Spring Statement

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of robust fiscal rules which, even in difficult economic circumstances, we will continue to meet through the decisions that I have set out today. The reason that economic stability is so important can be seen in what happened in the last Parliament, where a Government borrowed beyond their means. The people who lost out were not the wealthy but ordinary working people, who paid more in the shops and more on their mortgages and rents. This Government will never repeat the mistakes of Liz Truss and the Conservatives.

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

The Chancellor has created a storm and is now complaining about the rain. She increased spending to £70 billion, she increased borrowing by £30 billion, and she increased tax by £40 billion, yet the economy shrank in January. She talked about change and the abolition of NHS England. In a written question I asked the Department how much that would cost, and it said that there would be some up-front costs but could not specify what they would be. Could she tell me the estimated cost of this top-down change to abolish NHS England?

[Rachel Reeves]

It is really difficult to understand what the Conservative party want. Do they want to reduce the cost of admin and bureaucracy, or do they want to carry on with everything the way it was? We want to change things. That is why the transformation fund that I set out today includes £150 million for a voluntary exit scheme. We want more money on the frontline, not in the back office in a bloated bureaucracy that was left by the Conservatives.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendment to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill, and I place on record particular thanks to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore, for his invaluable support and for so expertly leading the Bill through the other place.

During consideration of the Bill in the other place, 21 amendments were made, 20 of which we will address today, but before I do so directly, let me remind both Houses of the context for the Bill. When we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable. We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in the Bill represent some of the toughest decisions that we have had to take as a result. To restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet, we needed to raise revenue, including through the measures that the Bill will introduce. Many of the amendments from the other place put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise, so let me be absolutely clear: to support the amendments is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. With that in mind, I now turn to the first group of Lords amendments.

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

The Minister has talked about the growth mission, which is the Government’s raison d’être, but last week we found out that the economy had shrunk. Has he done any work to find out how much that 0.1% drop will cost the Government? It will have huge tax implications.

[James Murray]

As I have set out to the hon. Gentleman in a number of debates in recent weeks, the Government have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to restore fiscal responsibility after the completely unsustainable situation that we inherited from the Conservative party. That fiscal responsibility and economic stability are essential for greater investment in the economy, which is the bedrock of the growth that we are so determined to pursue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. The National Pharmacy Association announced for the first time ever, in 104 years, that it is planning action by reducing services because of the implications of the Budget. One of its requests is the release of an independent report commissioned by NHS England on the future funding of pharmacies. Now that the Government are in charge of NHS England, will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to release that report before the consultations finish, so that the public and the pharmacies can see exactly what the financial situation in that independent report will be?

[James Murray]

Reports on work that the Department of Health and Social Care is carrying out are a subject for Ministers in that Department, but on the funding that I am speaking about, the final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way, following the consultation that is under way.

The NHS in England invests around £3 billion every year on dentistry, and NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems for 2025-26 have been published, alongside NHS planning and guidance. On social care, the Government have provided a cash increase in core local government spending power of 6.8% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care—funding that can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I have set out the Government’s approach to supporting Departments and other public sector employees when it comes to the changes to employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire, we are taking the same approach that his Government took to the health and social care levy. We are talking about the wider pressures faced by organisations, be they GPs or hospices, and what we can do to support them and their processes. We are considering the pressures on them in the round. I have made a considerable number of points about Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13. In the light of those points, I urge the House to disagree with those amendments.

I turn to the Lords amendments relating to charities, local government and special educational needs transport. Lords amendments 2, 7, 12 and 16 seek to exempt charities from the changes to employer national insurance contribution rates and thresholds. The Government recognise the crucial role that charities play in our society. We recognise the need to protect the smallest charities; that is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 pounds, meaning that more than half of businesses, including charities with national insurance liabilities, either gain or will see no change next year.

As I have noted, it is important to recognise that all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. The Government provide wider support for charities via the tax regime; tax reliefs for charities and their donors were worth just over £6 billion in the tax year to April 2024. Again, the amendments would put much of the funding that the Bill seeks to raise for public services at risk, so supporting these amendments is support for higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.

[Dr Luke Evans]

After yesterday’s announcement about benefit changes and benefit cuts, the Government have said that they want more people to go into work. A lot of help to get people into work is delivered by charities, so we are expecting a greater need for such charities. How will they cope if they are being taxed through further NICs? They will have to reduce their services and their ability to provide support, so there will be a gap in the market. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to bridge that gap?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the very important reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out in this House yesterday, which are a crucial part of getting people back into work. Further details on interventions to help people back into work will be set out. We recognise that charities may, in some cases, provide that support, which is why many of the elements of support for charities in the tax regime remain so generous. There was £6 billion for tax relief for charities and their donors in the tax year to April 2024 through features that will continue in the tax year that we are entering. The employment allowance is more than doubling from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit all charities in this country. Charities, particularly small charities, will benefit directly from changes that we have made to the employment allowance. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought you were going to intervene on me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 to 19. I want to speak about what makes a good tax system and, in particular, optimal tax theory, which is a topic that is as thrilling to me as it is no doubt to the entire Chamber.

