Financial Statement and Budget Report
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the Chancellor, I will make a short statement. For a number of weeks, and yet again yesterday, there have been extensive briefings to the media on the Government’s fiscal policy and public finances. This disappointing trend in relation to Budget briefings has been growing for a number of years under successive Governments, but it appears to have reached an unprecedented high.
Weeks ago, we saw the Chancellor delivering a speech in Downing Street setting the scene for the Budget, and specific policy announcements have been briefed out to the media in advance of today’s financial statement. [Interruption.] I do not need any help from Members. It seems that just a moment ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis appeared online. This all falls short of the standards that the House expects. The premature disclosure of the contents of the Budget has always been regarded as a supreme discourtesy to this House and to all the democratically elected Members, not to mention to Mr Speaker, and to me, the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The Government’s own “Ministerial Code” cannot be clearer. Paragraph 9.1 states:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
I have always upheld the right of this House and its Members to be treated with respect, and to be the first to hear major Government policy announcements on behalf of their constituents. As Chairman of Ways and Means, I have responsibility for overseeing the House’s consideration of the Budget statement and the ensuing resolutions; that is described in paragraph 36.33 of “Erskine May” as
“the most important business of Ways and Means.”
I want hon. Members on both sides of the House to have adequate opportunity to hold the Chancellor to account, rather than their hearing and reading about new policies daily in the media. Like many, I expected better.
Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to them in the Vote Office in Members’ Lobby at the end of the statement, and online. I also remind hon. Members that interventions are not taken during the Chancellor’s statement, nor during replies from the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
It is my understanding that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” was released on its website before this statement. This is deeply disappointing and a serious error on its part. It has already made a statement taking full responsibility for its breach.
We are rebuilding our economy. Over the last 16 months, we have overhauled our planning system to get Britain building; forged new trade deals with the United States, India and the European Union; reformed our visa system to bring the brightest and the best to Britain; changed the fiscal rules that we inherited from the Conservatives; and raised public investment to its highest level in four decades. In last year’s Budget, I raised taxes on business and the wealthiest to close the £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the Conservative party. We used that money to fund the biggest ever settlement for our national health service.
Those were the fair and necessary choices. We faced opposition to them—from opponents to planning reform who will always demand that the future is built somewhere else, not in their backyard; opponents to trade who want to take us down the path of isolation and division; opponents to investment who believe that the only good thing a Government can do is get out of the way; opponents who insist that the only way to balance the books is to cut public spending; and opponents who say that we do not need to balance the books at all. But we made these choices for a reason: because after 14 years of Conservative Government, working people demanded—and deserved—change, with investment, not cuts, to our public services; stability for our public finances, which is the single most important factor in getting the cost of living down; and economic growth, which is the best means of improving wages, creating jobs and supporting public services. That is what our plan, this Government and our Prime Minister are all about.
Today’s Budget builds on the choices that we have made since July last year to cut NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living, and to cut debt and borrowing. No doubt, we will face opposition again, but I have yet to see a credible or a fairer alternative plan for working people. [Interruption.] These are my choices: the right choices for a fairer, a stronger and a more secure Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is far too much noise. I expected so much better from you, Dr Luke Evans; you are meant to be a leader in your community. Simmer down.
Rachel Reeves
I am happy for them to shout as much as they like, Madam Deputy Speaker, as long as they do it from the Opposition Benches, where they cannot cause any more damage.
I said that there would be no return to austerity, and I meant it. This Budget will maintain investment in our economy and in our national health service. I said that I would cut the cost of living, and I meant it. This Budget will bring down inflation and provide immediate relief for families. I said that I would cut debt and borrowing, and I meant it. Because of this Budget, borrowing will fall as a share of GDP in every year of this forecast. Our net financial debt will be lower at the end of the forecast than it is today, and I will more than double the headroom against our stability rule to £21.7 billion, meeting our stability rule, and meeting it a year early. These are my choices—not austerity, not borrowing, not turning a blind eye to unfairness. My choices are a Budget for fair taxes, strong public services and a stable economy. That is the Labour choice.
Growth is the engine that carries every one of our ambitions forward, through stability, investment and reform. It is the platform from which British ambition can finally get moving again. Growth does not just appear out of thin air; it is built, patiently and stubbornly, by people who take risks; by founders who bet their savings on an idea; by firms breaking into new markets, developing new technologies and creating new jobs and new opportunities; and by the men and the women who work hard every day, in all parts of our country. Our job is not to watch from the sidelines, but to partner with them, backing them every step of the way, and to match private enterprise with public ambition.
I thank my team of officials at the Treasury for their hard work in preparing this Budget. In the spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that our economy would grow by 1% this year. I said then that Britain would defy the forecasts, and defy them we have. The OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth for this year from 1% to 1.5%, reaching the same conclusions as the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the Bank of England, which have already upgraded their forecasts.
Today, the OBR has published the result of its review of the supply side of the economy. It is clear that this is not about the last 14 months; it is about the previous 14 years, the legacy of Brexit and the pandemic, and the damaging decisions by the Conservative party, which cut public spending, leaving communities and entire regions behind, starved our economy of investment, and weakened our public services.
As a result of its review, the OBR is reducing its expectations for productivity growth by 0.3 percentage points to 1% by the end of the forecast. It says today:
“Real GDP is forecast to grow by 1.5% on average over the forecast period…due to lower underlying productivity growth.”
There is an impact on our public finances too. The OBR says that its productivity forecast will mean £16 billion less in tax receipts by 2030. Those forecasts are the Tories’ legacy, not Britain’s destiny. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is very hard to hear the Chancellor over all the shouting. Mr Holmes, you promised me yesterday that you would be on your top behaviour in the first few minutes. I call the Chancellor.
Rachel Reeves
We beat the forecasts this year, and we will beat them again by boosting trade, not blocking it; by increasing investment, not cutting it; by championing innovation, not stifling it; and by backing working people, not making them poorer. Brick by brick, we have been building our economy—building roads, building homes, and getting spades in the ground and cranes in the sky.
Growth begins with a spark from an entrepreneur. Half of new jobs in Britain are created by scale-up businesses, and we want those jobs created here, not somewhere else. Our job is to make Britain the best place in the world to start up, to scale up and to stay. We are widening eligibility for our enterprise incentives, so that scale-ups can attract the talent and capital that they need; expanding the enterprise management incentive, so that more companies can offer tax-relieved share options; re-engineering our enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes, so that they do not just back early-stage ideas, but stay with companies as they grow; and introducing UK listings relief, with a three-year exemption from stamp duty reserve tax for companies that choose to list here in Britain. To continue this work, I am launching a call for evidence on how our tax system can better back entrepreneurs, and a targeted review with founders and investors at its heart, to make the UK an even more attractive place to grow a business. We are sending a simple message to the world: “If you build here, Britain will back you.”
Our retail investment system should do the same. The UK has some of the lowest levels of retail investment in the G7, and that is not only bad for businesses, which need that investment to grow; it is bad for savers, too. Someone who had invested £1,000 a year in an average stocks and shares individual savings account every year since 1999 would be £50,000 better off today than if they had put the same money into a cash ISA. So from April 2027, I will reform our ISA system, keeping the full £20,000 allowance while designating £8,000 of it exclusively for investment, with over-65s retaining the full cash allowance. Thanks to our changes to financial advice and guidance, banks will be able to guide savers to better choices for their hard-earned money. Over 50% of the ISA market, including Hargreaves Lansdown, HSBC, Lloyds, Vanguard and Barclays, have signed up to launch new online hubs to help people invest here in Britain.
At this Budget, consistent with the commitments in our corporate tax road map, I will retain our competitive corporation tax rate, the lowest in the G7, and retain our generous full expensing offer for business investment. I will also introduce a new 40% first year allowance, so that businesses can write off more of the cost of their investment up front, while reducing main rate writing-down allowances in line with fiscal constraints.
Private investment is the lifeblood of economic growth, but growth needs public investment too. When faced with challenges, previous Chancellors have chosen to decrease, delay or cancel capital spending, but low investment is the cause of our productivity problems, not the solution. So my choice is not cuts, not stagnation, but to maintain the additional £120 billion of investment that I provided at the spending review: in transport to link our towns and cities; in energy infrastructure to power our businesses; and in housing, so that people can live near good jobs and growing businesses that pay decent wages. That is the Labour choice.
