health to the Department of Health and Social Care precisely because of that. It is challenging, because social care is delivered through local authorities, but the opportunity is there. Before the Government get all that wiring and complexity fixed—we were working devotedly at that—they could vire funding over to the sector, or exempt from the Bill the sectors on which the NHS depends. Pouring money into the Hull royal infirmary while it is unable to unload the ambulances coming in, or get the healthier patients out, is a crazy approach. I am sure that the Minister recognises that.

I want to mention the impact on social care. Last Friday, I went to Merrywick Hall, a great example of a small, family-run, residential care home. Its 31 residents are not all elderly, but they all have learning disabilities. Some of them are elderly, making them doubly disadvantaged. The home charges a basic rate of just £699 a week to care for those people, and its staff are stretched. I met Katie, who runs the home, and her husband Carl, who oversees the finances, although the home is owned by another. It was quite clear that that they were not running a business in the way that I would recognise as a former businessman; they were running an institution that was absolutely committed to the welfare of the people in it. Between this jobs tax, which the Minister is foisting on us, and the national minimum wage increase, they have to find an extra £56,000 a year, which is equivalent to the care costs of 1.5 residents. That is the reality. That system and those places are vulnerable. If those places go, there will be a massive knock-on effect on the rest of the system.

I hope that hon. Members from across the House are less interested in the system—although it is our job to worry about it—and much more interested in the people. People cannot get much more vulnerable than the elderly who have learning difficulties.

[Dr Luke Evans]

When it comes to social care and GPs, there is a situation that has been described to me as Schrödinger’s care. Providers are seen by the state as being private, yet their services are commissioned solely by the NHS, which means that they are caught both dead and alive when it comes to NICs. This has happened either by design in the Treasury, or by accident. The answer from the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary—I expect the Minister to say this—is that funding will be allocated in the usual way. The problem is that that will happen in April, four months away, while decisions are being made now. There are potential closures, and certainly redundancies, or decisions not to employ. How will that be addressed? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to address that, because these institutions are listening now, and need to know that answer?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is of course a doctor. In this and previous debates, such as Second Reading, it is good to encourage a discursive approach in the Chamber, if we are to be valuable. I hope that we will continue to gather in this Chamber, talking to each other and listening. No one would think less of the Government for making changes. I cannot speak for those on the Opposition Front Bench, but I would seek to give the Government some political cover if they found a way to ameliorate the impact of this measure on the system—and, more importantly, on the human beings on which the NHS relies.

In 2021, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, promised a plan

“to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 295.]

Yet all the analysis available to Government Members shows that those with the least will pay the highest price for this measure. In my constituency, HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care—a brilliant organisation that has had the same chief executive for the past five years—was finally getting a surplus to invest in its stock, some of which is almost as old as me, and to give its staff something above the national minimum wage. But following the changes in the Budget, it faces a bill of £3.5 million, more than offsetting any hope of a surplus, which it desperately needs in order to invest in its people and stock. The money will be taken away from that good social purpose in my local area, and instead will go into the Chancellor’s mythical black hole—for payment of additional sums almost greater than the total income of many pensioners, and for pay rises, for train drivers, so that they can pay their union fees; and so that Labour Members can carry on all too rarely mentioning in the Chamber their sponsorship by people who dictate so much of what they share with us—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central aside.

Finally, it is interesting in these debates just how few of the more than 400 Labour Members—they can all cheer on the Government Benches at how many Labour MPs there are—want to come and defend these measures. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) spoke bravely, but he looked a little world-weary. I think he has been going out and about in his constituency, so I am sure that he is hearing the same thing as me, but said a little more angrily, because he is responsible for it.

I appeal to those Members who are not here to seek change. The 2012 Budget by George Osborne, crudely and rudely called the omnishambles Budget, included a measure to bring in 20% VAT on static caravans. The Treasury civil servants love dusting these things off—they hate an anomaly more than anything. Those are the very caravans that ordinary working people use to holiday on the coast. I did not, alongside colleagues, run my campaign in the press; instead, I built up support from Conservative Members and coalition colleagues, who realised how damaging that measure would be for jobs in their area, the holiday opportunities of ordinary working people, and an industry that is 95% manufactured in the UK. People told me, “Change is impossible—this has been announced in a Budget. You cannot overturn a Budget measure.” You and I, Madam Chair, having been here some time, know that that is not true. Politics is a matter of arithmetic. If Labour Members can build enough support among colleagues on the Government Benches—they do not need to do it publicly, and they do not need to tell us about it—they have every chance of changing this. The Whips and Ministers start getting spooked when 15 Members turn up. If Labour Members can get 30 or 40, they can make a change. They should not feel powerless.

The Government could make changes. They could move £3 billion or £4 billion over to social care, hospices, GPs and the like. They could agree to our amendments. They could come up with some other solution. They have the power to do it. Stubbornness and perhaps a certain arrogance has crept in because of the size of their majority. Government Members, who go out to talk to their constituents more frequently than Ministers, will be in a great position to tell Ministers that up with this they will not put.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am conscious that I have only a few moments to speak. I will not go through the four clauses of the Bill, as I take it that everyone will have read it already. I will instead go directly to the amendments that have been tabled, ahead of potential votes in a few moments.

I will address the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). These amendments seek to exclude certain sectors, including healthcare providers, educational settings and charities, from the new rate and threshold for employer national insurance. As hon. Members know, the changes in the Bill before us represent one of the difficult but necessary decisions that the Government have had to take to fix the foundations of our economy and our public finances.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I cannot give way. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman many times in recent weeks, but I have about four minutes in which to address everyone’s comments.

As hon. Members have set out, we recognise that the changes we are making today will have an impact on employers. Making these changes was a tough decision that we did not take lightly, but we are also clear that the revenue raised from the measures in this Bill and others in the Budget will play a critical role in both restoring economic stability and getting the NHS back on its feet. As a result of the measures in this Bill and the wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week.

The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers on additional employer national insurance costs, including central Government, public corporations and local government. Independent contractors, including primary care providers, social care providers, charities such as hospices and nurseries will not be supported with the costs. That is the same as was the case with the changes to employer national insurance rates under the previous Government’s plans for the health and social care levy.

Primary care providers—general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors that provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consults each sector about what services they provide, and about the money to which they are entitled in return under their contract. As in previous years, the issue we are debating today will be dealt with as part of that process in the round. The Department of Health and Social Care will confirm funding for general practice, dentistry and pharmacy for 2025-26 as part of the usual contract process later in the financial year, including through consultation with sectors.

I turn to adult social care. The Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of around 3.2% for 2025-26, including at least £680 million of new grant funding for social care. The funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector; again, they will be considered in the round.

Some hon. Members have tabled amendments to exclude charities from the new national insurance rate and threshold. However, it is important to recognise that charities can benefit from employment allowance, which this Bill has more than doubled from £5,000 to £10,500. That will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest. The Government also provide wider support for charities, including hospices, via a tax regime. This tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors that are worth just over £6 billion for the year to April 2024.

I recognise that some hon. Members have shown an interest in the impact of this Bill on childcare settings, as highlighted in the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans, for Grantham and Bourne, and for Lagan Valley, and in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). Early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible, which is why the Government committed in our manifesto to deliver the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents, and to open 3,000 new or expanded nurseries, by upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. Despite the very challenging circumstances that the Government inherited, the Chancellor announced in her Budget in October significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places. This means that the total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.

New clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, specifically refers to the eligibility criteria for employment allowance. I can assure her that they have not changed, except for the removal of the £100,000 threshold, which will mean that more organisations are able to access employment allowance. The eligibility of a particular organisation will depend on the make-up of an individual business’s work, which can be determined following detailed guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While every organisation will need to check its eligibility for the employment allowance, it is likely that many childcare providers will be able to access it.

Finally, I will turn to the amendments to exclude universities from the new rate and thresholds for employer national insurance. We greatly value UK higher education in creating opportunity, being an engine for growth in our economy and supporting local communities. The Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. The Secretary of State for Education has confirmed that the maximum fees in the academic year 2025-26 will rise, for the first time since 2017, from £9,250 to £9,535. This was a difficult decision, which demonstrates that the Government are serious about the need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing. I would like to continue, Madam Chair, but I should stop now—

Finance Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

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

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that decisions on VAT reliefs are political choices. Indeed, the Opposition are showing which side of that choice they land on when it comes to education; through their new leadership, they are choosing to prioritise a tax break for private school fees over investment in state education. That is a political choice. I am very happy to stand behind where we are on that side of the debate.