A good tax system is defined by neutrality, simplicity and stability, as set out in the Mirrlees review. A tax system designed along those three principles will raise the maximum revenue with the minimum economic impact. Each of the amendments in isolation might seem reasonable, but together they introduce individual exemptions that make our tax system less neutral, less simple and less stable. The amendments would make our tax system worse.

Today, we are discussing raising national insurance contributions from the largest employers to fix our broken public services and invest in our prosperity. Three quarters of that £23 billion of investment is from the richest 2% of businesses, while we are reducing contributions from the 250,000 smallest businesses.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member talks about simplicity. If that is the case, why is the Government splitting the NICs? They could have introduced an increase on employees at the same time as the increase on employers, but they have decided not to do that. That would have been a simple measure to raise taxes, without creating this complication. How does that tally with his theory?

Finance Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

I will speak to new clauses 1 to 3, and amendments 67 to 69, tabled in my name. It is 124 days since the Chancellor delivered the first Labour Budget in 14 years—the so-called growth Budget—but it feels like longer. Inflation is up, taxes are up, borrowing is up, unemployment is up and energy bills are up. I could go on, but most tellingly of all, growth is down. The Bank of England has just cut its growth forecast for this year in half, to just 0.75%. Little wonder that business confidence has plummeted, with firms warning of fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices. Instead of backing risk takers and supporting wealth creators, as the Conservatives do, this Finance Bill and the Budget attack enterprise and deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes.

I turn to new clause 1, concerning pensioners. Millions of pensioners were left out in the cold this winter when the Government took away their winter fuel payments. Millions of people in receipt of only the state pension now face paying income tax on it.

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

When the Government decided to take away the winter fuel payment, they said that people could apply for pension credit to try to get some support. The problem is that there are huge delays in getting pension credit. When the message was first put out, the delay was 84 days. Five hundred new staff have been brought in, but it is still 56 days, which is above the 50-day limit. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that people have now passed through winter and still do not have the funds to which they are entitled under this Government, and which are not there?

[James Wild]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has done stellar work in drawing out of the Department the data on delays and waiting times. If everyone who is entitled to pension credit took it up, it would wipe out the savings that the Chancellor wanted, so the idea that she wanted all those people to take up pension credit is for the birds.

New clause 1 would require the Government to review how many people receiving the new state pension at the full rate will be liable to pay income tax in the coming years. At the general election, we were very clear that people in receipt of only the state pension should not pay income tax on it. However, recent forecasts suggest that an estimated 9 million pensioners will pay income tax on their state pension from April 2026. Pensioners cannot easily alter their financial situation, yet they were given just six months’ notice that they would lose their winter fuel allowance. They cannot be blindsided for a second time by the taxman.

In Committee, the Minister said that the relevant data was available, but I do not think that is correct, because the figures to which he referred do not break down the group we are talking about—recipients of the full rate of the new state pension. Will he commit to publishing data on how many people receiving the new state pension will pay income tax on it? This potential hit could not come at a worse time for pensioners, who have lost their winter fuel payments, because we learned last week that energy bills are going up yet again—a far cry from the £300 cut that they were all promised at the last election by the Labour party.

At the Budget, the Chancellor made much of her announcement that she would uprate the personal tax thresholds in line with inflation from 2028, but that is not legislated for in this Bill. The public are being asked to take the Government at face value, yet recent reports suggest that this promise may be dropped due to the impact of the Budget on growth and higher borrowing. Given the number of broken promises since the election, can the Minister reconfirm from the Dispatch Box the Government’s commitment to unfreezing those thresholds in 2028?

As well as pensioners, working people cannot afford the costs of this Labour Government. The Prime Minister promised at the election that he would not hit working people with higher taxes, and he then broke that promise with the £25 billion-a-year jobs tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

In short, no, I do not, which is why we voted against that previously. We should be maximising our home-grown energy, not undermining domestic production and choosing to rely instead on importers with higher carbon emissions.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I agree entirely with the shadow Minister. Only today, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that our economy is security, and security starts with our defence and looking after ourselves—and that includes energy security. Is it not ridiculous not to use North sea oil—our own reserves—to ensure that security? It is the cleaner side of oil and gas. Using our own reserves also comes with jobs, and prevents us importing oil and gas in a volatile world.

[James Wild]

Absolutely. I wonder if, when the Prime Minister was in Washington last week, he had the opportunity to talk to President Trump about home-grown energy and the importance of supporting the domestic sector. That is what we on the Conservative Benches certainly support. This is a sector with 200,000 high-skilled jobs, so it is important that we have an up-to-date assessment of the impact of what the Government are doing on our domestic energy production, energy security, energy prices and the UK economy. Unfortunately, we already see some of that impact: the US firm Apache has said that it will end its operations in the North sea by the end of 2029, blaming the extension of the profits levy for making it uneconomic to stay beyond then.