I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his work in driving our growth agenda forward. As we allocate investment for the infrastructure that is the backbone of economic growth across our country, today I will commit investment for the lower Thames crossing, and we are continuing to drive investment in city region transport, in the midlands rail hub and the trans-Pennine route upgrade, along with our commitment to the northern growth corridor, including Northern Powerhouse Rail.
It this Labour Government that have overhauled our planning system, and I will today provide further funding to increase planning capacity through a new skills offer, as has been called for by the British Chambers of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry. It is this Labour Government that have invested in nuclear power: in Sizewell C and in Culham. We are taking forward our commitment to slash electricity prices for thousands of manufacturing businesses, as Make UK and many others have called for. Today, I am pleased to welcome John Fingleton’s report—an ambitious plan to cut the red tape that has tied our nuclear industry in knots for decades—and within three months we will set out our plan for delivering his recommendations.
We are proud of our industrial heritage and we are determined to build the industry of the future so that we buy, make and sell more here in Britain. That is why, as we increase defence spending, we are investing in Portsmouth, in Barrow and in Plymouth, and I am pleased to be supporting Team Derby, an initiative to drive growth in one of our defence industry hubs. It is why we stepped in to save British Steel in Scunthorpe and invested in Sheffield Forgemasters. It is why we have changed Government procurement so we can buy British when it is crucial to our national security. For steel, for shipbuilding and today for AI, we are driving innovation and building that great industry here in Britain.
But it is not just what we invest in that matters; it is how we invest—putting money and power back in the hands of local and regional leaders. Today, we are devolving £13 billion of flexible funding for seven mayors to invest in skills, business support and infrastructure. I am extending the business rates retention pilots in the west of England, Liverpool city region and Cornwall until 2029, and providing £30 million for the Kernow industrial growth fund for sectors like critical minerals and marine innovation. I am establishing the Leeds city fund, a long-term agreement to retain business rates to fund local regeneration projects like the development of Leeds south bank, and I am allocating £20 million for the new Peterborough sports quarter and £16 million for a science centre in Darlington from the growth mission fund.
The benefits of investment and growth must be built and felt in every part of our United Kingdom, so we are providing an additional £370 million for the Northern Ireland Executive, £505 million for the Welsh Government and £820 million for the Scottish Government over the spending review period through the Barnett formula. Sorry, I didn’t quite catch that from the SNP. Did they not show up? Perhaps they didn’t hear us: £820 million for the Scottish Government over the spending review period because Anas Sarwar asked us to. I am making targeted investments in our industrial strategy sectors across the UK.
In Northern Ireland, I am providing £17 million to support businesses and strengthen the UK internal market, and backing advanced manufacturing through the Northern Ireland enhanced investment zone. Wales will be the host for two AI growth zones, creating more than 8,000 jobs supported by a £10 million investment in the semiconductors critical for that industry. We are building the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors with Rolls-Royce at Wylfa in Anglesey—two Labour Governments working together in Wales to deliver for the people of Wales.
In Scotland, I am committing over £14 million for low-carbon technologies in Grangemouth, £20 million to renew infrastructure at Inchgreen in Inverclyde and £20 million to redevelop Kirkcaldy town centre and seafront with construction starting next year. That is on top of the UK’s biggest ever warship export deal with the Norwegian Government to build frigates in Glasgow, supporting 4,000 jobs. Investment opposed by the SNP, jobs opposed by the SNP, defence opposed by the SNP, but secured by this Labour Government.
A growing economy needs strong foundations of economic stability, with borrowing and inflation down and investment up. That is good for business, and it is good for working people so they have more money in their pockets. Economic stability, safeguarded by iron-clad fiscal rules, is our best defence against rising prices and the best way to improve living standards.
We have all seen the alternative. Three years ago, in their clamour to cut taxes for the richest, the Tories under Liz Truss crashed the economy, sent mortgage rates spiralling and brought pensions to the brink. [Interruption.] They are being so loud, and yet I can’t even hear them now. I know that the leader of the Green party is a keen hypnotherapist, and believes that he can achieve remarkable things using only the power of his mind. Unfortunately, the only things getting bigger under his approach would be the deficit and the rate of inflation.
For all the damage that the Conservative cuts did to our schools and hospitals, they also doubled the national debt. Our net financial debt this year will be £2.6 trillion, 83% of GDP, meaning that today £1 in every £10 the Government spend is on debt interest—not on paying down that debt, but just on paying the interest on the debt we inherited from the Conservatives.
My fiscal rules will get borrowing down while supporting investment: the stability rule—that day-to-day expenditure must be met through tax receipts—and the investment rule, which allows me to increase investment while getting debt on a downward path. Those fiscal rules are non-negotiable. I met them at the Budget last year, I met them in the spring and I have met them today.
While the current Budget balance is in deficit by £28.8 billion in ’26-27 and £4.6 billion in ’27-28, it moves into a surplus of £3.9 billion in ’28-29, £21.7 billion in ’29-30 and £24.6 billion in ’30-31—more than doubling our headroom against the stability rule and meeting that rule a year early, too. Our net financial debt is 83.3% in ’26-27, 83.6% in ’27-28, 83.7% in ’28-29, falling to 83.0% in ’29-30 and 82.2% in ’30-31. I said we would cut the debt and we are, with debt down by the end of the forecast. Going forward, to support our commitment to a single fiscal event and to further strengthen our economic stability, I will follow the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund by assessing the fiscal rules just once a year at the Budget.
Despite the challenges we face on productivity, the path of our deficit reduction remains broadly the same as in the spring. Public sector net borrowing is due to be £112.1 billion or 3.5% of GDP in ’26-27, 3.0% in ’27-28, 2.6% in ’28-29, 1.9% in ’29-30 and 1.9% in ’30-31, ending at £67.2 billion, translating into an increase in the net cash requirement next year of £4.2 billion, taking the total to £133.3 billion. According to the IMF, we are due to reduce borrowing more over the rest of this Parliament than any other G7 economy.
The Conservatives crashed the economy; we are protecting it. The Conservatives lost control of debt; we are getting debt down. The Conservatives let inflation and interest rates go through the roof, but since Labour took office the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times. I have made my choices: not reckless borrowing, not dangerous cuts, but stability for our economy, security for our public finances and security for family finances, too. Those are the Labour choices.
Tory austerity left classrooms crumbling and waiting lists sky high, weakened our productivity and choked our economic growth, and now the Conservatives propose a further £47 billion of cuts to our public services. That is the equivalent of cutting every police officer in our country twice over. Then there is Reform, which promises more than £100 billion of cuts with no detail on where those cuts will come from or who will pay for them—a recipe for devastating damage to our public services. People voted for Labour because they want roads that are not full of potholes, police on our streets, and an NHS that is there when they need it. We are delivering that. Waiting lists are down by 230,000, and we have already delivered not just the 2 million additional appointments that we promised, but an additional 5.2 million appointments since the general election.
I joined the Labour party almost 30 years ago because I could see that the Conservative Government I grew up under did not care much about schools like mine. Textbooks were rationed—[Interruption.] I know that many of you were not at schools like mine. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is far too much noise, far too much excitement. People need to calm down a little.
Rachel Reeves
The Tories do not want to hear what they did to schools like mine, but I will tell them. Textbooks were rationed, libraries closed and kids herded into portacabins in the playground. I came into politics to change that. The money that I allocated at the spending review will fix the crumbling classrooms that the Conservatives left behind, and build the schools they promised but never delivered.
Today, thanks to representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), I will provide £5 million for libraries in secondary schools, building on the £10 million commitment to ensure that every primary school has a school library within this Parliament. Thanks to representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen), I am providing £18 million to improve and upgrade playgrounds across England. Let there be no doubt that this Government are on the side of our kids and will back their potential.
I will not allow the legacies of Conservative neglect to stain our society. Last year, I made changes to the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme to ensure that its members receive the fair pensions that they are owed. This year, with thanks to the Minister for Pensions for all his work on this subject, I can go further. I have heard representations from Labour coalfield MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and I can today announce that I will transfer the investment reserve fund of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to its members, so that the men and women who worked in our coal industry get a fair deal in their retirement, too. And there is more. Having heard representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I will index for inflation on pensions accrued before 1997 in the pension protection fund and the financial assurance scheme, so that people whose pension schemes became insolvent—no fault of their own—no longer lose out as a result of inflation.