I will turn to some of the clauses in detail. The changes made by clause 47 will remove the VAT exemption from which private schools currently benefit on the education, vocational training and boarding they provide. Let me be clear: this policy does not mean that schools must increase fees by 20%, and the Government expect schools to take steps to minimise the increases for parents. Schools can reclaim VAT paid on inputs and make efficiency savings to minimise the extent to which they need to increase fees. Many schools have already committed publicly to capping fee increases at 5% or absorbing the full VAT costs themselves.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

One of the schools in my area has posed a question on VAT. It has combined fees, within which things like meals are included. It is not clear from Treasury guidance whether the school would have to separate those fees out, creating another accounting problem—in order to have separate VAT and travel, for example, as part of the fees—when currently it is all one unit. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? When I met the Schools Minister, he was unable to give me an answer, and was going to go away and speak to the Treasury about what that looks like. This will have real impacts for this school, which will have to decide how to set out its accounting, and whether it has to include the fees or separate them out into several different blocks.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his specific question. Let me just be clear that I am not giving tax advice for that particular school in my response, because I would always assume that any school would get its own tax advice. In general, the VAT treatment of a particular supply is determined by the predominant supply, so there are options available to schools. I am happy to pick the matter up with him outside the Chamber and to make sure he has the details in writing. As I said, I would not want to give specific advice to that school, but it is worth the school getting advice on the VAT treatment of the fees it charges based on the predominant supply.

I will return to the impact of the policy we are proposing and the changes in clause 47. Government analysis suggests that the impact of the VAT policy on private and state school sectors is likely to be very small—ultimately leading, as I was saying a few moments ago, to 37,000 fewer pupils in the private sector, which includes both pupils who will never enter the private sector and those who will move.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition, and particularly to new clause 8. Let me start by briefly considering the context in which we are debating the Bill. It comes after a Budget in which the Chancellor said that we must have

“an economy that is growing, creating wealth and opportunity for all”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 811.]

But that is not what this Finance Bill delivers. Instead, the Budget is forecast to deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher inflation.

The Minister referred to choices, and the Government have indeed made choices. They have chosen to tax enterprise, to tax the wealth creators and to tax the farmers who are, again, outside Parliament protesting against the family farm tax—I wonder whether, on one of his rare jaunts to this country, the Prime Minister has gone out to speak to them. Rather than promote opportunity, it was the Government’s choice to bring in a new tax on aspiration.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend talks about choices, and one of the choices that independent schools are now going to have to make is how to use their own resources, such as their sports pitches, bursaries and scholarships. The kinds of things that benefited the wider local community may now have to be turned into fundraising and revenue-making machines to be able to deal with this change, which in turn means that other schools will not be able to use their community facilities, such as their football pitches. Those may all have to be charged more for, or indeed cut completely, as the independent schools have to make those difficult choices. That is not good for community cohesion at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Absolutely; I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government hide behind the cloak of saying, “If you have an EHCP, everything is okay,” but 100,000 children in schools across our country will be impacted.

The next area we are concerned about is faith schools, which tend to be smaller and charge lower fees. The Independent Schools Council has warned that

“Low-cost faith schools will be faced with deficit and closure, communities will lose vital assets”.

There are small religious groups that do not have any state sector provision that can meet their needs as a denomination. Religious groups are mounting legal challenges as a result, battling for the right to educate their children and battling for the right to choose, which we on the Conservative Benches certainly support.

New clause 8(3) refers to the music and dance scheme, which provides grants to talented young people who could not otherwise attend world-class institutions such as the Royal Ballet school. We welcome the Government’s decision, under pressure, to delay taxing schools in this scheme until September next year, but that exemption should be made permanent.

To return to one of the points that has been made, in the Budget statement the Chancellor said:

“94% of children in the UK attend state schools. To provide the highest-quality support and teaching that they deserve, we will introduce VAT on private school fees”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

That is a deliberately divisive approach. The Opposition support 100% of pupils. We care about all children. We simply believe that parents should be able to choose.

We have consistently raised the situation of military families, to which the Minister referred, and argued that they should be exempt from this tax. The Government did not agree to that, but in response to our campaign they said:

“We will uprate the continuity of education allowance to reflect the increase in school fees from January.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 3.]

Well, the new continuity of education allowances have been announced and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) pointed out, they fall short of protecting service families from the changes. That will have a direct impact on the retention and recruitment of our armed forces. There are 4,200 children who benefit. The allowance is in place to meet the needs of the armed forces when they have to move around the country or serve overseas and boarding schools or other provision is the only available option. Given the importance of this allowance for the retention of military personnel, why have the Government not met the commitment that they made to our armed forces?

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the veterans’ commissioner that will be introduced by the new Government will be perfectly primed to look at this kind of problem to ensure that both Departments—the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education—get the best? Is that not the purpose of the commissioner?

[James Wild]

I very much hope so. I know from my years as an adviser in the Ministry of Defence just how important the allowance is for retention. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have broken their promise.

I am grateful to the many organisations that have shared concerns about the implementation of these clauses, especially as the measure is rushed and is taking place in the middle of the school year. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has called for a delay, saying that it is

“concerned that neither HMRC nor the private schools will be ready to implement the change in VAT liability effectively”.

In order to meet the mid-term deadline, HMRC has to register the schools in just five working weeks—an issue that new clause 8 could address.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for their comments. I feel that I am duty bound to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend for Loughborough on his engagement.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is not in his place—sorry, he is at the Bar. Perhaps he could come and take a seat on the Benches. He asked an important question to try to get some clarity about the VAT treatment of combined fees that cover school meals, transport and other services. I hope that my earlier answer gave him some reassurance on that.

I reiterate that I cannot provide advice for individual schools, but it is worth emphasising that the general principle is that if a school supplies a package of education for a single fee, that will normally be a single supply for VAT. That package could include a number of other elements such as transport or meals, alongside the main element of education. If it is a single supply, it is a single VAT liability. However, where a school supplies education and also supplies other elements for a separate fee, that will normally be treated as a separate supply. For example, if a school offers school meals alongside the education for a separate charge, those will normally be two different supplies, and they may have different VAT liabilities. Although the education would be subject to the standard rate of VAT, the school meals may be exempt, if they meet the conditions.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification on that point; I think he is hitting towards it. The school itself has everything grouped into one fee, which includes the transport, schooling and food. Its contention, therefore, is that it will have to break that all out, which means it will have to deal with all the accounting issues on top of this. It is just another burden to think about. I wonder whether the Treasury has thought about that and whether there will be further guidance—there is literally just one line in a piece of written guidance put out by the Treasury. Is there anywhere the school can raise this issue to work through the exact advice it needs? I appreciate that the Minister cannot give that advice directly to the school from the Dispatch Box.

[James Murray]

The way that we treat private school fees and the other charges that private schools may levy has to be consistent with the VAT principles more broadly, which is why I have tried to explain how the supply of education and the supply of other elements would interact with the VAT system more widely. I will hold back from giving specific advice about that individual school, but I would encourage it to contact HMRC to get advice about its specific registration. If the school staff read what I have just said in Hansard, I hope they will see some information that will help them to understand how to approach this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Minister mentions first-time buyers. However, the change to stamp duty is likely to affect them, because they are now being brought into paying stamp duty. How does that help first-time buyers to realise their aspiration of getting into the housing market?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman very confidently that the thing that will help first-time buyers in this country most is building more houses. His Government absolutely failed to do that, but we will be doing it.

Returning to the Bill, we estimate that approximately half of those paying the non-resident surcharge will also pay the higher rates for additional dwellings. This means that a non-resident purchasing an additional residential property worth £300,000 now pays £23,500 as a result of the change in rates, compared with £17,500 before the change, an increase of £6,000. This compares with a UK-resident purchaser buying their first home, who pays no SDLT, and a UK-resident home mover, who currently pays £2,500. This change therefore improves the comparative advantage of UK-resident home movers and first-time buyers—as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) might be pleased to know—while ensuring that no additional barriers are faced by those coming to the UK and buying their first or only home.

Those buying an additional property before they can sell their main residence will be liable for the higher rates for additional dwellings. However, this will be refunded if the previous main residence is sold within three years of the purchase of a new main residence, or longer if there are exceptional circumstances, such as delays in cladding remuneration. This ensures that only those who are genuinely liable for higher rates will be required to pay them.