--- Later in debate ---

At Davos, the Chancellor said that she would amend these proposals as they made the UK less attractive, but frankly, the damage has already been done. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that, given the lack of proper consideration and consultation, the amended proposals still leave uncertainty, which will be counterproductive if it is the Government’s intention to encourage those people to stay and to allay the concerns of those looking to invest in the UK.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The shadow Minister is absolutely correct. At Davos, the Chancellor said she had listened to that community. Why would she make changes for that community, but not the farming community, the pensioner community, the pupils at private schools or the SEND community, or indeed working businesses such as pubs, restaurants and charities, who are all seeing tax increases? Why was that community listened to, when no others were? Does he have any idea why that could be the case?

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend invites me to get inside the head of the Chancellor, but I am not sure I would be able to do that. All I know is that the other groups that he mentions should also be listened to. The Chancellor has shown herself to be particularly tin-eared on the impact of these changes on family farms and businesses, hence there is, tomorrow, yet another protest. I read over the weekend that another brave Labour MP has come out and said he opposes the changes and wants to see reforms—perhaps some of the other Labour MPs are here to speak to say that they too stand with the farmers in their constituencies.

To conclude, the Prime Minister and Chancellor set growth as the mission for this Government. They inherited an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7, but the choices they have taken in the Budget and in this Finance Bill have stopped growth stone dead. They have hiked taxes, undermined business confidence, pushed up inflation and hit working people and pensioners. Later this month, we will get the economic and fiscal forecasts, but what we can already see is a Labour Government committed to higher taxes, higher spending and higher borrowing, and we are all paying the price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sandher]

I am sure the Government will consider these measures in the round, but more broadly, of course, it is about building many more homes. Some 40% of 18 to 34-year-olds are living with mum and dad, and we are starting to fix that in this Budget, including by providing a 20% increase in the affordable homes programme, which is a stepping stone to building 1.5 million new homes.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful to my Leicestershire colleague for giving way. He will know that housing targets and housing numbers have gone up in Leicestershire—the figures in my patch are up by 59% and 73% respectively. However, the figures for Leicester city are dropping by 31%. Why is that happening when Leicester has brownfield sites and the best connections? If we need houses everywhere, should we not see them being built in cities as well, rather than just in the countryside?

[Dr Sandher]

The housing formula has rightly been changed to where the need is greatest. In my constituency, for example, planning permission has not been approved to replace derelict factories on brownfield sites with new homes. I have seen too few homes being built and too many things being rejected. I am proud of this Government’s aim to build new homes, and I have full faith in the formula. We need more homes everywhere, including in both of our constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

If I might make a little progress before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes once more, that would be lovely.

Opposition Front-Benchers have tabled new clauses 1 to 8, which would require the Government to undertake a number of reviews of the impact of measures in the Bill, ranging from a requirement for the Chancellor to commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of changes to energy, oil and gas profits levy on domestic energy production, the UK’s energy security, energy prices and the UK economy to a requirement on the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes in the Bill on the finances of households at a range of income levels. I gently remind Opposition Members that much of the information requested is already available. Details on tax liabilities are published by HMRC, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the impacts of the changes set out in the autumn Budget are published in documents including the tax information and impact notes and the “Impact on households” report.

[Dr Luke Evans]

While we as politicians can read and scrutinise those real impacts, when pensioners who will have to pay tax on their state pension come to the hon. Gentleman’s surgeries—they will have to do a tax self-assessment or pay it back—how will he explain to them exactly what is going on? They will not have the technical ability—many will, but some will not—to understand why they are being taxed.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He seems remarkably well informed already about the impact of the changes in the Budget, and I imagine that hon. Members across the House will be similarly well informed.

The Leader of the Opposition has outlined her desire for a British equivalent of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. I wonder how she can square that desire with the new clauses, which, if passed, would seem to duplicate work already done by the Government. That is hardly a model of efficiency—more like playing politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The debate on this Finance Bill has to focus on matters that are within the Bill and in the new clauses and amendments. As the hon. Gentleman will know, and as Madam Deputy Speaker reminded him, he strayed rather outside the ambit of the Finance Bill by referring to important changes to agricultural property relief that are not dealt with by the Bill or by any of the new clauses or amendments. I gently point out that any of his constituents, whatever industry they work in, will see that the income tax on their earnings does not go up as a result of this Government keeping their commitment in that regard.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Minister is right to point to the amendments in front of us. New clause 3 looks at household income specifically. If he is so confident in the measures he and the Chancellor are putting forward, why will he not accept new clause 3, which has the ability to show just how fantastic the Budget and the Finance Bill are from the evidence base that we have?

[James Murray]

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would again leap to the defence of Liz Truss, as he did just last week. Sadly, that was not to be the case in his intervention. I will come on to the new clauses in a moment; I am only halfway through thanking people on his side of the House for intervening, so I would be grateful if he would let me make a little progress.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) spoke about his concerns that things will be unworkable when the wine easement ends, but it ended over a month ago. Our early indications are that firms, warehouse keepers and HMRC have adapted well to the new system, although I and my officials will carefully monitor the situation.

Family Businesses

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As the party that increased the personal allowance, doubling it between 2010 and the present day, taking millions of people out of tax altogether, and that brought in the national living wage, we have done a great deal to support the lowest paid in our society in particular.