Last year, I also provided funding to compensate the victims of the infected blood scandal, after the previous Government failed to budget for the costs of compensation. This year, I have listened to representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and for Edinburgh South West. I thank the Minister for Employment for her representations over many years on this subject. As a result, I will exempt all payments from the infected blood scheme from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances in which those payments are passed down. That is how we should be spending taxpayers’ money: on dealing with injustices and building strong public services, not on waste and inefficiency.
At the spending review, I set out an ambitious target for £14 billion of efficiencies per year by 2029. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for driving that work forward, realising savings through artificial intelligence and automation, and by scrapping NHS England and reducing back-office staff by 18,000. At this Budget, I will find a further £4.9 billion of efficiencies by 2031, by getting rid of police and crime commissioners, cutting the cost of politics and local government, and selling Government assets that we no longer have any use for.
These savings will be required across Government, but for our national health service, I will invest all those savings back into the care that people rely on—more nurses, more GPs and more appointments, restoring the services that faltered under years of Conservative decline and investing in the future of our national health service. Today, I am announcing £300 million of investment in technology to improve patient service, and 250 new neighbourhood health centres, expanding more services into communities so that people can receive treatment outside hospitals and get better, faster care where they live. More than 100 of those centres will be delivered by 2030, including in Birmingham, Truro and Southall. The Labour party founded our national health service, and we will renew our national health service.
I will take the same approach for defence spending that I take for NHS spending, reinvesting savings back into our national security. In our age of insecurity, Britain will continue to stand with our allies, working in collaboration to secure a sustainable ceasefire for Ukraine, and maintaining our commitment to NATO, with the UK set to spend 2.6% of GDP on defence by April 2027.
The public rightly expects that we stamp out fraud, error and waste, and put that money to good use in our schools, hospitals and other frontline services. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced that she will claw back excess profits from the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, as we phase out the use of those hotels entirely. And we will consult on reforms to indefinite leave to remain and access to taxpayer-funded benefits.
The introduction of digital ID will break the link between illegal migration and illegal working, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the fair work agency will crack down on the illicit businesses that blight our high streets and undercut legitimate firms, enforcing the minimum wage, investigating dodgy businesses and increasing scrutiny of the gig economy, as well as tracking down fraudulent business owners who vanish without paying their taxes. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for their representations on this subject. I will take further steps to prevent and track down unpaid tax. Together, these reforms will raise nearly £10 billion a year by 2030, including through new powers for HMRC to pursue the promoters of tax avoidance schemes.
I am building on our successful use of targeted checks on welfare claims to root out fraud and error and to prevent public money from being paid to people who are not entitled to it. I thank Tom Hayhoe, the covid corruption commissioner, for his work in helping to chase down nearly £400 million from dodgy pandemic spending and contracts. Tory contracts handed out by Tory Ministers to Tory peers and Tory friends—[Interruption.] That money belongs in our schools, in our hospitals—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is so noisy in here we can barely hear the Chancellor. Everybody needs to calm down.
Rachel Reeves
I would not want any hon. Member to miss this. We are chasing down that money and have almost £400 million back from dodgy pandemic spending and contracts. Tory contracts handed out by Tory Ministers to Tory peers and Tory donors. That money belongs in our schools and in our hospitals, and we are getting it back.
Finally, we are ramping up sanctions on Russia and freezing known Russian assets. Let me be clear, I do not mean the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Under the Conservatives —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We do not need commentary from the Back Benches. Mr Dewhirst, you are so loud; it is remarkable how far your voice carries.
Rachel Reeves
Under the Conservatives, the cost of our welfare system increased by nearly 1 percentage point of GDP—equivalent to £88 billion in just five years. The broken welfare system that we inherited wrote off millions of people as too sick to work. We will reform that system, so that it is a system that does not count the cost of failure, but rather one that protects people who cannot work and empowers those who can.
We have brought back face-to-face assessments for disability benefits—those are the face-to-face assessments that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), got rid of when he was Work and Pensions Secretary. Our changes to universal credit will get 15,000 people back into work—a figure confirmed today.
The former Heath Secretary, Alan Milburn, will review the causes of rising youth inactivity, and we are already taking action. I am grateful to the Federation of Small Businesses and Small Business Britain for their representations on apprenticeships, and today I am announcing funding to make the training for under-25 apprenticeships completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am funding our new youth guarantee, providing £820 million over the next three years to give the young people who were let down by the Conservatives the support and opportunity they deserve, guaranteeing every young person a place in college, an apprenticeship or personalised job support. After 18 months, 18 to 21-year-olds will be offered paid work, not benefits.
The Motability scheme was set up to protect the most vulnerable, not to subsidise the lease on a Mercedes-Benz, and so I am making reforms that will reduce generous taxpayer subsidies. Motability have confirmed that it will remove luxury vehicles from the scheme, getting the scheme back to its original purpose of offering cost-effective leases to disabled people.
Taxpayers’ money should not be spent on pensions for people abroad who only lived here for a couple of years and may never have paid a penny of tax. The Conservatives allowed thousands of people living abroad to buy their way into the state pension for as little as £3.50 a week, debasing the purpose of our pension system. I will abolish access to class 2 voluntary national insurance contributions for people living abroad, increasing the time that someone has to live or work in Britain to 10 years, and increasing the contributions they must pay. These reforms improve our welfare system: they support our young people; protect those who need it most; and put an end to Conservative waste and unfairness.
To break the cycle of austerity we need a fair and sustainable tax system, one that generates revenues to fund the public services we all use, and supports investment to grow our economy. That does mean that today I am asking everyone to make a contribution. The previous Conservative Government froze personal tax thresholds from 2021 until 2028. Today, I will maintain all income tax and equivalent national insurance thresholds at their current level for three further years from 2028—[Interruption.]
Rachel Reeves
The Leader of the Opposition supported these freezes when her party made them; she might want to forget about that, but the British people never will.
At the same time, we are ensuring that people only in receipt of the basic or new state pension do not have to pay small amounts of tax through simple assessment from April 2027. I will also keep the plan 2 student loan repayments threshold at its 2026-27 level for three years.
I know that maintaining the thresholds is a decision that will affect working people. I said that last year and I will not pretend otherwise now. I am asking everyone to make a contribution, but I can keep that contribution as low as possible because I will make further reforms to our tax system today to make it fairer, and to ensure the wealthiest contribute the most.
The Conservatives knew that our tax system did not work. Time and time again, they ducked the necessary reforms, leaving a system unfit for a changing economy, with unfairness that they refused to address. Currently, a landlord with an income of £25,000 will pay nearly £1,200 less in tax than their tenant with the same salary, because no national insurance is charged on property, dividend or savings income. It is not fair that the tax system treats different types of income so differently, and so I will increase the basic and higher rate of tax on property, savings and dividend income by 2 percentage points, and the additional rate of tax on property and savings income by 2 percentage points. Even after these reforms, 90% of taxpayers will still pay no tax at all on their savings.
I also believe that, as well as narrowing the gap between the tax on income from assets and income from work, a fair society is one where the wealthiest pay their fair share. The reforms I made last year will raise an additional £8 billion a year by 2030 from wealth. I increased taxes last year on private equity, private schools and private jets, and I abolished the non-dom tax regime. This year I will make two changes to cap trust charges and prevent avoidance. I reformed inheritance tax on agricultural and business assets and this year—[Interruption.] This year I am aligning those reforms with wider inheritance tax rules by allowing the transfer of the 100% relief allowance between spouses, balancing the taxation of these valuable assets with the realities of family life.
In this Budget, I will take further steps to deal with a long-standing source of wealth inequality in our country. A band D home in Darlington or Blackpool pays just under £2,400 in council tax, nearly £300 more than a £10 million mansion in Mayfair, and so from 2028, I am introducing the high value council tax surcharge in England, an annual £2,500 charge for properties worth more than £2 million, rising to £7,500 for properties worth more than £5 million. This will be collected alongside council tax, levied on owners, and we will consult on options for support or deferral. This new surcharge will raise over £400 million by 2031 and will be charged on less than the top 1% of properties.