Clause 50 increases the higher rates of SDLT on the purchase of additional dwellings by individuals and dwellings by companies from three percentage points above the main residential rates of SDLT to five percentage points. This applies to transactions with an effective date on or after 30 October this year and before 1 April next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Indeed, and representing an area with some of the most attractive coastline in the country, I certainly recognise and share those concerns. There has been warning that the measures could make that issue worse. People also need to be able to rent in those areas, and if local people who need to work where the jobs are have to move from long-term lets to short-term, that does nothing to help.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The point is valid. The Government are trying to get more properties for people to buy, but at the same time they are changing back the threshold for first-time buyers. Those first-time buyers will be stifled when they want to buy a house because they will have to pay more tax. Introducing both measures simultaneously seems to cause a rub. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I do not doubt the figures. I simply note that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, which is the council for my constituency, has met the housing need target it was set. Thousands of homes are being built in and around King’s Lynn, which will be a mixture of tenures—to rent and to buy. One of the big blockers is that the Government have not yet approved schemes that the previous Government were committed to—schemes for the roads and infrastructure needed to bring that housing online. I hope that the Minister will take that up with her colleagues, because if the Government are to meet their target of building 1.5 million homes, they need councils to deliver. That means funding the infrastructure. I am grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to make that point.

We are concerned about the increased cost of private rent and a decreasing supply of rental properties due to this latest tax increase. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the increased stamp duty rates on the private rental sector within six months of the Bill passing into law.

[Dr Evans]

It is important to have transparency. It is not controversial to say that we need more houses—Members on both sides of the House agree—but take Leicester, where new housing targets have been reduced by 31%. We will now have an exodus of people offering rental residences. Will that not compound the problem acutely? We will not have the number of homes. The target has dropped in Leicester, but we will have more people needing to rent. The homelessness rate could go up, because people are leaving the market. The Government need to think carefully about that. The new clauses would give transparency on whether there is a problem.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend draws attention to the unintended consequences of the stamp duty measure. I wonder how much involvement the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department had in drawing it up, or whether it was drawn up in the Treasury just to get a line into the Red Book and fill out the Government’s spending plans.

New clause 7 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact that increased rates for additional dwellings are having on the housing market as a whole, and in particular on the demand for homes in England and Northern Ireland. Pegasus Insight has reported that nearly 20% of landlords across England and Wales sold homes in the last 12 months, significantly more than the 8% who purchased properties in that period. We see increased rents as a result. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show average UK private rents increasing by 8.7% in the 12 months to October. When the cost of living is high and rents are increasing, why are the Government taking steps that could make matters worse for our constituents?

On the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), clauses 50 to 53 may increase the chance of properties switching from long-term to short-term lets, which is a concern in my constituency. We need a balance of properties—some that people can rent and those that people can buy—so that people can live and work in the area where they grew up.

The Government’s stated policy objective for the stamp duty measures is to disincentivise the acquisition of buy-to-let properties and free up housing stock for main and first-time buyers, but nowhere in their impact note is the private rental sector mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked the Minister what impact she thought the changes could have, and what modelling had been done of the effect on the rental market; I am afraid that answer came there none. Hopefully she will have had some inspiration by the time she winds up the debate and can give some answers, because the impact note does not have any information on that point. I find that surprising. Once again, that is why it is essential that we review these measures to see what the real-world impact is on the rental market. Our new clauses would enable us to do just that.

Encouraging home ownership and helping first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder is the right thing to do. However, that should not come at the expense of the private rental sector. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), put it in the Budget debate, activity in the housing market will be dampened and people will be discouraged from downsizing, which will put pressure on housing supply and labour mobility.

I am proud that while in government, the Conservatives helped more people get on to the housing ladder through schemes such as First Homes, shared ownership, right to buy and the lifetime individual savings account, and doubled the threshold for stamp duty. However, with only one in eight renters able to afford to purchase a home in the area where they live, renting is the only viable option for many. What is the Minister’s response to those who say that increasing stamp duty will reduce the supply of rental housing, and that rents will increase as a result?

I must briefly address the structural tax issues that the clauses create. I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for the discussions that we have had. There is now a top residential rate of 19%, compared with a top rate of 5% for purchase of a non-residential or mixed property, so taxpayers may be incentivised to argue that the property that they are buying is non-residential or mixed-use—for example, it may have a paddock that they would use—to take advantage of the lower rate. A number of those cases have come to the first-tier tribunal and higher court. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the risk that she sees there, and told us what HMRC has advised her and whether increased compliance costs will arise as a result of the divergence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

7. What fiscal steps she is taking to support pensioners.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

Thanks to our steadfast commitment to the triple lock, more than 12 million pensioners will benefit from a 4.1% increase in their state pensions next year, and over the course of this Parliament they will be better off by £1,900. Pensioners also benefit from free bus passes, eye tests and prescriptions.

[Dr Evans]

In September the Government released statistics showing that one in five pension credit claims were not being processed within 50 days, and I raised that in a written parliamentary question, No. 5385. Part of the answer stated:

“The department has secured funding for additional staffing to improve processing times.”

Two months later, data has been released showing that the processing of one in four pension credit claims is now taking longer than 50 days. How much funding was given, will more be provided to try to move this forward, and what conversations is the Minister having with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the funding is spent properly, given that it is taxpayers’ money?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am a Minister in both the Treasury and the DWP, so I have conversations with officials about this all the time. We are absolutely determined that those who are eligible for pension credit should be aware that they can apply for it, given our big campaign to raise awareness—only last week we launched a TV campaign on the issue. We have also deployed an additional 500 staff to process those pension credit claims. Thanks to our campaign there has been a 145% increase in the number of claims, which is why the processing is taking a little longer, but we are absolutely focused on speeding it up and ensuring that those who are eligible receive the help they need.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I recognise that the decision we are taking will have impacts, and in some cases it will mean that employers have to take difficult decisions. We are, however, reforming business rates to help retail, hospitality and leisure on the high street, so I would suggest that the hon. Member speaks to the Scottish Government about their doing something to support businesses in the same way; I cannot speak on their behalf.

Taken together, the measures, should the Bill pass, will mean that 865,000 employers pay no national insurance at all next year, with over 1 million—more than a half of all employers—paying the same or less than they did previously. I have been clear, however, that I recognise that there will be impacts on some employers as a result of the changes. While many small businesses and charities will be protected through the employment allowance increase, others will have to contribute more.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Minister talks about protecting businesses or charities, but hospices, for example, employ many more than four people. I cannot think of one hospice that does not employ more than four people. How will they be protected?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That will depend on the exact set-up of the hospice, but typically hospices are independent charities, so they will be able to use the employment allowance against their national insurance contributions liability. They will also be able to access the other tax reliefs in the system that benefit charities, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief, which we have maintained in the Budget. We have taken the decision to maintain—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill because it breaks the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party not to increase National Insurance; and will lead to lower growth, lower wages for working people, fewer jobs and the closure of businesses.

Today we turn to the latest chapter in this Government’s book of economic incompetence, which is their choice to increase employers’ national insurance contributions—Labour’s job tax on workers across the UK. Today’s measures are the major reason that the public’s immediate reaction to the Budget was negative, with YouGov polling the day after the Budget showing that nearly twice as many people thought it would leave the UK worse off than thought it would be better off. When it came to judging each of the many measures in the Budget in turn, today’s proposal to increase national insurance was rated the second worst decision of all in the Budget, just behind hiking bus fares by 50%. Back in October, 47% of the public thought Labour’s job tax was the wrong thing to do, but as employers have spelled out the impact of Labour’s job tax, the public’s view has soured further. In polling last Monday, those saying that this measure is wrong have increased from 47% to 57%. The public know that the Labour Chancellor has got this choice wrong.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The shadow Minister is an astute man, and he has picked up on some of the indices of concern. One of those is the economic confidence index, which in October was -52. In November, it was -65. That is the second lowest figure on record since the pandemic in 2020. If we had an eminent economist running the Treasury, they would be able to see that this is a bad idea for businesses and the country.

[Richard Fuller]

Obviously it would be useful to have people with business experience in the Cabinet, if they are going to levy taxes on business. Sadly, the Government do not have that. My hon. Friend’s point about business confidence and the reaction from businesses goes to what the Minister was trying to say in his summing up about what the Conservative party would do. The way we raise more taxes is by enhancing business confidence, so that they invest, grow and make profits that can be taxed. This Budget has done precisely the opposite. Each and every day since the Budget, confidence in the financial competence of this Labour Government has been ebbing away. Less than one in four of the public now believe that this Government are handling the economy well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I will be very happy to give way, but I will make some progress first.

If we take the Government at their word that their intention is to raise funds for public services, this measure is an inefficient way to do so. Under the provisions of the 1992 Acts on social security provision, only a proportion of the moneys raised by this form of taxation will be allocated to public services; the vast majority is essentially hypothecated to the national insurance fund. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the moneys raised by the Bill will actually be allocated to the national health service? Will he also advise us of why the Chancellor chose this particular tax, which, uniquely, will burden the economy with far more in taxes levied than will actually end up going to support public services?