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

The point is about the culmination of all the changes the Labour Government have brought in. This Government have indeed raised national insurance, and may need to do so again in future. However, the key point is what the ramifications of all these changes will be—the living wage change, the cuts to business rate relief, the red tape being introduced with the Employment Rights Bill and the national insurance contributions going up. That toxic concoction will kill off growth. That is the problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not as if the Government were not warned about these issues. In its reports, the OBR made it extremely clear that while the headline figure to be raised through the national insurance contribution changes is £25 billion, the net figure will be far less because of the behavioural impacts that necessarily follow when jobs are taxed—one does not need to have spent a decade at the Bank of England to know that. National insurance increases lead to fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices.

Of course, this Government are piling on the regulation with their Employment Rights Bill. We know that this will increase the risk of employing people at a time when the employment market itself is softening and putting an end to flexible working practices, which not only benefit many businesses but suit many people, particularly younger people and those who are more elderly. Given that, it is astonishing that the Chancellor has launched a tax raid on family businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is where the dearth of experience of entrepreneurship on the Government Front Bench really shows. We see this not just with BPR, but with agricultural property relief. Family farms will be broken up, with years and generations of people struggling and working hard, whatever the weather, to grow businesses and provide the food that we need torn asunder with a stroke of the Treasury’s pen.

[Dr Luke Evans]

In an interview, the Prime Minister said that the reason for doing this to farmers was to be able to give them the NHS that they might need. Only a week later, the £10 million fund that was there to support the mental health of farmers had been taken away. It must stick in the throat of farmers when they are told that they are not a priority, that food security is not a priority, and that they will now not have the health service in place, despite having to pay the tax that is about to come into force.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the shadow Chancellor for opening the debate.

In their motion, the Opposition have set out a list of objections to the decisions that the Government have taken—or, in the case of the measurements around pints, decisions that shadow Ministers seem to have entirely imagined. They may be able to list their objections, but they are unable to accept responsibility for the damage that they did to our economy. Crucially, they are unable to offer any credible alternative. The motion makes it clearer than ever that the Conservatives have no vision, no ideas and no plan to deliver the change that our country needs.

In contrast, Labour is the party with a plan for change—a plan to restore economic stability, boost investment and drive growth across the UK to put more money in people’s pockets. We know that it is up to the Government to provide stability, security, fiscal responsibility, and to remove unnecessary regulation when it stands in the way of growth. It is businesses large and small—including family businesses and their workforces—that will create jobs and wealth and be the engines of growth in the economy. We know that pubs, shops, traders and services across the country not only play an important role in all our lives, but drive economic growth. Those businesses and their workforces are the backbone of our economy, and they need a Government who will take the right decisions in the national interest, even when they are difficult, to support our security and prosperity.

I briefly remind Conservative Members of the context in which the decisions have been made. That context is, of course, the inheritance that this country faced after 14 years of the Conservative party being in power.

[Dr Evans]

The context is that back in 2010 the then Government had to borrow £158 billion. Fast forward another decade, and we had something called the pandemic, when we had to borrow £400 billion on top of that. Collectively, that is a great big difficulty. Five years ago, when the pandemic happened, I sat in this Chamber listening to all the interventions asking for more spending. Does the Minister not agree that that is the problem the Conservative Government dealt with?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman said that we had something called the pandemic; we also had a Prime Minister called Liz Truss and that had a pretty big impact on our economy. I know the shadow Chancellor is distancing himself from it. If his colleagues would like to leap to Liz Truss’s defence, I would welcome an intervention. No, they are not seeking to intervene. Funny that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps, in closing, one of the other shadow Ministers can defend Liz Truss’s record.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[James Murray]

Yes—on Liz Truss’s record.

[Dr Evans]

The way I see it, the problem that Liz Truss had with her Budget was that she did not set out her workings. The problem with Rachel Reeves’s Budget is that she did, and the country and the world does not believe it. That is far more detrimental to the situation we find ourselves in because she cannot get out of that problem. That is the difference between Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves.

[James Murray]

Wow. I should let the hon. Gentleman intervene more often if he is going to say that the only problem with Liz Truss is that she did not set out her workings. I think the problem was rather more fundamental than that, as people across this country will attest.

Frankly, it is no wonder that Conservative Members want to bury their heads in the sand and try and pretend the last 14 years did not happen. It was 14 years of mismanagement and decline, along with jolts of disaster, digging ever deeper holes in our public services and our economic resilience. It was their decisions that led to their resounding electoral loss last year and it was their record in office that made necessary the difficult decisions that we had to face on entering government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly. That strikes at the heart of the Government’s lack of appreciation for what fundamentally drives the economy.

[Dr Luke Evans]

To be fair to the Government, we may not know what their CVs show, so there could be business experience but it is just not on their CV.