Reliefs in our tax system cost the taxpayer billions of pounds a year, but many of them no longer serve their original purpose. The Government rightly provides generous tax relief for people paying into a pension, relieving income tax on all contributions and on the investment itself, as well as national insurance relief on employer contributions, at a cost of over £70 billion a year to the Exchequer. This Budget makes no changes to those reliefs or to the tax-free lump sum.
However, salary sacrifice for pensions, which was intended to be a small part of our pensions system, is forecast almost to treble in cost to other taxpayers, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2030, with the greatest benefit going to the highest earners, or to those in the financial services sector putting their bonuses into pensions tax-free, while those on the minimum wage or whose employers do not offer salary sacrifice do not benefit at all. That is not sustainable for our public finances, putting pressure on the tax that everyone else pays.
I am therefore introducing a £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice into a pension, with contributions above that taxed in the same way as other employee pension contributions. It is a pragmatic step so that people, especially on low and middle incomes, can continue to use salary sacrifice for their pension without paying any more tax than they do now. To give individuals and employers time to adjust to these new arrangements, these changes will come into effect in 2029.
The coalition Government introduced 100% relief from capital gains tax on business sales made to employee ownership trusts, creating a route for gains to go completely untaxed when businesses are sold. I will reduce that relief to 50%, retaining a strong incentive for employee-owned companies. As we work towards doubling the size of the co-operative economy, the Department for Business and Trade will launch a call for evidence on how we can better support co-ops to grow. As a result of the changes that I have made to capital gains tax this year and last year, receipts are forecast to increase from £14 billion this year to £30 billion by 2030.
To support our high streets, I am announcing a package of regulatory changes, as called for by UKHospitality and the British Retail Consortium. I will support the great British pub through our new national licensing framework, encouraging councils to back our pubs and to back late-night venues with greater freedoms. For business rates, I will introduce permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties—the lowest rates since 1991, paid for through higher rates on properties worth more than £500,000, such as the warehouses used by online giants. Alongside this, I will introduce a package of support worth over £4.3 billion over the next three years for a property of any size seeing a large increase in their bill. To support a level playing field in retail, I will stop online firms from undercutting our high street businesses, by ensuring that customs duty applies on parcels of any value.
I will reform our motoring taxes, exempting search and rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty, as called for by my hon. Friends the Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) and for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). All cars contribute to wear and tear on our roads, so I will ensure that drivers are taxed according to how much they drive, not just by the type of car they own, by introducing the electric vehicle excise duty on electric cars. That will be payable each year alongside vehicle excise duty at 3p per mile for electric cars, and 1.5p for plug-in hybrids, helping us to double road maintenance funding in England over the course of this Parliament.
Alongside that, I am providing support to boost our British car industry: increasing the threshold for the expensive car supplement on electric vehicles to £50,000, saving over a million motorists £440 a year; providing £1.3 billion additional funding for the electric car grant, extending it to 2030, taking total funding to £2 billion; and delaying changes to the employee car ownership scheme. In addition, we are investing a further £200 million to accelerate the roll-out of EV charging, as well as 100% business rates relief for EV charge points for the next decade, with thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for his representations on that policy.
I will improve competition in our taxi industry by ending ride-hailing companies’ use of a discount scheme intended for coach tours, as called for by Steve McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association: legislating to restrict access so that everyone pays fairly, and protecting £700 million of tax revenue each year.
I am responding to our consultation on landfill tax, and listening to representations particularly from our house building industry. I will not converge towards a single rate, but I will prevent the gap between the two rates from widening, to balance the need to address tax avoidance in the current structure. I will today publish Ray McCann’s report into the loan charge, along with the Government’s response, setting out a new settlement opportunity that will finally allow people to finalise their position and draw a line under this long-standing issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her representations on this subject.
I will continue with the planned uprating for tobacco duties that I set out last year, and uprate alcohol duties by inflation, alongside our plans to introduce a vaping products duty in 2026, and the changes to the soft drinks industry levy announced by my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary yesterday. I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for his work on all the tax measures in this Budget.
I will also reform gambling taxes in response to the rise in online gambling. Remote gaming is associated with the highest levels of harm, and so I am increasing remote gaming duty from 21% to 40%, with duty on online betting increasing from 15% to 25%. I am making no change to the taxes on in-person gambling or on horseracing, and I am abolishing bingo duty entirely from April next year. Taken together, my reforms to gambling tax will raise over £1 billion per year by 2031.
As a result of the tax reforms I have made today, I can confirm that I will not be increasing national insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT. I have kept everyone’s contribution as low as possible, through reforms to make our tax system stronger, closing loopholes, ensuring that the wealthiest pay their share, and building a tax system that is fairer for the future as our economy changes.
On the day I became Chancellor, I said that I would judge my time in office a success if I knew that ordinary children from working-class backgrounds were living more fulfilling lives—their horizons expanded; their potential realised. I joined the Labour party, I came into politics, because I believe that every child has equal worth and deserves an equal chance to achieve their promise. The biggest barrier to equal opportunity is child poverty, because for every child that grows up in poverty, our society pays a triple cost.
The first and heaviest is to the child: going to school hungry; waking up in a cold home, or in another B&B. While other children enjoy the advantages of parents with time to help with homework, or a quiet space at home to work in, too many go without. There is also the cost of supporting a family in poverty, which ends up in the lap of overstretched councils that can do no more than shunt them into temporary accommodation, at huge cost to local taxpayers. Then there is the future cost to our economy and our society, of wasted talent, and a welfare system that bears the cost of failure for decades to come: young people with so much to contribute, but whose potential is suffocated early by limited life chances and missed opportunities, struggling to make their way in a society that did not look out for them.
I do not intend to preside over a status quo that punishes children for the circumstances of their birth and demands that we all pay three times over for it. Since last July, we have rolled out free breakfast clubs in schools, and we are expanding free school meals to half a million more kids, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty as we do it. We have passed the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we have extended the childcare offer.
I am proud of all that, but it is not enough, because there is one policy that pushes kids into poverty more than any other. It was introduced by the Conservatives. They said it would save money, and that it would bring about “behavioural change”, disincentivising poorer families from having more children. Even on its own terms the policy failed: the welfare bill has continued to rise, and there has been no difference in the size of families. What it has done since it was introduced is push hundreds of thousands of children into poverty. They said they were punishing parents’ choices, but it is the kids who have paid the price. They have paid the price for the policies of a party that opted for cynical gimmicks over real savings in our welfare system.
I understand that many families are finding times hard, and that many have had to make difficult choices when it comes to having kids. There are many reasons why people choose to have children and then find themselves in difficult times: the death of a partner, separation, ill health, a lost job. I do not believe that children should have to bear the brunt of that.
And neither can I in good conscience leave in place the vile policy known as the rape clause, which requires women to prove their child has been conceived non-consensually, to receive support. I am proud to be Britain’s first female Chancellor of the Exchequer and I take the responsibilities that come with that seriously. I will not tolerate the grotesque indignity to women of the rape clause any longer. It is dehumanising, it is cruel and I will remove it from the statute book.
So because I am tackling fraud and error in our welfare system, cracking down on tax avoidance and reforming gambling taxation, I can announce today, fully costed and fully funded, the removal of the two-child limit in full from April. [Interruption.] It is amazing what people get so angry about. We have seen the Conservatives’ true colours today—the thing they get angry about is lifting children out of poverty—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Our constituents want to hear the Chancellor.
Rachel Reeves
I think our constituents have heard all they need to from Conservative Members today. We on the Labour Benches do not believe that the solution to a broken welfare system is to punish the most vulnerable. We are lifting 450,000 children out of poverty with the end of the two-child limit. Combined with other actions that we are taking, this Labour Government are achieving the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making.
I know how worried families are about the cost of everything. They are worried that their money will not stretch to the end of the month—
Rachel Reeves
I think if you have a house that is worth £5 million, then you can probably afford it, but Conservative Members get more exercised about reducing child poverty than they do about the richest paying more.
Under this Government, wages have risen by more since we were elected than in 10 years under the last Government, with lower interest rates already saving families £1,200 a year off a typical new mortgage. Compare that to when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. But I know that people still face pressure on their budgets, day to day and week to week, and where there is more we can do to provide relief, we are doing it: extending the bus fare cap, cracking down on rip-off price hikes, freezing prescription charges and freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years.