Employers large and small across the United Kingdom have been pleading with the Government to reverse this measure, letting them know about the impact it will have on jobs and on wages; the particularly harsh impact it will have on female workers and on young people starting out in their careers; the vulnerability of our hard-pressed hospitality businesses and high street retailers; or the pre-Christmas pleas of our charities, hospices and GPs about the way their contribution to public services has been completely ignored. Has the Minister been listening to the voices of people who actually have experience of running a business, creating jobs or delivering public services, who are telling him about the negative impact the Bill will have on jobs and pay, and even on their own viability, or has he been turning a deaf ear?

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is it not the biggest slap in the face for people listening to this that when Labour uses “working people”, it cannot define that term? Pub landlords and people working in charities are by definition working people—they are of working age and earn a living—and they will now be hit by this tax, which will have such a detrimental impact on their livelihoods. Is that not a disgrace?

[Richard Fuller]

I have been listening to questions from Members who believe that this is “not a tax on working people” asking for exemptions from it. When we hear that these taxes are being levied on hospices, charities, GPs and small businesses, we cannot help but believe that Labour thinks that people work only when they work for the Government. The truth of the matter is that working people work in many institutions across the country—in small businesses, large businesses and in the third sector—as well as for the Government. This Government are taxing working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

I am not sure that it is for me to give reassurances—it is probably for Ministers to do that—but what I can do is repeat what the Minister said earlier: the Government will bring forward the settlement for GPs in the usual way.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Part of the biggest problem that I have with the way this is being done, looking at the NHS as a whole, is that while at the front door of primary care the raising of national insurance contributions means that GPs do not want to recruit, at the back door social care is also being hit by the increase. It is all very well protecting the centre—the hospitals—but the biggest problem is system-wide, in that both the back door and the front door are jammed shut. How will the Bill resolve that? This is the practicality that the Labour party must explain to the health services, because they are asking the same question and it is going unanswered.

[Luke Murphy]

Both the back door and the front door of the NHS have been broken over the last 14 years, so we will take no lectures from the Conservatives about the state of the NHS or the impact of policies.

The protection of small business is also built into the Bill. The increase in the employment allowance to £10,500—as the Minister said—and the expansion to all employers mean that 250,000 employers will pay less national insurance, and that 820,000 employers will see no difference in their national insurance bills. That will ensure that these changes fall only on the businesses with the broadest shoulders. This Government continue to champion entrepreneurship and wealth creation, boosting public investment by more than £100 billion over this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

This Saturday is Small Business Saturday. It is an opportunity for every single one of us to celebrate the fantastic small businesses in our constituencies—businesses that are the engine of our economy and the backbone of our communities.

We know that behind every single business there is a story. Either it is a family business that has passed through the generations and evolved, or it is a start-up that was somebody’s life’s dream, but behind every story there is blood, sweat, tears and hard work. This Saturday, as we all go around our constituencies meeting and greeting small business owners, we only need to scratch the surface of even the most successful business to know that they are very worried about the impact of the Budget, particularly the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions. We have heard from many of them already, and we know what the impact will be: they will suppress wages, freeze recruitment and, in the worst cases, shut up shop.

Rightly, the Government keep talking about growth. We all want economic growth, but this particular tax will undermine growth, not unleash it. We have all heard from GPs, dentists, hospices, social care providers, charities that are commissioned to provide health and care, and public health programmes. They are all incredibly worried. None of them has been given a guarantee that the money being taken away with one hand through the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions will be given back through the renewed contracts with the NHS. We oppose this tax, but if the Government will not reverse it, we urge them at the very least to exempt health and care providers.

[Dr Evans]

We have heard a number of times from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and even from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury today, that allocations will be made in the usual way, but we are six weeks on from the Budget and health services are trying to decide what to do now. They cannot wait.

[Daisy Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that GP services, dentists and hospices are having to make decisions now on freezing recruitment and not providing wage increases, so there is real urgency to this measure.

The changes go beyond health and care. They will also affect early years providers and education providers, at a time when we should be reducing the costs of childcare and care services and supporting parents back into work. The measure will undermine that. I have heard from housing associations, Citizens Advice and hospitality companies that the pressure from this measure will make life incredibly difficult for them. Hospitality in particular relies on a lot of part-time workers, and the changes to national insurance contributions will have a terrible effect. Many of them tell me that at the moment—before the changes have taken effect—employer national insurance contributions liability is incurred only once a part-time worker starts earning £9,100 per annum. That is 15 hours a week on the current national minimum wage. Once the changes take effect, however, liability will be incurred at only £5,000 per annum, or the equivalent of 7.5 hours a week on the new national minimum wage. That will disincentivise small businesses from taking on part-time workers. Let us be honest: many people can only work part time because they are picking up the pieces of a broken health and social care system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh]

I am, indeed, coming to exactly that point, because this is set in the context of what the Tories left behind. The clear trajectory of their last Budget was to squeeze day-to-day public spending to just 1% above inflation every year until 2029. That carried dire implications for every unprotected Department—up to £20 billion of cuts a year. The Resolution Foundation calculated that that would be the equivalent of three quarters of the cuts of the austerity years—austerity 2.0.

Sadly, there is no evidence that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), left her own note for her successor. If she had, it surely would have read, “I’m afraid to tell you there is no money for public services.” If the Conservatives had won the last election, what would that have meant in practice? My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary revealed that when he took office, he was told that the NHS was facing such large deficits it would have to cut 20,000 appointments and operations a week. Thanks in part to the national insurance rises in the Bill, he can now deliver on our manifesto commitment to provide 40,000 extra appointments every week, with our investment in mental health services treating an extra 380,000 patients.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the hon. Member aware that the Royal College of General Practitioners said that it will cost 2.2 million appointments just to service the NIC payments that must be made? How does that resolve our service provision in primary care?

[Paul Waugh]

The Heath Secretary said that he will address that in due course, and I am sure that he will before April, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) may want to answer the question I put to the Conservative Front Bench. If they are so opposed in principle to national insurance rises, why did they support the health and social care levy in 2021? The hon. Member voted for it, as did the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—why? They cannot tell me why because they know they are being inconsistent.

[Dr Evans]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Paul Waugh]

If he would like to explain why he voted for it, yes.

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. Does the hon. Member realise that we had to deal with that because the amount that we had to borrow in 2010 was £158 billion? For the pandemic, it was £400 billion. That is the kind of thing that the Conservatives have had to deal with that led to the difficult decisions. We were on track to have the fastest growing economy, which has now been trashed by decisions taken by Labour.

[Paul Waugh]

In the process, you left us with a massive structural deficit.

Finance Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am keen on our manifesto, which delivered this Labour majority and this Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the manifesto that we went into the election with, he will see the three words that open our pledges: “deliver economic stability”. After the mess that the previous Government made of the public finances, and the damage they did to our public services and our economy, that is crucial. Delivering economic stability, fixing the public finances and putting our public services back on a firm footing are essential to getting the investment and growth that our country badly needs.

Let me be clear about the VAT policy on private school fees: charging the standard rate of 20% does not mean that schools must increase their fees by 20%, because schools can reclaim VAT paid on inputs and reduce the cost to minimise the extent to which they need to increase fees. Many schools have already publicly committed to cap increases at 5%, or to absorb the full VAT costs themselves.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Parents from two private schools in my area have written to me that they will have to move their children into the state system, but the problem is that there are not places in the state system to accomplish that. Will there be a dedicated fund to help those schools when pupils move? Will funds be put aside for the welfare of the kids who are being taken out of school mid-term? Figures that have been released suggest that there could be about 3,000 such pupils. Such a move will have a significant impact on their mental health and their family’s welfare, and I know this Government are committed to ensuring that children have good welfare. Will the Minister consider a ringfenced fund to help support the mental health of those kids?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, mental health, more broadly, is a priority for this Government. On the policy around VAT on private school fees, the impact on pupils in private schools having to change to a state school is expected to be very limited. The Government estimate that 35,000 pupils—less than 0.5% of all state school pupils—will leave, or never enter, the private sector as a result of this policy. Those movements will take place over a number of years, and only 3,000 pupils are estimated to move within the current academic year. To put that number in context for the hon. Gentleman, every year many pupils move between schools, including between private schools and the state sector. A Department for Education report published in 2022 looking at moves between state schools and out of state schools, found that almost 60,000 moves take place every year. As he will know, pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the school funding system in England is already set up to manage that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am absolutely confident, through all my engagement with OEUK and many firms that work in the oil and gas sector, that our approach strikes the right balance, as needed in our economy. It recognises that oil and gas producers will have a role in the energy mix for years to come, while also being clear that it is crucial we raise money for the energy transition. The energy profits levy seeks to achieve that by providing the money for that transition while also supporting jobs and investment in the sector, as exists at the moment.