[Bradley Thomas]

My hon. Friend raises a very valid point, but let us look at the facts. The Government will attempt to tarnish the Conservatives’ record, but in July Labour inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, with unemployment at near-record lows and inflation at the Bank of England’s target. We have seen a complete reversal of that, in part because the choices the Government made in the Budget have destroyed that progress. The Government’s Budget and fundamental overall approach threaten the future of family businesses through new red tape—we have the family business tax, the family farm tax and the national insurance job tax. Businesses know that they are paying more and the Government know that businesses are paying more, and I do not know how some Labour Members have the gall to sit there and think that their position is one of honesty and credibility when it comes to growing the economy.

A business in my patch has got in touch with me. Jack and his family run an apprenticeship training provider. Jack said,

“My parents left school with no qualifications and over the last 50 years have worked hard paying their way getting on and building a good life and business for us as a family. Since 2007, they have been majority shareholders and owners”

of a business called Birmingham Electrical Training, for which Jack is also a director. He goes on to say that they

“currently are the 2nd biggest provider of electrical apprenticeships in the UK”

and

“train 700+ apprentices in partnership with 275 local and national…contractors, many of which reside and work within”

the west midlands region. They

“hold a department of education contract and are recognised by the Electrical Industry in providing a crucial role in training the next generation of electricians”.

That is a pertinent point when the Government are pursuing policies like the ludicrous clean heat market mechanism, which will require a step change in the number of electrical contractors to deliver on the Government’s net zero folly.

Jack makes this point:

“There is no way that I would be able to afford £800k worth of tax to access the business I have helped build and grow over the past 10 years”

as a result of the changes announced by the Chancellor to inheritance tax. He will personally be liable for £800,000 that he will not be in a position to pay. That jeopardises one of the family businesses that form the backbone of the country’s economy. He asks,

“Why would the government want to destroy family businesses, which are crucial to helping local people and provide the growth in the economy in the years to come?”

That is not an isolated case. The Confederation of British Industry and Family Business UK have warned that changes to business property relief could lead to up to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by £9.4 billion, as their analysis found that average family businesses would cut investment by a staggering 16.5%, reduce headcount by 10.2% and lose turnover of 7.4%. That recognises the fact that the Government do not appreciate the fundamental positive benefits to wider society of promoting small businesses and their long-term financial viability. The Government are making the UK a hostile destination for investment, both large and small. They must work to ensure that our country is the most attractive destination possible for businesses to invest and grow and to make us wealthier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). I will just say that the clean heat market mechanism that he spoke about, which is causing concern to a business in his constituency, was of course brought forward by the last Conservative Government.

I will start by talking about the Employment Rights Bill, because some of us have just spent two months in Committee going through it line by line. I thought that the House might want to hear about some of the opinions and positions put forward by the Opposition during that process. The Opposition tried to exempt millions of workers in some of the lowest paying sectors from protection against harassment at work. We heard from the shadow Minister that he does not believe that public sector employers should offer facility time at all. The Opposition attempted to block better contracts for teaching assistants and other low-paid members of school support staff. A witness who was presented as representative of business opinion had previously said that lockdowns would kill far more people than covid. I do not think that the motion or the party putting it forward is a credible voice of economic growth or business.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The independent Regulatory Policy Committee looked at the Bill back in November and said that eight out of the 23 categories were “not fit for purpose”. Was that discussed? Given that the committee is independent, does the hon. Member give that point any credit when it comes to discussing the Bill?

[Laurence Turner]

One of the pleasures of the Committee is that we have 970 pages of transcript where those matters were discussed at length, and the Government are indeed bringing forward further impact assessments on those points.

Looking at my constituency and, indeed, the constituencies of all Members of the House, the economic record that we have inherited is one of pallid economic and wage growth. After 15 years, average real wages in Birmingham Northfield are £300 lower a month than they were in 2010. The costs of delayed and cancelled NHS appointments, crime that goes without investigation and shortages in key teaching posts are borne not just by our constituents, but by businesses. We should say this clearly: public services create value. Businesses and the people who work for them need strong public services to sustain themselves and grow.

When I recently met small businesses on Northfield high street, we had—as you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker—a serious and robust discussion about a whole range of Government policies and policies enacted by the previous Government, but the first issue raised was crime and antisocial behaviour. Anyone who has been a victim of crime can attest to the devastating impacts that it can have on a person or business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. Public spending is not increasing faster than I expected; it is increasing faster than his party told the country. That is the point.

The Treasury might not be what it once was, but even if we believed what the Minister said about the fictional black hole, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has disowned, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion does not reach even half of the £76 billion in extra Labour spending. I am not sure whether the Minister is listening, but he can intervene if he wants to explain himself at this point—he clearly is not.

What do we get for these extra taxes? The Home Office budget is being cut by 2.7% in real terms compared with last year. The Department for Transport budget is being cut by 2.5%, and its capital budget is being cut by 3.1%. That is economic illiteracy. This amounts to taxsterity —tax rises and spending cuts—to go with stagflation, or stagnation and inflation. That is Labour economics.