I am increasing the basic and new state pension by 4.8%, an increase of £440 per year for the basic state pension and an increase of £575 per year for the new state pension, in line with our commitment to the triple lock. At the election, we promised a genuine living wage and we are delivering it. At the Budget last year, I increased the national minimum wage and the national living wage, and I am doing the same this year too. I am accepting the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission in full and increasing the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds from £10 to £10.85 per hour, and increasing the living wage from £12.21 to £12.71 per hour.
Under current plans, the temporary 5p cut to fuel duty that was introduced during the pandemic will come to an end in April and fuel duty will be uprated in line with inflation. But I know that the cost of travelling to and from work is still too expensive, so I am extending the 5p cut until September 2026. Because I know that changes in wholesale prices are not always passed on to motorists, I am bringing in new rules to mandate petrol forecourts to share real-time prices through a new fuel finder, empowering drivers to find the cheapest fuel, calling out rip-offs and strengthening competition, saving the average household £40 a year.
One of the greatest drivers of the rising cost of living is energy prices. The cause of high energy bills must be tackled at source, and so we are investing in energy security—in nuclear and renewable energy—and in insulation through the warm homes plan, but that is not enough when people are struggling with energy bills today. The Conservatives’ energy company obligation scheme was presented as a plan to tackle fuel poverty. It costs households £1.7 billion a year on their bills, and for 97% of families in fuel poverty, the scheme—get this—has cost them more than it has saved. It is a failed scheme, and so I am scrapping it, along with taking other legacy costs off bills.
As a result, I can tell the House today that for every family we are keeping our promise to get energy bills and the cost of living down, with £150 cut from the average household bill from April next year—money off bills and in the pockets of working people. That is my choice, not to neglect Britain’s energy security, like the Tories did, and not to leave working families to bear the brunt of high prices, like the Tories did, but to get energy costs down now and in the future. That is the Labour choice.
And, Madam Deputy Speaker, one more thing: because of our action on bills and on prices, as a direct result of this Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed today that inflation is coming down faster and will be a full 0.4 percentage points lower next year. That is the benefit of a Labour Government cutting the cost of living.
This Labour Government are changing our country. In the face of challenges on our productivity, I will grow our economy through stability, investment and reform. I have met my fiscal rules and built our economic resilience for the future. I have asked everyone to contribute—yes—for the security of our country and the brightness of its future, but I have kept that contribution as low as possible by reforming our tax system, making it fairer and stronger for the future.
I have protected our NHS, maintaining public investment and driving efficiency in government spending. I have taken action on our broken welfare system, rooting out waste and lifting children out of poverty. And I have cut the cost of living, with money off bills and prices frozen, all while keeping every single one of our manifesto commitments—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Rankin and Ms Morton, your voices carry right across the Chamber—try to take a breath every so often.
Rachel Reeves
Those are my choices, not austerity and not reckless borrowing, but cutting the debt, cutting waiting lists and cutting the cost of living. Those are Labour choices, promised and delivered by this Budget—promised and delivered by this Labour Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Provisional collection of taxes
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 51(2)),
That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—
(a) Stamp duty reserve tax (UK listing relief) (motion no. 60);
(b) Rates of tobacco products duty (motion no. 65).—(Rachel Reeves.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the motion entitled “Income Tax (Charge)”. It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on the succeeding days. The questions on this motion and on the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 2 December. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion formally.
Stamp Duty Land Tax
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bradley Thomas
I call on the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that, regardless of our political differences, it is the Conservative party that has delivered three female Prime Ministers and the first Prime Minister from an ethnic minority background, while his has not managed to present any other leader than a white man.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before Dr Sandher responds, I ask Members to try to keep this debate in scope.
Dr Sandher
And look how much the Conservative party has changed since last July. That is where we are.
I will come back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the issue at hand. We have 4.5 million children in poverty and one in six children living in a household with food insecurity, struggling to make ends meet. Making £23 billion of welfare cuts would mean that families and children could not afford to eat. It would mean the most destitute becoming poorer, and working families—40% of those on universal credit are working families—seeing cuts as well. That is the outcome here: making our nation poorer. That is not what we should want; it is not what Labour wants, and I hope it is not what the Conservatives want either.
Madam Deputy Speaker
On behalf of Mr Speaker, may I say that it is an absolute joy to see the wonderful Chelsea Pensioners in their glorious red uniforms observing proceedings? No doubt it will elevate the debate. I call Graham Stuart to do so.
Gregory Stafford
No, I have already heard enough from the hon. Member, so I will not give way for the moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Just to be clear, good language is appropriate, and I am not sure “disingenuous” is the best language to use. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find an alternative word.
Is the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) finished wandering around the Chamber? Are you comfortable now? Fabulous.
Gregory Stafford
I misspoke, and I withdraw the comment. But I find it strange that Liberal Democrat Members seem to have a collective amnesia on what happened over the past few years.
Returning to the substance of the debate, families across my constituency are bracing for new taxes on homes, capital gains tax on family houses and even potentially a land value tax. This is not reform; it is a sledgehammer aimed at aspiration, mobility and stability. As I have said before, in Farnham, where the average home now costs £660,000, families could face bills of £5,000 a year on top of their mortgage and energy costs. In Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon, already stretched households will be hit again, and pensioners in Grayshott or Tilford face the grotesque prospect of capital gains on the homes they have worked a lifetime to own. Everyone—pensioners, farmers, small business owners—is treated by this Government as a cash cow. A tax on the family home is a tax on aspiration. It traps people in their properties, dries up supply and breaks housing chains. The very people Labour claims to champion—first-time buyers—will be frozen out altogether. The Government claim this is about fairness—we have heard that from a number of Government Members—but there is nothing fair about a pensioner in Greatham being forced to sell their home to pay the taxman, or a young family in Lindford choosing between childcare and a new annual levy. That is not fairness; it is a regional punishment for those of us who just happen to live in the south and south-east.
That is why I back our clear Conservative plan to abolish stamp duty on primary residences. Owning a home gives people a real stake in their community and their country. Our policy would make the economy stronger and help families achieve the dream of home ownership once again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Stuart, is it an actual point of order? I think the Minister was coming to a conclusion, so we are just preventing our business from progressing. Ministers, Front Benchers or Members not taking interventions is not necessarily a point of order. Do you want to proceed?
Graham Stuart
I would like to proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I wonder if there is anything the Chair can do to help the Minister. She appeared unaware that her own Government, for whom she is a Treasury Minister, have brought us to the highest ever level of tax in this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not my job to write yours or the Minister’s speech—if only. That was not a point of order.
Lucy Rigby
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The motion is proof that the Conservatives have learned none of the lessons of their catastrophic mini-Budget or of the years of the punishing austerity that was inflicted on the people and institutions of this country, with nothing whatsoever to show for it but soaring debt, low productivity and devastated household finances.
Let me be clear that stamp duty is not a beloved tax—far from it; it is no more beloved than any other taxes—but it is an effective tax that raises billions of pounds annually, with those buying the most expensive properties contributing the most. That contribution is vital to the upkeep of our public services, our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Abolishing it would take billions out of the public purse—£13.9 billion alone. It would be a multibillion-pound tax cut affecting the budgets of our most essential services.
It is the same horror show from the same old Conservatives, wildly swinging their scythe at public services without a care in the world for the consequences for our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Which services would Conservative Members want to cut down this time? Would it be fewer nurses, fewer soldiers or fewer police officers? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are asking me whether I am asking them. I am more than aware that in the debate they referenced their fantasy economics based on welfare cuts. The shadow Chancellor oversaw the biggest increase in benefit spending in decades when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If he truly believes that welfare spending needs cutting, why did he let it balloon? We have heard from various hon. Members about their objections to this tax and about all sorts of things they imagine might be in the Budget.
Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon
Madam Deputy Speaker, I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand to ensure that I was here to support her in what she is trying to achieve in north-east Scotland. It is very important that we add our support to her.