Fifthly, the Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment around carried interest by increasing to 32% the capital gains tax rates that apply as an interim measure from 6 April next year, ahead of reforming carried interest more fully in a future Finance Bill. The reforms, which will have effect from April 2026, will ensure that the reward is taxed in line with economic characteristics. They put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.

As the Chancellor set out both in July and again at the Budget, the fiscal situation we inherited was far worse than we had expected. We know that the previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole and so we have had to take tough decisions to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. Some of those decisions are outside the scope of this Finance Bill and will be debated during the passage of other Bills. However, this Bill includes a number of those decisions, which we have sought to take in as fair a way as possible.

The Bill makes changes to the main rates of capital gains tax by increasing them to 18% and 24% from 30 October 2024. That decision will raise revenue while ensuring that the UK tax system remains internationally competitive. We are supporting businesses through that transition by maintaining business asset disposal relief, with its million-pound lifetime limit, and by phasing in the increase to that relief’s CGT rate, in line with the changes to investors’ relief, to 14% in April 2025 and then to 18% in April 2026.

The Bill maintains inheritance tax thresholds at their current levels for a further two years to 5 April 2030. It also legislates for air passenger duty rates for 2025-26 and for those announced in the Budget for 2026-27. From 2026-27, all rates of air passenger duty will be adjusted to partially account for previous high inflation, and that change will help maintain the value of air passenger duty rates in real terms.

[Dr Evans]

When it comes to flying, Ryanair has come out and said it will cut 5 million tickets because of the change. How does that help growth?

[James Murray]

Let me put these decisions into context for the hon. Gentleman. The increase equates to £1 more for people taking domestic flights in economy class and £2 more for those flying to short-haul destinations in economy class. None of the decisions are easy, but we have to take them to fix the public finances and to get our economy back on a stable footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give the Finance Bill a Second Reading because it derives from the 2024 Autumn Budget which will lead to jobs being lost, curtailed investment and prices being raised; because the Finance Bill constitutes an assault on business by increasing taxes on investment; because it will reduce the competitiveness of the United Kingdom’s tax regime; because it levies the first ever tax on educational choice and will increase pressure on state schools; because it will drive up rents by increasing tax on homeownership; because it will substantially increase the size of the state without a sustainable plan to fund it; and because it will reduce living standards, increase borrowing and debt, drive up inflation and interest rates, with the result that the OBR growth forecast for the Autumn Budget is lower than that accompanying the Spring Budget of the last Government.”

This Finance Bill, this Budget, are a disgrace. They are a disgrace because they are built on a deceit—a deceit that was propagated by the Labour party during the last general election. It told the British people that they need not worry about taxes being raised left, right and centre, yet what have we discovered? The figures of the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly show that this country is now heading to its highest tax burden in the history of our nation.

During the general election, we were also told by the Labour party that it had no intention of increasing national insurance. In fact, it stated exactly that in the manifesto on which the now Government stood. It broke that commitment. Do not take my word for it; Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says exactly that.

[Dr Evans]

Is it not the case that the manifesto said that there would be no rise in national insurance, but when Ministers went to defend this policy, they said, “not on working people”, but then could not define working people? Now the language has slipped to “payslips”. Is the shadow Minister aware of this translation? I am pretty sure that the “payslip” was not mentioned in the manifesto.

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. As he says, Labour is now claiming that there will be no incidence of this tax increase on working people, although it seems to have a problem defining exactly what a working person is. None the less, try telling that to those people who will see their wages depressed as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the 50,000 full-time equivalents who the OBR says will lose their jobs as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the young people up and down our country who, because it is not just an increase in the rate but also an approximate halving of the threshold, will be disproportionately affected.

Labour also reassured farmers. The then shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the now Secretary of State—reassured farmers. He went to the National Farmers Union and said that nothing would be done on inheritance tax and the annual percentage rate. And on that basis, the NFU told its members that, at least on that measure, there was nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. How wrong it was. Only last week, we saw, tens of thousands of farmers, in their dignified way, coming up to the very gates of our democracy to ask a simple question of the Labour Government: “Why did you lie to us?” That is the nub of it. The measure will see the break-up of our farms and it will do nothing for food security.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It demonstrates that this Government do not understand farming and do not understand the countryside. There are 100 Labour Members who represent rural constituencies. I will not guess how many there will be after the next general election, but some number fewer than 100, I suspect.

Perhaps the cruellest deception of all was of our pensioners, who were reassured that there would not be any means-testing of the winter fuel payment, yet what happened? 10 million pensioners are to face a cut. Before somebody on the Government Benches stands up and tells us that some of those pensioners can afford it, I say that many of them simply cannot. Of those under the poverty line, two thirds will actually lose these benefits.

[Dr Evans]

While the Prime Minister was out of the country on the 19th, something else was snuck out: a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, explaining that, at the point of reaching its decision on this, it knew from its own internal analysis that it would impoverish 100,000 pensioners into relative poverty and 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty. This information was asked for time and again in readiness for a debate in this House. Is it not right that information relevant to these measures should have been available in time for a debate?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is disgraceful that Labour waited until the farmers were at the gates of Westminster to sneak out that impact assessment, which showed that, by 2027, 100,000 more pensioners would be in relative poverty, after housing costs, than is the case today. Indeed, the analysis by the Labour party back in 2017, when it was against this proposal, was that up to 4,000 pensioners would prematurely die in the cold as a consequence of this measure. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you deal in deceit, you need a pretext for so doing. And a further deceit has been brought forward, and it was raised again at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, which is the £22 billion black hole. Where is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) has left the Chamber, but I praise her for her maiden speech. I am pleased to speak on this Finance Bill. It underpins the first Labour Budget in 14 years. It also raises the revenue that this country needs in order to recover, rebuild and renew. I will not spend ages talking about the Conservatives and the mess they have made, but—cue groans from Conservative Members—we all know about the £22 billion black hole, the mini-Budget and their reprehensible record on public finances.

However, I want to take a moment to praise the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), because I genuinely enjoyed his astronomy references. It is just a shame that he is not quite on planet Earth when it comes to recognising that we need to not only invest in public services but pay for them—the vehicle for that being this very Finance Bill. Even while this Government are tackling the Tories’ toxic inheritance, we are, through this Finance Bill, protecting payslips, when it comes to income tax and employee national insurance.

Let me get on to other key measures in the Bill that I welcome. Measures on tobacco duty, non-dom tax status and the oil and gas windfall mean that public services in my constituency of York Outer will be all the better off. Let me start by talking about the NHS. This week, I met Yorkshire Cancer Research to talk about the vital work that it does. As we discussed on Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill yesterday, the tobacco duty increase will act as a deterrent to smoking, and it will save lives. Taken together, these measures are important to changing habits, but the tobacco duty increase will also raise extra cash to fund our NHS.

Primary care services such as the York Medical Group, which I recently visited, and York hospital will undoubtedly welcome extra investment. I certainly welcome it, as a parent who recently had to wait many hours in York A&E with a screaming toddler after a trapped finger. It is vital that we get the NHS back up and running for constituents like mine. One constituent has been waiting seven years for surgery. Let that sink in: it is half the time that the Tories were in power. I am clear that this Bill raises the revenue to put the NHS on a much surer footing.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is a conscientious Member of Parliament, and I understand what he is saying, but does he accept that, in the words of a former Labour leader, we invest in public services with the proceeds of growth? When he stands for re-election, will he tell his constituents that he advocated for a Budget to cut growth in his country?

[Mr Charters]

That is slightly laughable, if I may say so as an affable Yorkshireman. Things like the national planning policy framework will drive growth, and some of these measures were not included in the OBR blue book. This pro-growth Government are doing so much for growth, so I find the hon. Gentleman’s question slightly perplexing.

The Bill will abolish the non-dom tax loophole and replace it with a residence-based regime. I had a look, and this change will raise £12.7 billion. Just last week, the Transport Secretary kindly visited me and the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire to announce £12.7 million of funding for our buses, which will transform our region. My quick maths shows that closing the non-dom tax loophole will pay 1,000 times more than that sum, which is the difference this Bill will make.

I will soon be having my office Christmas do. I am sure there is a joke to be made about liquid assets, but I recently visited Elvington brewery, and this Bill rightly cuts alcohol duty on draught products. That is wonderful news for our Yorkshire pubs. I need to declare an interest for myself and my hard-working team, because these measures mean that we are looking forward to enjoying a cheaper pint of the wonderfully named Fairytale of Brew York, which will be launched by Brew York over the festive period. Conservative Members back investment in our public services, but they do not support the revenue raised by this Bill. Perhaps they have been having too many fairytale economic pints.