[Dr Evans]

To be fair to the Labour Government, they have seen a surplus in self-assessment tax receipts, at £15 billion. The problem is that the OBR was expecting that to be £21 billion. We therefore have the prospect of them trying to find where we get that extra money from. The Government need to set out whether they are going to break their fiscal rules, cut public spending again, or increase taxes. Does my hon. Friend have any inclination on what they might choose, because I certainly have not heard anything?

[Nick Timothy]

Based on Labour’s track record, one would always bet on tax rises rather than fiscal responsibility.

The bond markets have taken a single look at the Chancellor’s fiscal plans and increased Britain’s borrowing costs, which means another Labour tax rise for all of us. Not one word in the speeches we have heard from Labour Members today recognised the cumulative damage caused by their Government’s policies. There is the national insurance jobs tax, hiking the cost of hiring staff by £900 for an employee on the average salary and costing businesses £25 billion in total. There is the business rates relief cut, from 75% to 40%, meaning that businesses will spend £2.7 billion extra a year by 2026-27.

There is the Employment Rights Bill, which, as I said, will cost businesses £5 billion a year, and probably more once the Government finally get their impact assessments right—normally Governments produce an impact assessment before a Bill is published, not after it has passed through all its stages in the House of Commons. There is the Energy Secretary, who wants to increase the carbon price higher than Europe’s and, according to the National Energy System Operator report that he constantly endorses, up to as much as £147 per tonne of carbon dioxide by 2030. As industry is lining up to tell the Government, that is yet another jobs killer. There are also, of course, the changes to business property relief that we have discussed today, which will cost £1.25 billion in lost revenue and mean 125,000 jobs lost by 2030.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I will cover that later in my speech.

Since being elected as the MP for South Norfolk, I have made a conscious choice to sit around as many farmhouse tables as humanly possible. It has been clear to me that South Norfolk needed politics to be done differently and, instead of being on broadcast mode, I have done all I can to listen, engage and try to deliver for all constituents in my little slice of Norfolk. I know that many of my colleagues on the Government Benches have done exactly the same.

Not all conversations have been smooth but, as I said to my recent meeting with the NFU’s Norwich and Loddon branch, I will never shirk away from my responsibility to be their voice in Parliament and to raise their views with Ministers. Today, I have had the opportunity to do that as a member of the Petitions Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to lay out the arguments I have heard over the past few weeks in preparation for this debate.

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

Listening is really important. I have heard from my local farmers that they are caught between thinking, “Is this a mistake?” and thinking, “Is this done on purpose?” Did the Government mistakenly not realise that they were going to bring all these family farmers into inheritance tax and agricultural change? Or, worse still, was it planned all along as a way to get the land for housing and some of the net zero targets? Either could be true. Does the hon. Gentleman have a preference over which one it is? Farmers want to know whether it was a mistake that should be rectified or it is an ideal policy driven by the Government.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I am about to share the testimonies of my local farmers in South Norfolk. All too often as politicians we are keen to take the limelight for ourselves instead of listening to those on the ground who want us to put forward their opinions, which is what I am about to do.

One of my local farmers, Will, asked me to share his words:

“The government’s decision to make major changes to APR and BPR”—

business property relief—

“will spell the end for many family farms. Before this announcement, agriculture was already going through a difficult period and for many farmers, this news has left them without hope.”

Another farmer, Robert, wished for me to say:

“We are trapped with no way to mitigate against the effects of this cruel tax. Farming is who we are, it’s in our blood, it’s all we want to do.”

And another farmer, Tim, requested that I share this:

“I have spent my entire working life trying to build this farm up and have added about 200 acres in my time. I see myself as a custodian of the land which I know like the back of my hand and I feel responsible for it…to have to sell would be devastating and would go against all that I have worked for.”

Will, Robert and Tim all fear the significant consequences of the proposed APR changes on smaller family farmers, and I believe that their views are shared by many farmers who have historically operated under a 100% agricultural property relief system. There is no getting away from their genuine concerns and I know that, in his response, my hon. Friend the Minister will address those feelings in the sensitive manner required.

There can be no doubt that the arguments that land values are artificially high due to APR have credence. It is also undeniably true that we see non-farmers buying land for tax-efficiency reasons. Neither of those trends are positive but, to be clear, that does not mean that farmers are wrong when they raise concerns about paying a large one-off inheritance tax bill with anything other than the land they need to keep their heads above water, even if the bill is spread over 10 years.

The proposed policy change has arguably pointed to a fundamental issue for agriculture, which is the annual profitability of British farms. There is significant work for the Government to do to ensure that farms up and down the UK become more profitable during this Parliament, and I know the Minister is working hard on that.

National Insurance Contributions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we want employers to be aware of this important relief, and to encourage them to make use of it to employ veterans. This relief helps to support those who have already given so much to our country, and it also means that the skills and the huge potential of those people who have already given such service to our country can be used to make a further contribution to our country and our economy. We want all employers to know that this relief exists. We can all play a role as local MPs in making sure that all employers in our constituencies are aware of this important relief. I thank my hon. Friend for letting me make that point.

The continuation of the veterans relief is evidence of the Government’s commitment to supporting our veterans. As I explained in response to my hon. Friend’s intervention, it is intended to incentivise employers to take advantage of the wide range of skills and experience that ex-military personnel offer. As I said, it is important that we support those who have given so much to our country by helping to make sure that our country benefits further from the skills and potential of our service leavers.