Does the hon. Lady agree that while investment in tidal energy has not produced the desired result of sustainable, reliable energy, the levy on energy profits has achieved a result that is absolutely undesirable and is seeing investment in our countries being moved to the USA and other regions with a more favourable approach? Does she also agree that the economic black hole cannot be filled by more levies but must be filled by investment in our businesses and creating future job security? I commend her.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend on her speech and on securing the debate. As she knows, this issue is also felt incredibly keenly in the neighbouring constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which I represent. While the debate about whether it is renewables or oil and gas is a false one, the fact is that skilled workers, whose jobs are being lost in the North sea right now, are the exact workers who we will need in the future to deliver cleaner energy and a more sustainable future. Those jobs do not exist in the UK right now, and they are being lost to the United Arab Emirates, Riyadh, Australia, Mexico and Canada. We need to do what we can to maintain those jobs in north-east Scotland by supporting our oil and gas industry and removing the punitive energy profits levy, which is driving people away from the country and driving companies to make redundancies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Mr Bowie that Front Benchers do not intervene from the Front Bench in Adjournment debates.
Harriet Cross
I agree that we want to keep the workers that we have, and the skills and expertise that they have developed, in north-east Scotland because they are of huge value to north-east Scotland. They will not stay in north-east Scotland out of virtue but only if the jobs are there for them and it makes economic sense for the companies to keep them there. That is not what is happening at the moment, and we are losing a crucial asset to our energy transition at an extraordinary rate.
Property Taxes
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way—he is always very generous with his time—and congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion. The Conservatives are not fans of tax, but sadly they are also not fans of supporting public services. Under their Government, thousands of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs compliance officers, including my mum, were made redundant and we were not able to collect the right amount of tax that people owed. Is that partly why this Government inherited such a large financial black hole?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Minister responds, I will say that we have quite a few colleagues hoping to contribute, so interventions should be short. The Minister should be aware of that and consider how much longer he wishes to contribute.
James Murray
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hint is taken.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his intervention, and I thank his mother for her service to HMRC in the past. People at HMRC do an absolutely critical job in collecting the tax that is important in funding our public services and ensuring that our economy functions effectively. One of our priorities as a Government has been to close the tax gap that existed under the previous Government. At the Budget last year and in the spring statement earlier this year, we set out plans to raise an additional £7.5 billion in tax revenue as a result of hiring people to do those really important jobs, as well as investing in new technology and modernising the service to ensure that people pay the tax they owe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I inform the House that all Back Benchers will be on a time limit of four minutes.
Property Taxes
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Martin
As a former teacher, I say no. I will continue with the term free school meals.
We are also seeing breakfast clubs to support pupils and families at the start of every day, additional nursery allocations to help working parents with the crazy cost of childcare, and investment in our NHS. All of those measures are the result of having a Labour Government and two Labour MPs in Portsmouth. I could go on, because that is just the tip of the iceberg of the investment and initiatives that are very much needed by the people of my city. This is reality, not imagination, speculation or politicking—not, in the words of the motion today, “considering”, but action.
None of that would have been possible without the decisions of this Government. Some, I admit, have been difficult, and some have been very necessary, such as placing the burden of tax on the very wealthiest, with private jet tax up 50%, stamp duty on second homes, changes to inheritance tax on big landowners, the scrapping of non-dom status, the ending of offshore trusts to stop inheritance tax avoidance, and VAT on private schools. Does the Minister agree that the investments like those in Portsmouth North are possible only because of the decisions and actions we have taken to raise revenue?
Those decisions, Madam Deputy Speaker, were repeatedly opposed by the Opposition. In bringing this debate, which is—in the words of Willy Wonka—one of “pure imagination”, they appear not to be considering an alternative, but to be going back to the status quo of 14 years of cuts and damage to Britain. This debate has been full of amnesia and sloping shoulders, with no regret and not one apology. It is a debate set to talk Britain and its people down—a debate ignoring the most positive things this Government have brought to the people of my city and this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final contribution from the Back Benches, I call Melanie Ward.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Here we are, with another Opposition day debate and another tedious motion from the Conservatives that completely ignores the catastrophic economic inheritance they left for this Labour Government coming into power. Their decision to put Liz Truss into Downing Street is something they will never quite live down. It really does stick in the craw to be lectured on sound economic management by them. We have had some fine examples of that today, with the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) stating his belief that speculation about future measures damages the economy. Why, then, have the Conservatives today put down a motion that is entirely about speculation? It makes no sense, even on their own terms.
In government, the Conservatives did untold economic damage to the UK’s public finances, and the Chancellor is right to prioritise investment in our infrastructure and public services while ensuring sound economic management. The Conservatives talk of wanting to put more money in people’s pockets, yet they presided over the worst pay growth of any Government for a century. Had the Conservatives—and, we must not forget, the Liberal Democrats for a while—grown wages between 2010 and 2024 at the same pace as the previous Labour Government, the average worker would be £117 a week better off. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may heckle, but that is real money that could be in my constituents’ pockets which is not because of what their Government did.
It is this Labour Government who are putting money back in people’s pockets. Our increase to the national minimum wage means that wages are rising faster than prices, and 8,000 low-paid Fifers this year received a pay rise, including thousands in my constituency of Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy. Let us not forget that the Leader of the Opposition said that the minimum wage is a burden and that maternity pay is excessive. It is the Labour Government’s stewardship of the economy that means interest rates have fallen five times and average mortgages are now £1,000 a year less than when the Conservatives were in power. Again, that is real money in the pockets of my constituents. My constituents know that it is this Labour Government and this Labour Chancellor who have prioritised Kirkcaldy for multimillion-pound regeneration funding as part of the growth mission fund, beginning the transformation of our town centre, which was neglected for a decade and a half by the Tories, and for almost two decades by their enablers in the Scottish National party.
The old cliché that to govern is to choose is correct. All politics is about choice, and the difference between this Labour Government and the Opposition is that we have chosen to invest in our communities, in our public services and in increasing economic activity and wages, after they failed to do so under five Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly
No, I will not give way.
Let me just say this: if we are to address the slowing of the housing market, we should make sure—[Interruption.] I say “we”, but Labour is in government now and it should therefore make sure that it does nothing to stagnate the market further. Speculation is rife that there will be a £14,000 tax bill on average for UK households, a £23,000 tax bill for those in the south-east, and potentially an average tax bill of £33,000 for property transactions. That is the Government’s fault. They have the opportunity to put that speculation to bed and they choose not to do so. Despite the fact that they are now in government, they do not seem to have learned the lesson that when they speak—whether it be on or off the record—markets move. That is why speculation among those on the Government Benches is so damaging and so dangerous. They are causing economic problems because of their kite flying. We have given them an opportunity to put one of those pieces of speculation to bed and they have failed to do so. In that failure, the mask has slipped—they want to put up taxes. They love putting up taxes and they are going to put up taxes.
Financial Services Reform
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question. I am happy to talk to the Committee about that in more detail. What I will say is that the Leeds reforms regulate for growth instead of seeking to eliminate risk from the system altogether. We know that in order to get greater returns, there is a need to take informed risk. The reforms will enable firms and consumers to take informed risks. But we will always support the regulators and legislate in a way that protects consumers from bad practices and bad actors.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
There is much to welcome in the statement. I hope that it sends a strong signal to the fintech sector and sustainable finance that UK plc is open for business, but it is important to get the balance right between growth and risk.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of a scale-up unit. Will it have a mandate to look at liquidity and valuation, which are two of the challenges that prevent British start-ups from scaling up here at home?
On the retail investment culture, we welcome plans to reform financial advice and guidance and to launch a national advertising campaign. We believe that we should trust people to weigh up the risk and rewards of investment, if they are properly informed. But we also know that money habits are formed at a young age. Will the Minister advise whether the Government have any plans to introduce financial literacy as part of the school curriculum—indeed, from cradle to grave? Will the Government confirm when they will bring forward any reforms at all to cash ISAs? The uncertainty around the issue is undermining their own goal of incentivising more investment.
On mortgages, many renters have been crowded out of getting on to the housing ladder, so this announcement will sound exciting to them, but what reassurance can the Minister provide that this additional lending will not result in boom and bust? With inflation jumping today, how many of those up to 36,000 first-time homeowners will realistically get on the housing ladder in the next year?
We welcome the streamlining of checks on senior managers, but will the Government confirm that those changes will not expose financial firms and their customers to greater risk? If the Government want a step change in economic growth, this is a start, but they must go further and faster by having a better trading deal with the EU.
Emma Reynolds
We have a very good deal with the EU, which we agreed in May this year and will continue to build on. I was pleased to have invited the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Maria Luís Albuquerque, who was at the dinner last night at the Mansion House. I will try to get through all the hon. Member’s questions.