The VAT increase on private school fees will bring in £1.7 billion a year, which will go directly to schools like those in York Outer. The Budget announced a £1 billion uplift for SEN provision and a £2.3 billion increase in the schools budget, which will make a huge difference to places like Applefields school and Manor Church of England academy.

I have also visited Askham Bryan college, a fantastic agricultural college in York Outer. Its great students, who are studying T-levels, will benefit from £300 million of extra funding for colleges, directly stemming from this Finance Bill. While making some proportionate tax rises in the Budget, we have maintained our position of having the lowest capital gains tax in Europe. We have struck the right balance, because we will have extra cash for our schools, and it is a real lifeline.

For all the Conservatives’ obfuscation, we have actually kept so many of our manifesto promises, one of which was to deliver a windfall tax on oil and gas companies—a policy so good that the Conservatives stole it when they were in government. The additional revenue raised by the EPL will help us to set up GB Energy, which will deliver for the British people by delivering the green jobs of the future.

May I briefly refer to the first Bill I ever spoke on in this House, which is now the Budget Responsibility Act 2024? I said the Bill was important because it was

“the only way we can grow those public services with a stable economy.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1253.]

That is as true now as it was back then—[Interruption.] I hear grumbles from the Opposition Benches. Conservative Members do not seem to think that economic stability matters when it comes to investing in public services; they certainly know quite a lot about economic instability. This Government have been tasked with ripping out the rot following 14 years of chaos. The Bill helps to fix the foundations by providing the revenue to restore public services in York Outer and beyond.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

Just as it was an honour to close the Budget debate on behalf of the Government, it is an honour to close the debate on Second Reading of the Finance Bill—the first Finance Bill by a Labour Government in 14 years. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and look forward to hearing further contributions during the Committee of the whole House and the Bill’s remaining passages, alongside the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

Before I address the numerous points raised in the debate, it is worth reflecting briefly on the points made by the Exchequer Secretary in his opening remarks on what the Bill will achieve. The Bill legislates for key measures in the Budget—a Budget in which we took tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare to restore Britain’s economic stability. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments and starts the work of moving to a fairer, more sustainable tax system while raising the revenue needed to adequately fund our public services. The Government have taken a balanced approach that will create a fairer system while still promoting growth and wealth creation.

We are adjusting the rate of capital gains tax, for example —a tax paid by fewer than 1% of adults every year—to raise some of that revenue. Although rates have increased, the Government will maintain the UK’s position as having the lowest CGT of any European G7 economy. There are no changes to CGT rates on property or the annual exempt allowance, and there is a phased increase to business asset disposal relief, to give entrepreneurs time to adjust. That is just one of the many measures in the Bill that will move us to a fairer system, where those who can pay do pay. [Interruption.] I will get on to farmers, hon. Members will be pleased to know.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on an excellent maiden speech. She is absolutely an inspiration to her teenage daughter, but also to young women across the country, including my daughter. I thank her for that. We are very pleased to have her. We need more people with careers in tech in the House. She is very welcome.

We also heard powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for Makerfield (Josh Simons) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his play on words—as an English graduate, I always enjoy that, and I thought he was excellent.

Hon. Members have extensively discussed the agricultural property relief changes announced in the Budget, and will note that they are not included in the Bill. That is because the Government are committed to technical consultation on tax legislation. We feel it is important to get complex legislation right, and to give businesses and those affected by tax changes the certainty that they need ahead of the measures coming into force. The Government will publish draft legislation on this measure before legislating for it in a future Finance Bill.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. Is there a timetable attached to that that she could set out to this House? Many businesses will have listened to that statement, and will want to know exactly when they need to make their business decisions.

[Tulip Siddiq]

We will set out plans in due course. The Bill does, however, extend the scope of agricultural property relief from 6 April 2025 to land managed under certain environmental agreements. That supports the UK Government’s wider environmental objective of supporting farmers and land managers so that they can deliver, alongside food production, significant and important outcomes for the climate and environment. The measure is intended to prevent the loss of APR being a barrier to the involvement of agricultural landowners and farmers in land use change under environmental agreements including, but not limited to, the environmental land management schemes in England and equivalent schemes elsewhere in the UK.

I want to address something the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about: family farms. This is not in the Finance Bill, but I will still refer to it. Individuals can pass on a sum of up to £325,000 inheritance tax-free; £500,000 if that includes a residence being passed to a direct descendent; and £1 million when a tax-free allowance is passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner. There is also a full exemption from inheritance tax when passing assets to a spouse or civil partner.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Last month, the Chancellor set out the Government’s first Budget. That Budget was a once-in-a-generation event to wipe the slate clean after 14 years of the Conservatives. At that Budget, we laid the foundations for our No. 1 mission of economic growth. The scale of the mess that we inherited at the general election meant that we had to take tough decisions on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions have been difficult, but they were necessary. They have enabled us to deliver economic stability and fix the public finances. Doing that is crucial to getting public services back on their feet, and to giving businesses the confidence they need to invest and thrive.

Stability, certainty and predictability are highly prized by businesses when making decisions about where and how much to invest. In opposition, I spoke to businesses time and again about the importance of stability, so in government we have made sure to deliver for them by publishing our corporate tax road map alongside the Budget. In my meetings with businesses about what they need to succeed, the system of business rates also came up time and again. I heard businesses criticise a system that is inflexible, that disincentivises investment and that places an unfair burden on those businesses on high streets across England.

That is why, in the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed our first steps towards creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. We are determined to support high streets, as they are places that bring people together and serve as focal points for economic activity. Their success is what people across the country want to see, and it is a priority for the Government to deliver it. That is why, in our first Bill on business rates in this Parliament, the Government have prioritised making progress to rebalance the rates burden faced by high street businesses.

The Bill before us seeks to put into law the commitments made at the Budget by enabling the introduction from 2026-27 of permanently lower tax rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 that make up the backbone of high streets across England. We are determined to give those businesses a tax cut, and we know that that must be fully funded in a challenging fiscal context. For that reason, the Bill also enables us to generate sustainable funding for those tax cuts through an increase of multipliers on the most valuable 1% of business properties in the country.

This targeted approach captures the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants, as well as other out-of-town businesses that draw footfall away from high streets. It will enable us to lock in new, permanently lower tax rates for core high street businesses, providing not only a tax cut but stability and certainty after the one-year retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which has been precariously extended year by year since the pandemic. Our approach provides a permanent tax cut to help high street businesses succeed, alongside the certainty that they need to invest and the means to pay for it within our tough fiscal rules.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Minister talks about certainty, but one of the biggest problems for small businesses is that so many things are happening at once, including the national insurance contributions increase, the Employment Rights Bill that is coming in, and now the levy that has been cut down from 70% to 40%. The cumulative effect of all those makes a massive difference for my businesses. A hairdresser that I met only this weekend talked about how much of a problem that will be. How does the measure help to engender stability for those small businesses, which have to wait until 2026?

[James Murray]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, around the difficult decision that we had to take on employer national insurance contributions, we provided explicit protection for small businesses by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country. I suggest that he talks to businesses in his constituency about that.

We are not shying away from the fact that difficult decisions were taken in the Budget, but he might also consult the plans that were left in operation by the previous Government in July. If we had pursued those plans, and if we had not taken any action on business rates, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely next April. The cliff edge looming next April would have seen it go down to zero. We have extended it, despite the tough fiscal circumstances, for another year at 40%. That is a reasonable way forward while we put in place these permanent reforms.

As I mentioned, the measures in the Bill to level the playing field for high streets are the beginning of our efforts to transform the system of business rates. Our ambition to go further is set out in the paper published alongside the Budget, “Transforming business rates”. That paper sets out the Government’s priority areas for further reform to support investment and make the system fairer. It invites businesses and industry representatives to work with us on designing the best possible system for the future.