Let me move on to the national insurance fund, into which the majority of national insurance contributions are paid, and which is used to pay the state pension and other contributory benefits. The Treasury has the ability to transfer funds from wider Government revenues into the national insurance fund. The regulations make provision for a transfer of this kind, known as a Treasury grant, of up to 5% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, in 2025-26. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.

The Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside these regulations forecasts that a Treasury grant will not be required in 2025-26, but as a precautionary measure, the Government consider it prudent to make provision at this stage for a Treasury grant. That is consistent with what has been done in previous years.

I turn to the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025. As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for taxpayers while providing support to those who need it. The order will ensure that the benefits for which Treasury Ministers are responsible, and which His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs delivers, are uprated by inflation in April 2025. Child benefit and the guardian’s allowance will increase in line with the consumer prices index, which had inflation at 1.7% in the year to September 2024. Uprating by the preceding September’s CPI is the Government’s typical approach. Tax credit awards will end on 5 April 2025, so no changes to rates will be required from 2025-26 onwards.

I hope all Members will support the regulations. Rejecting them would mean that HMRC-administered benefits would not rise at all next year, and so would lose value in real terms. The regulations fix most of the rates and thresholds for the national insurance contributions that they cover at the 2024-25 levels for the 2025-26 tax year, except for the lower earnings limit, the small profits threshold, and the rates of class 2 and class 3 contributions, which will all be updated by the September 2024 CPI rate of 1.7%. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant. They extend the veterans employer national insurance contributions relief, and increase the rates of child benefit and the guardian’s allowance in line with prices.

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

The Minister talked about the Treasury grant being up to 5%. As a matter of curiosity, what figure had Treasury planned to put in?

[James Murray]

The regulations contain a provision for us, in case it is needed. The expectation is that it will not be. As I mentioned, a Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside the regulations has forecast that the Treasury grant will not be required in 2025-26. The provision in the regulations is a precautionary measure, and is in line with what has happened in previous years. The Government consider it prudent to continue the practice of previous years, and to make provision for the grant in these regulations. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

The regulations enable an increase in child benefit and the guardian’s allowance in line with prices. Without these regulations, HMRC would be unable to collect national insurance contributions receipts, and child benefit and guardian’s allowance would be frozen at the 2024-25 levels. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. As the Minister said, the first statutory instrument sets rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions for the 2025-26 tax year. It covers the rate of class 2 NICs, the small profits threshold, the rate of voluntary class 3 NICs, the zero-rate relief on secondary class 1 NICs for qualifying armed forces veterans—a Conservative Government legacy that we are very proud of—and the various upper secondary thresholds and the upper limits and thresholds that determine class 1 NICs.

These regulations also allow for payments of a Treasury grant not exceeding 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for the 2025-26 tax year. This is to be made into the national insurance fund, with a corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. We welcome the uprating with CPI of the class 1 lower earnings limit and the class 2 small profits threshold, but the overall picture in these regulations is one of continuity, not of change.

The secondary threshold, however, is the exception. Although the regulations leave it unchanged, that will not last for very long. They will be overridden by the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, which is under consideration in the other place. It will cut the secondary threshold from a weekly level of £176 to £96 in the coming tax year, on top of raising the secondary class 1 NICs rate to 15%.

The disastrous, job-destroying consequences of Labour’s £25 billion tax on working people are well known by now, and have been debated in this place many times. They are also widely acknowledged, from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to the left-wing Resolution Foundation. This time last year, when in opposition, the Minister put on record his concern over the distributional impact of the freezes on allowances, limits and thresholds, which his Government are in large part continuing. We accept that these are difficult decisions, but we took them to return the public finances to a sustainable footing in the aftermath of the double crisis of the pandemic and the energy price shock driven by the disgraceful invasion of Ukraine.

If the Minister was concerned about the distributional impact back then, and in particular about

“the post-tax income for low and middle earners”—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7 February 2024; c. 6.],

I wonder just how concerned he is now, in the context of his own party’s Budget. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the largest percentage increases in labour costs will be inflicted on lower-wage workers; meanwhile, as much as 76% of the additional tax burden will be passed on to those same workers in the form of lower real wages, according to the independent OBR. Does the Minister agree with the OBR and the IFS on the distributional impact of the NICs tax hike?

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend has talked about context, which is really important. This is a finance SI, but the wider context is that another Bill is being brought forward—the Employment Rights Bill—that is estimated to cost £5 billion on top of existing tax measures in the Budget. Does he think that that will have a direct impact on people who are trying to find work? There is a chance, surely, that more people will be let go and made unemployed because of this potential cost and impact.

[Gareth Davies]

I completely agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making, which has also been made to me by several local businesses in my constituency. This is a double whammy. We have a tax increase that will increase the cost of doing business and affect the profitability of businesses and, in some cases, their survival; in addition, they are being hit with additional regulation, which businesses themselves, including the CBI, have made clear will add to the burden of regulation and make it less easy to hire people and, in some cases, to keep them. This double whammy, I am afraid, will result in job freezes at best, and, in some tragic cases, to job losses. I think we should all be very concerned about that.