On liquidity and valuations, I point out that we have some of the deepest capital markets in the world. Last year, the amount of equity capital raised in London was larger than in the next three European exchanges put together. However, I recognise the issues she talked about.
On the advertising campaign, Chris Cummings of the Investment Association is leading the secretariat. He will also be looking at risk warnings. That is not to say there should not be risk warnings, but that there should be a balance in risk warnings to ensure that warnings are also informing people of the benefits of investing over the long term.
The hon. Member rightly talked about the importance of financial education and capability. We will put forward suggestions on that in the financial inclusion strategy, which we will publish in the autumn. However, as this is a cross-Government effort, I reassure her that I am speaking and meeting actively with the Minister for School Standards so that we are aligned with the Department for Education’s curriculum review.
The hon. Member asked about mortgages. May I reassure her? Obviously, we have had extensive regulations since the global financial crash and we are not going back to the bad old days when there were no verification checks on affordability and 125% mortgages. But the system we have got means that people on modest incomes are unable to get on the housing ladder. Nationwide has said that because of the Bank of England’s recent decision, it will be able to help an additional 10,000 people a year with its helping hand mortgage to fulfil their dream of home ownership. I think that is a great step forward and will mean that people across the country, like many in this House, can benefit from the security of home ownership, and particularly those on modest incomes and in generations that are being deprived of such opportunities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The reforms are targeted at getting greater investment into British infrastructure and cutting red tape. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a little bit rum for Opposition parties to criticise our Government for introducing red tape when they voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which creates projects that people can invest in and provides houses, which are a key restraint on house price inflation?
Emma Reynolds
As was said previously, the package that we announced yesterday, as well as the announcement by the Bank of England and the FCA’s discussion paper, go to the heart of making sure that we have the right balance between ensuring people have affordable mortgage products and ensuring that those products are accessible to more people up and down the country. As she will know—I am sure that she is referring to this—the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and some of the other planning reforms that we set forward are some of the most ambitious for a generation. They will unlock the potential for those homes to be built so that we can get more and more first-time buyers on to the housing ladder.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Leeds reforms; they build on many of the things that were done under the previous Administration and I acknowledge the consumer-facing changes on mortgages and ISAs and the aspiration to get more people investing. Those are positive things.
I will just say two things. First, on the listing review, we did one about four years ago and it is all just about implemented. I urge the Minister to look at culture and fiscal issues as much as at regulatory issues. Secondly, on the PRA and the scale of ambition on that side of the regulatory framework, in conversations with senior leaders at Mansion House last night, it was felt that the FCA’s level of ambition is high but that there must be wariness about a constant shifting of the goalposts and a lack of real change, particularly on the internal rating base and how banks can get their regulatory capital treated differently more quickly. It is taking too long and that needs to change urgently.
Emma Reynolds
I reassure my hon. Friend that our agenda is to streamline regulation and make it more proportionate, and that there remain firm guardrails and affordability checks for mortgage providers. At the moment, the level of repossessions is very low and banks and other mortgage providers do all they can to avoid repossessing people’s homes. As I said before, we will not go back to the bad old days of 125% mortgages and no verification of affordability. This is about rebalancing the system to make sure that more people can afford to buy their own home, but it is also about striking the right balance between ensuring that we take more informed risk while ensuring financial stability. He is right to ask the question.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chancellor announced quite a list of reforms yesterday. I note that many were on the shopping list of industry, so the Committee will examine them closely to make sure they also work for the consumer and for the long-term stability of the economy. One change in particular, on ringfencing, will worry those with strong memories of the 2008 financial crash. The shadow Economic Secretary indicated that perhaps we need to look at removing the ringfencing entirely. That would be a big step backwards. These reforms were driven by the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, and the idea was to separate everyday customer deposits from the risks of investment banking. Will the Minister give us assurances that the hard-earned savings of families across the country will not be put at risk by the speculative activity of people playing with other people’s money?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Please be seated; I am on my feet. You heard the Minister say that. You do not refer to the Minister as “you”. Please come to the question.
Rupert Lowe
My question is this: is the Minister aware of the concept of buyer beware, or caveat emptor, which used to be the basis of financial regulation? It is very risky to force people into more and more high-risk investments as you hollow out our economy with higher taxes and regulation.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You meant, “as the Minister hollows out”, not me. Minister—a swift response.
Emma Reynolds
Well, what do I say to that? I think there is, with the exception of the hon. Member, cross-party support for the twin peaks financial services regulation that we have. Of course, we need proportionate regulation to ensure that there are protections in place for consumers. He seems to be suggesting that we get rid of the regulators altogether, which I think most Members of this House would be opposed to. I have heard of the concept of caveat emptor, and I am suitably patronised by him.
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
When this Government came to power, we were elected on a promise to deliver a decade of national renewal, and from day one, we have worked to fulfil that promise. Less than a year into the job, we have already started to see the results: the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of the year, interest rates cut four times and real wages rising more in the first 10 months of our Government than they did in the first 10 years under the Conservatives.
However, we are under no illusions about the challenges ahead. We will be going further and faster to turn the page on 14 years of chaos and mismanagement from the Conservative party, and to deliver the decade of national renewal that we promised. That is the backdrop against which I present this strategy to the House today. I put on record my thanks to everyone whose input has helped to shape the document, including those involved in the review I led when in opposition, which resulted in this strategy and the creation of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, about which I will say more shortly.
Infrastructure is key to unlocking growth across the country. Our roads, railways, airports and digital infrastructure connect people to businesses, public services and one another; our energy, water and housing infrastructures create and support communities; and our schools, hospitals, prisons and social infrastructure provide high-quality public services and help to keep us safe. But good infrastructure means improved productivity and efficiency in our economy too: increased resilience to shocks, stronger public services, more jobs and ultimately higher wages for working people.
From the development of the railways to the 2012 Olympic games, we have a proud history in Britain of innovating, developing and building high-quality infrastructure, but the reality is that we have now fallen behind many of our international competitors. Too many investors now question our intentions and our capabilities. When we say we will build something, they will often ask if we will and whether we can. That is because for too long the Conservatives cut capital investment, promised major projects one minute then abandoned them the next, and left the public estate to crumble for 14 long years, from the roads we drive on to the schools we send our children to. They wasted money, time and effort, saw a decline in productivity and wages, and there was stagnant growth and an increasing belief that politics cannot change things for the better. However, with this new Labour Government, we will prove once again that change is possible.
The spending review last week set out how our Government are investing in the renewal of Britain, allocating an additional £120 billion of capital investment over the course of this Parliament, with new road and rail projects to connect our towns and city regions. That includes £3.5 billion more for the trans-Pennine route upgrade to reduce journey times between Manchester and Leeds, benefiting communities along the train line. We are also investing in the next phase of the midlands rail hub to strengthen connections between Birmingham and the wider midlands to the south-west and Wales. In Wales, we are investing £445 million in new rail projects in north and south Wales over 10 years to connect cities, towns and manufacturing hubs, with two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales. We will set out further details on our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks.
This is not just about transport. We are delivering the biggest roll-out of nuclear power for half a century, with a £30 billion commitment to our nuclear-powered future. We are providing £39 billion for the affordable homes programme over the next decade, which is the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years. We are backing British industry in its pioneering work in carbon capture, usage and storage, including with support for the Acorn project, with benefits felt right across Scotland.
The task before us now is to ensure that this investment is spent effectively and efficiently—a real change in approach from the Conservatives’ time in government—and to plan for not only the next five years, but the long term. That is the driving force behind the 10-year infrastructure strategy. Crucially, it is our hope that this long-term approach will give investors and businesses the confidence to invest in skills and their workforce, hire more apprentices, create more jobs and improve wage rates in every part of the country.
The strategy is by its nature thorough and detailed, but I will draw the attention of the House to five key elements today. First, we will provide certainty and stability through increased capital investment. We are committing to funding at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade, ensuring that infrastructure spending continues to grow in line with inflation after the current spending review period. At the spending review, we committed detailed capital spending plans for each Department until 2029-30. To provide further certainty and confidence in our plans, we are also confirming funding for the school rebuilding programme to 2035 and for the prison expansion programme to 2031. This long-term certainty needs to be translated into real jobs in every part of the country, so ahead of the summer recess we will publish a new online infrastructure pipeline. It will provide up-to-date information about what we will build and when, and where we will build it, giving industry and investors the confidence they need to invest in highly skilled jobs in every part of the country.