I am grateful to all those businesses and representative bodies that I have spoken with in the last few weeks for their engagement already. We will consider what more the Government should do to incentivise investment and growth, including by looking at the efficacy of improvement relief and empty property relief, the impact of losing small business rate relief on expanding businesses, and the cliff edges within the current system.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I hope that the hon. Member will welcome the fact that we have committed an extra £1 billion in 2025-26 to high needs funding in the education system. The Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. I would welcome her support for our measures in that regard.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I appreciate the Minister making this carve-out on SEND, but I would be grateful if he could give us some statistics. He said that “most” will be carved out. Have the Government done any work to determine how many schools will still fall under the provisions? If not, placing such an impact assessment in the Library would be useful for Members across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was part of the fairer funding formula for schools in my area, which had the worst-funded local authorities in the country. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that schools in my constituency improved under the stewardship of the Conservative Government. Surely that is the key metric, rather than just how much money is put in.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The impact of taxing private schools with VAT will be that thousands of pupils move out into the state system. That will take away funding. It is already having an impact, but no mitigation has been put in place. The Education Secretary said that 3,000 was not the correct number, but she would not give out the number of pupils who have moved. The Government know those numbers and they need to come clean, because the impact of those pupils moving will eat away at whatever the tax raises.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that 90,000 pupils will be transferring to the state sector as a result of these plans. We Conservatives hold firmly to the principle that education should not be taxed. The only other nation to have tried is Greece, which abandoned the policy within months because of the disastrous consequences.

The Independent Schools Council has said that some independent schools will close entirely and others will scale back the education they offer, causing significant upheaval and disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of children. As surely as night follows day, that will mean fewer children going to private schools and increased pressure on state schools.

I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened me about whether this policy complies with article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The legal issues memorandum considers the principle of non-discrimination regarding the difference in treatment between private schools and state schools, but not between private schools that are charities and other charities that will still qualify for charitable rates relief. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification.

During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world, a legacy that this Government seem determined to trash. In short, this Bill may be short, but it is long on disastrous consequences. I implore Government Members to think about their local schools and their high street businesses that are about to be clobbered, and about the resulting job losses, higher prices and boarded-up shop fronts. I ask all Members to think about what is in their constituents’ best interests, do the right thing and vote against the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

On the bus price cap specifically, the hon. Member will know that the previous Government put no money in to extend that cap. We have put money in to ensure that the bus price cap remains at an affordable level for people, unlike the previous Government, who just had short-term gimmicks.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

2. What estimate she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the additional funding needed to process pension credit applications within target timescales.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

The Department for Work and Pensions has deployed 500 additional staff to process pension credit applications as quickly as possible, and I encourage all pensioners who might be eligible to apply by 21 December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that benefit can be backdated by three months, and can passport pensioners to other benefits.

[Dr Evans]

I am very grateful for the Minister’s answer. I put in a written question to find out how long this would take, and almost one in four people who apply for pension credit are waiting longer than 50 working days for their application to be picked up, which takes us past Christmas and into the new year. That is before the 150% increase in applications referred to in the data released by the Government, so although I am pleased to hear that there are 500 more staff, could we hear how much extra funding is going in immediately to make sure those applications are processed this side of Christmas? Otherwise, pensioners are really going to struggle.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am very pleased to say that there has been a 152% increase in the number of pensioners who are applying for pension credit. That is good news, and is a result of the pension credit awareness campaign that we have been running since early September. We are putting in place all the resources we can to process claims as quickly as possible.

VAT: Independent Schools

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will make a bit of progress, because I have been quite generous in giving way so far.

I want to address some of the questions that the shadow Secretary of State asked in his speech, particularly about why we are introducing this policy from 1 January 2025. The reason we are doing so is simple: we want to raise the funding we need as soon as possible to deliver our education priorities for state schools across the country. Importantly, a January 2025 start date means that schools and parents will have had five months to prepare for the VAT change, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stands ready to make sure schools are supported in delivering it.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

HMRC will put in place a number of measures to ensure that all private schools can be registered ahead of 1 January, including publishing bespoke guidance on gov.uk ahead of 30 October, updating registration systems and putting additional resource in place to help process applications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is about children—and even the Prime Minister made a choice to better the education of his children—so putting this in place in January, halfway through a year, is going to have a significant emotional impact on families and children. That is why it should be delayed. If it is good enough for the Prime Minister to make such choices for himself, why cannot this Government make choices for the rest of the nation, and support the most impacted families and children?

[James Murray]

I have made clear the reason why we are proceeding with this policy to a January 2025 date, which is that we want to raise the money as soon as possible to invest in our improvements to state education. There will have been five months for parents and schools to prepare for the change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

There appear to be two parts to this debate: ideology and practicality. Fair play to the Labour Government—when they came in, they said that they intended to introduce this proposal. They told the public and put it in their manifesto, for which I respect them. That is important, especially when compared with their policy on winter fuel payments. But it is hard to see how it is not ideological, when the Secretary of State for Education has tweeted:

“Our state schools need teachers more than private schools need embossed stationery. Our children need mental health support more than private schools need new pools. Our students need careers advice more than private schools need AstroTurf pitches.”

This reeks of prejudice and propagates a class war, and I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State is not here to defend her tweet. She is a decent woman, and I would like to think that she would apologise.

As I said, this is a manifesto commitment, and the Labour Government have a mandate to deliver it, but they also have a mandate to deliver it in a way that takes the impact into account. In response both to today’s debate and my questions to the Leader of the House, we have heard that Ministers have seen an impact assessment. If they want to champion this plan, why not share the information with everyone? One private school in my constituency that will be affected, Dixie grammar school, has simply asked, “Why can we not see what the impact will be?” That is not an unreasonable question.

As I said to the Minister earlier, children are at the heart of this. I do not see the rush to implement this policy in January. The Prime Minister put his child in an apartment because he was worried about the impact on his child’s education. I respect that decision, but does he not see the problem with implementing a policy that will have exactly the same kind of impact by tearing kids out of their schools? Mark my words: it will happen. That is what the two private schools in my constituency have said. Where is the report addressing the impact on their education?

In my constituency, the biggest problem will be that we do not have the school places for pupils who move out of private schools. What will happen then? We have not heard how this Government will deal with that, and that is the fundamental issue. How will children and families cope? The Prime Minister insulated his child, but how will the Government insulate the nation’s children?

Winter Fuel Payment

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

It is fascinating to hear the recent converts to the fight against poverty on the Opposition Benches, particularly the right hon. Member for North West Durham—sorry, Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden)—yet they seem far quieter about the fact that the average food shop went up by £1,000 in the last Parliament, the average energy bill went up £400—[Interruption.] Listen and you might learn something. The average mortgage went up £2,880 because of your lot. [Interruption.] Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I was under the impression that in the Chamber we should refer to Members, Friends or even the constituency. Is that correct?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Member is absolutely correct. May I just helpfully point out to all hon. and right hon. Members that, in seeking to make repeated interventions, they are actually cutting into each other’s time? I have made the point previously about the correct way to address each other, through me as Deputy Speaker. Interventions need to be a great deal shorter because they are just cutting into the time for the debate and there are an awful lot of Members who wish to contribute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Maybe in two minutes, this debate can best be summed up with a lesser-known fable: the farmer and the viper. A farmer was walking through his field. It was very cold in the winter, and he found a viper just under the bushes. The viper was cold, limp, and almost dead. The farmer knew it was poisonous, but he felt compassion for the creature, picked it up and put it in his pocket. As the creature became warm, it reverted to type and bit him and, as he died in that field, he said, “I got what I deserved. I shouldn’t have shown kindness to a scoundrel.”

That rings true, because after 14 years of the Labour party being out in the cold, the pensioners of this country backed Labour into government, under an impression created by the Prime Minister. Only in May 2024, he goaded our Government, asking

“Will the Prime Minister now rule out taking pensioners’ winter fuel payments off them?”—[Official Report, 1 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 255.]

If we scratch the surface a little bit deeper, though, we find that, on 25 March 2014, the now Chancellor said that

“We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money”—[Official Report, 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 174-175.]

so this is not a response to a concocted black hole. This was a choice—as Laura Kuenssberg pointed out, it was a choice to pay the unions on the back of our pensioners.

The public are not stupid. The cartoonist Matt sums it up perfectly when he says, “Surprisingly, Robin Hood, nobody likes your plan to steal from pensioners to give to train drivers.” I was in the Chamber last week when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero said that Conservative Members should

“show a bit of bravery—even break the Whip and stand out from the crowd.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 461.]

I am disappointed that Labour Members did not take that advice, with only one Labour MP doing so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call another doctor, Dr Kieran Mullan.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I could not disagree more with the hon. Member’s premise. If anybody has shown support for the sector, this Government have. We have shown huge support for the sector, in an appropriate and proportionate way, while also encouraging the industry to decarbonise. As I said, we are taking fiscally responsible decisions to extend the energy profits levy for one year. We are also providing confidence and certainty to businesses in the sector by legislating for an energy profits levy price floor. That is what is in the Bill. That will effectively abolish the energy profits levy if the six-month average for both oil and gas is at or below a set threshold. Doing so was the sector’s main ask in the 2024 spring Budget, and it could help to unlock around £9 billion in uncommitted investment spend, according to Offshore Energies UK, which welcomed the decision. I am sorry that he feels unable to welcome it as well.