To be fair to the Minister, he has in the past expressed great concern about the lower-paid in our society across all constituencies. Has he therefore undertaken his own distributional analysis of changes to national insurance rates, limits and thresholds in the round? If he has, does that analysis show anything different from what the OBR and the IFS have shown?

I would like to highlight the fact that the impact note for this specific statutory instrument predates the October Budget. I hope there is an updated impact analysis to consider the new context—surely there is. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that and show it to us.

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Treasury is considering an extension of the veterans zero-rate relief beyond 2026, or whether that will now act as a final sunset date for the relief. He is absolutely right to say that we all have a part to play in highlighting this relief to businesses. We all want to see veterans hired in our country. My constituency has one of the largest populations of veterans, and I, with others on the Opposition Benches, will certainly join the Minister in doing anything we can to better inform businesses of this benefit. However, it would be good if he could confirm whether there are any plans or intentions to extend the relief beyond the 2026 point set out in the regulations.

As the Minister said, the second statutory instrument uprates child benefit and guardian’s allowance in line with CPI for the 2025-26 tax year. These benefits are an important part of our welfare system, and we welcome the vital support that they provide. However, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has pointed out,

“Work is the most important route out of poverty”,

and we agree. Between 2010 and 2024, Conservative Governments helped to create 4 million jobs. The proportion of children living in workless households fell from 16% to 10%. Even as employment increased, the proportion of all jobs considered low paid declined from 20% in 2010 to just 3.4% in 2024, which I hope the whole House welcomes and recognises.

Labour has never left office with unemployment lower than it found it, and within four months of its first Budget unemployment is on the rise, with the number of workers on payrolls dropping by the most we have seen since the peak of the pandemic. Meanwhile, the OBR says that Labour’s jobs tax will weigh on real wages. With inflation also expected to rise in the near term, and many of the Minister’s Back-Bench Labour colleagues no doubt taking the view that child benefit provision is not generous enough, have the Government prepared an assessment of the impact of their Budget measures on levels of child poverty over the next 12 months, and in particular of the impact their jobs tax may have through higher unemployment and lower pay? Finally, is the Minister confident that this uprating will cancel out any adverse consequences of the Budget, such as those I have raised?

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

1. What the annual cost to the public purse is of a 0.1% increase in the cost of servicing Government debt.

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

9. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of interest on Government debt.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

17. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on levels of debt interest spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

Yesterday’s PwC report shows that the UK is the second most attractive place in the world to invest for global CEOs—it is the first time in 28 years that we have been in that position in the league table. And the International Monetary Fund forecast on Friday that the UK will be the fastest-growing major economy in Europe next year.

[Dr Evans]

Last time I raised the markets’ concerns about debt with the Chancellor, she told me to “get real.” What is real is that the cost of debt interest is over £10 billion. What is real are the three choices she has: to increase taxes on people and businesses in Earl Shilton, Burbage and across the country; to cut services for people in Hinckley, Donisthorpe and across the country; or to borrow on the country’s credit card. Will she now be real with the public and tell them which of the three it is going to be?

[Rachel Reeves]

We inherited a high amount of debt from the previous Government, and we have to pay interest costs on that debt. The forecast I set out in the Budget in October showed that debt falling to a sustainable level. As I said, the OBR forecast will be published on 26 March, and I will make a statement at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Never in doubt, Mr Speaker.

May I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to his place? The removal of investment allowances from our domestic oil and gas industry is strangling domestic supplies at a time when our storage levels are depleted. Labour’s ideologically driven, unachievable obsession with decarbonising the grid by 2030 might be good news for Chinese renewables manufacturers, but it is bad news for British households. Is it not the case that the only growth that we will see from Labour’s energy policy is in the amount that people pay for their energy bills, or can the Minister stand up now and commit—just as Labour did during the general election campaign—to cutting energy bills by £300?

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

Get real!

[Torsten Bell]

I think that remark was directed at the hon. Member in a previous life.

We have committed to 100% first year allowances and to maintaining that going forward, but unless we deliver secure energy, generated at home through cheap renewables, there is no energy security to be had in the years ahead.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The stock connect is an initiative first set up by the former Conservative Chancellor Philip Hammond to improve links between the Shanghai and London stock exchanges and to help Chinese businesses to access capital on UK financial markets. That is good for financial services firms operating in London, and the enhancement of that stock connect scheme at the weekend offers new opportunities for British businesses in financial services in the UK.

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

As the Chancellor flew east, the pound plummeted south and Government debt rocketed north. Why? The markets do not believe her plan for growth; that is the fundamental issue. To pick up the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), what is she going to say to the markets to make them believe she really does understand how to deliver growth in the UK?

[Rachel Reeves]

There has been global volatility in markets. It is not reasonable to suggest that bond yields in the United States, Germany and France have risen because of decisions made by this Government. I think the hon. Member should just get real.

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.