Those measures will ensure that investment in our economy continues to grow. I will now outline some measures in the Bill’s property package. The Bill will cut the higher rate of capital gains tax on residential property from 28% to 24%, encouraging landlords and second home owners to sell their properties, which could increase revenues because there would be more transactions.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

The capital gains tax cut is very welcome, but will the Minister outline whether it will come into play retrospectively? Hypothetically, if a Labour Front Bencher happened to owe some capital gains tax, would they benefit from a Conservative tax cut?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I think I know where my hon. Friend is heading. Of course I cannot comment on individual tax situations. His point, though, is an important one: everybody should always pay the taxes that they owe. I think that principle is shared across the House. The measure will be implemented from 6 April 2024, so some people may be disappointed that there is no retrospectivity, but as I say, it will make more homes available to purchase for a variety of buyers, including first-time buyers.

We also need to ensure that the property system is fair and working as intended. The Government are clear that where policies are not meeting their policy objectives, we will take action. That is why we are abolishing multiple dwellings relief, a bulk purchase relief in the stamp duty and land tax regime, from 1 June 2024. That follows an external evaluation that found no strong evidence that the relief is meeting its original objective of supporting investment in the private rented sector, and because HMRC has recorded high and clear instances of its abuse. We are also amending rules to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not unfairly penalised if they wish to buy their first homes anonymously, and that those in difficult circumstances do not face additional barriers to purchasing homes. We will ensure that registered providers of social housing in England and Northern Ireland are not liable for stamp duty land tax when purchasing property with a public subsidy, and exempt public bodies from the 15% anti-avoidance rate.

Finally, I turn to measures that will simplify and modernise our tax system, making it easier to engage with the tax system and closing loopholes that could be used for avoidance. The negative impacts of inefficient, complex taxes on both businesses and the wider economy cannot be overstated. That is why the Government are taking action to ensure that the system works for everyone. As a starting point, we are amending two primary VAT interest provisions in legislation to ensure that they apply to all cases intended by the policy. That will mean that the interest payments that HMRC recovers are correct, and it will save time and resources for HMRC and businesses.

The Government recognise that it is everyone’s responsibility to pay their fair share of tax to support our vital public services, so we are closing another anti-avoidance loophole—one that enables individuals to avoid tax by moving assets abroad via a company. That is one of 200 measures that we have undertaken since 2010 to close loopholes and reduce the tax gap, which now sits at just 4.8%—down from 7.5% under Labour. Yes, that is an inconvenient truth for the Opposition, who recently claimed to be so enthusiastic about tackling tax avoidance yet did not take the actions that we have taken when they were in power. Importantly, Labour failed to support the last Finance Bill, which included further measures to tackle tax avoidance. However, Labour was in good—or, rather, bad—company, because the Lib Dems and the SNP did not support it either.

It is not the first time that we have seen such—how should I put it?—distance between what the Opposition say and what they do. Recently, the Labour party even said that it would support our national insurance tax cuts, but when it came to the vote, I did not see a single Labour MP in the Aye Lobby with the Conservatives. Nor were there any Lib Dems, while SNP Members were in the No Lobby actively voting against tax cuts for their constituents.

The Government are getting on with delivering on our plan to cut taxes, grow the economy and boost investment, but the Labour party would put all that at risk and send us back to square one. Instead of taking the responsible decisions to back businesses, the Labour party wants to saddle them with new regulations. Labour’s so-called new deal for workers is in fact a bad deal for jobs, workers and businesses. The 70 new regulations from the deputy leader of the Labour party and the unions would ban flexible working, disincentivise small businesses from making new hires and unleash waves of low-threshold, zero-warning strikes.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his mini-speech. I feel I may have touched a nerve. He talks about people being scared; yes, I think people are scared when they hear the Government making a £46 billion unfunded spending commitment and not saying how they will pay for it. When the previous Prime Minister made an unfunded tax cut commitment of a similar order of magnitude, we know what havoc that caused in the economy, and people are still paying the price in higher mortgage payments and rent payments. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that I gave him a chance to rule out cuts to the NHS or the state pension, or tax rises elsewhere, to pay for this black hole. I am not quite sure if he did that—maybe he has not got the line from his boss in No. 10 Downing Street—but the truth is that until the Government rule those things out, people will rightly worry about the impact his unfunded commitment will have on the economy.

The pledge the hon. Gentleman was speaking about sounds like exactly the sort of pledge that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would approve of, because it comes to almost exactly the same amount as her Government’s unfunded tax cuts. Of course, the previous Prime Minster has been touring the TV studios and talking to newspaper journalists in recent days, saying, among other things, that people who claim that she crashed the economy are

“either very stupid or very malevolent”.

I wonder if the Minister would like to intervene to say whether he shares that view. No? He is not leaping to his feet now. I would have thought he would; I would have thought that Treasury Ministers would want to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the previous Prime Minister. Instead, with their £46 billion unfunded commitment, they seem determined to be a tribute act. Frankly, whatever the previous Prime Minister says, people across Britain know what impact her time in office is having on all of us, as we face higher mortgages and higher rents as a direct consequence of her economic recklessness.

That is the context in which we are debating this Finance Bill. The context is one of a Government who are out of time, out of ideas and out of touch with reality, and of a country that is feeling the impact of 14 years of Conservative economic failure. Even a simple clause such as clause 2, which sets the main rates of income tax, highlights the impact on ordinary people of decisions taken by this Government. Although the basic and higher rates of income tax are unchanged by this Bill at 20% and 40%, the tax burden on working people is rising as a result of the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold being frozen from 2021-22 to 2027-28. Those tax thresholds would ordinarily have risen this April, but instead they are in the middle of a six-year freeze. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I assume the Minister has respect for, these freezes will create 3.7 million extra taxpayers by 2028-29 and mean that 2.7 million more people will be paying the higher rate.

The truth is that, even taking into account any reductions to national insurance rates, the freezes in thresholds and the rises in council tax mean that by the end of the forecast period, the average family will still be £870 worse off. As the Resolution Foundation noted at the time of Budget, despite the reductions in national insurance, there will still be a net rise of £20 billion a year by 2028-29 in personal taxes. It pointed out that those over the state pension age, who do not benefit from national insurance cuts, will be particularly badly hit, and will face an average tax rise of £960 a year. The reality has been summed up by Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said following the Budget:

“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”

That is the record of the Conservatives in government.

[Dr Luke Evans]

There is a certain Leader of the Opposition who, when standing for their post, said that as part of their No. 1 pledge, which was for economic justice, they would increase income tax for the top 5% of earners and reverse corporation tax cuts. If the hon. Gentleman’s party was voted into government, would it stand by that pledge? That too would increase the tax burden significantly.

[James Murray]

I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s question. I can, however, respond to the general point that I think he was making. We have been very clear that this is a Parliament of record tax rises. The tax burden is set to be the highest in 70 years, and we think that the tax burden on working people should be lower. However, we would only ever support tax rises if they were responsible, and done on a basis of economic security and stability.

[Dr Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress, because I have made that point quite clearly.

The tax burden has been pushed to a record high, and we have also seen a record number of changes and U-turns on tax rates and reliefs under this Government. That applies not just to personal taxation, but to tax rates and reliefs relating to businesses. Let us consider the Chancellor’s approach to the rate of corporation tax, which the Bill sets at 25% in clause 12. In July 2022, during his leadership bid, the current Chancellor pledged to cut the headline rate of corporation tax from 19% to 15%, yet when he became Chancellor just three months later, one of his first acts was to U-turn on what he inherited and to commit to raising that tax from 19% to 25%. He has been typical of the Conservatives in lacking any certainty, predictability or consistency, and we know how damaging that is to businesses that are trying to make investment decisions.

As the shadow Chancellor set out, if we win the next general election, we will bring back certainty by capping the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate of 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness. We believe that the current rate of 25%—the lowest in the G7—strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and keeping our corporation tax competitive in the global economy. We also recognise the importance of stability and predictability in the reliefs available to businesses. We have seen a great deal of chopping and changing in capital allowances in recent years—indeed, this is a rare example of a Finance Bill from this Government that does not change the annual investment allowance or expensing regime.

We have made it clear that if we win the next general election, we will publish a road map for business taxation in our first six months in office, to give businesses the stability, predictability, and long-term plan that is so important to those making investment decisions. We have been pushing for a proper windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies operating in the North sea. The Government, despite initial opposition, U-turned on that and adopted some of our proposals with the introduction of the energy profits levy. Ahead of the general election, we have set out our plans to make the windfall tax stronger, and to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition, but it is also right that we give as much certainty as possible to those companies affected.