Secondly, for the first time we are bringing economic infrastructure such as transport, energy and waste together with housing and social infrastructure, including schools, hospitals and prisons, into one overarching Government strategy. In doing so, we will expect stakeholders to think more strategically about the communities they are creating, not just the specific piece of infrastructure they are building. For example, as part of our review of the Green Book, we have decided to pilot place-based business cases, which will ensure that there is proper co-ordination between Departments when bidding for funding from the Treasury. I know that will be a huge relief for communities across the country, which have relied too often on poor planning on infrastructure and community benefit. That is the difference it makes to have Labour MPs who show up and listen and a Labour Government who get it.
Thirdly, we are taking steps to address the soaring maintenance backlog in our public estate, which is estimated at more than £49 billion. I am today announcing a new maintenance fund to provide at least £9 billion per year over the next decade to improve our public services and save money for the taxpayer. That includes at least £6 billion per year to maintain and repair our hospitals, so that our loved ones can get the best possible treatment when they need it; £600 million per year for our courts and prisons, so that justice can be served; and almost £3 billion for our schools and colleges per year by 2035, so that every young person gets the best start in life.
Fourthly, we will leverage the private capital needed to deliver this strategy. That means matching capital to individual projects and using Government debt and equity to invest alongside the private sector. We will also work with industry to explore the targeted use of new public-private partnerships where they can be shown to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. Any new model will learn lessons from the past to secure value for money into the future.
Lastly, we have established the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. Based in the Treasury, NISTA brings oversight of infrastructure strategy and delivery together, and integrates assurance, design and delivery assessments into Treasury spending decisions. It will ensure that the strategy is implemented effectively across the whole country, including through formal reviews of progress every two years, aligned with the spending review cycle. It will also work across Government to provide expertise and support to delivery partners.
By design, this 10-year infrastructure strategy is a technical policy document, and we will continue to work with businesses, investors, workers and trade unions, and local leaders to drive up ambition and improve delivery. However, the strategy is much more than that. Alongside our modern industrial strategy, it will provide certainty and confidence in Britain as an investment destination, and will establish the framework needed to deliver the step change in infrastructure investment announced by the Chancellor in last week’s spending review. Done properly, it will result in tangible improvements to the fabric of our country: our local roads and high streets renewed so that communities are even better places to live; our public transport more available and more reliable, making it easier for people to get around and access opportunities; our schools, hospitals and GP surgeries fit for the future, to deliver for generations to come; and a country that will be stronger and more resilient. Communities will see the difference as this Labour Government deliver on the promise of change and a decade of national renewal. On that basis, I commend this statement to the House.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement, and for providing early sight of it.
Our ability to invest in public infrastructure is a positive for individuals, communities and the country as a whole, and it is right that the new Government set out their strategy. The last Government had to deal with a series of economic disruptions, including the impact of covid, the unwinding of quantitative easing across all advanced economies, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The global impact was disrupted supply chains, increased inflation and raised interest rates. Notwithstanding those shocks, under the last Government, public sector expenditure on capital increased in real terms, from £81.7 billion in 2019-20 to £117.8 billion in 2024-25—an increase of 44%. Today, the Chief Secretary has confirmed expenditure of £725 billion, but has provided very little detail. There is no project pipeline today; will he commit to coming back to this House when it is published?
In 2024, the last infrastructure pipeline analysis included an investment pipeline of 660 projects over a 10-year period, commencing from 2024-25. The Chief Secretary’s last statement to the House was, in very large part, a restatement of the investments in local transportation projects that had already been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Will he confirm how many of the 660 projects in the previous pipeline will be retained? Will he advise the House which major projects are being abandoned, and give some insight into his reasoning for doing so?
Translating a pipeline into reality requires a labour force of sufficient size and with a range of skills—in construction, project management and engineering, for example. Again, the 2024 analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board indicated that that project pipeline would create labour pressures in many of those skills areas. Since coming to office, this Labour Government have increased national insurance and are proposing new regulations on employment, both of which will disproportionately affect the construction sector. Does the Chief Secretary have any concerns about the impact of those changes on the availability of labour? Will he advise the House what assessment he has made of skills pinch points and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate them? Fulfilling these plans will require investment by taxpayers and private capital. Will the Chief Secretary advise the House on whether there has been any significant change in the mix of private and public investments—within discrete sectors or overall—compared with the last pipeline analysis in 2024?
The Government created the National Wealth Fund, and said that it was their principal investor—a critical part of the Government’s growth strategy for infrastructure. The Chief Secretary has given the National Wealth Fund £7 billion, but has made no mention of it today. Why has there been no mention of the National Wealth Fund?
We are moving through an era with a rapidly accelerating pace of change, in which the period from technological innovation to obsolescence can be vanishingly short. The risk that public investment in new technology solutions will become redundant is increasing. While being forward-looking, the Government should also be careful to nurture both existing technologies and new but proven ones, so what are the Government’s priorities for technology choices in the energy sector, and what actions will he take to protect taxpayers from technology redundancy risk?
The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced by this Government, includes a reserved power for the Government to mandate the investments of pension schemes. Has the Chief Secretary had any discussions about—or had the Treasury do any analysis of—the use of mandation powers to provide financing to the capital investments he has announced today? Have the projects announced today been assessed according to the revised Green Book rules? If not, will they be reassessed at some point on the revised basis, and what assurance can the Chief Secretary provide that these projects will give value for money to taxpayers? As this Government have stated, and as we acknowledge, when pressures on public expenditure increase, it is frequently capital expenditure that suffers. What actions is the Chief Secretary willing to take if finances are tight to protect the budgets for the projects he has announced today?
Investment in infrastructure benefits from a stable economic background, a clear set of priorities, efficient delivery, and optimal returns for taxpayers and investors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I miss the Chief Secretary in his old guise as Chairman of the Business Select Committee, when there was less of the rhetoric and the partisanship. These big decisions need open communication and critical analysis if we are to improve value for money and get projects delivered on time and on budget. In those endeavours, the Chief Secretary will always have our support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As Mr Fuller knows, there were three of us on that Committee back in those good old days.
Darren Jones
I remember them very fondly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your support, and for that of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his statements today. He has asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn.
The first question was about detailed spending allocations between Departments. Today, we are making a commitment to a minimum level of investment in infrastructure— £725 billion over 10 years, which is rising in line with inflation. The detailed spending plans per Department get allocated at the spending review. We have returned to longer-term, multi-year spending reviews, which are obviously different from the annual allocations done under the previous Government; capital is now allocated at a departmental level until 2029-30. We will do the subsequent five-year detailed allocations in 2027 at the next spending review.
The pipeline will be published in a couple of weeks, in mid-July. The reason for a small delay between the strategy and the pipeline is that we wanted to integrate the data from last week’s spending review, and it takes a little time to do so. We have worked in partnership with industry, skills providers and others to develop the pipeline, which—as I say—will show on a map of the country which projects we are procuring, when, and where. That will give investors and businesses long-term confidence about the jobs that are going to be available, so that they can invest in their own workforce. The shadow Chief Secretary is right to highlight that skills is a constraining factor in the UK economy. We have the strategy and the money from the Chancellor; we now need to work through the industrial strategy with the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Transport and with private sector partners, to do all we can to create the great jobs in every part of the country that will enable us to build the infrastructure we have set out today.
The shadow Chief Secretary asked me about the role of private capital. The strategy set out today contains a whole chapter about the role of private capital and the different mechanisms that we use with private investors. There is a commitment to use private capital for economic infrastructure where there is a revenue stream, and some of the approved methodology for looking at those options. Further work will be done between now and the autumn Budget on some very targeted potential applications of private capital for social infrastructure but, crucially, only where that provides value for money compared with it being funded by the state.
The shadow Chief Secretary also asked me about the Green Book. The Green Book review was published last week as part of the spending review, and it will be applied on a business case basis as projects come through to the Treasury for spending approval. There is nothing in the strategy set out today that pre-approves a business case, so the new Green Book will be applied to business cases as they come through in the normal way.
At a couple of points, the shadow Chief Secretary asked me to explain the difference between this Government and the last Conservative Government. To put it simply, it is failed promises from the Conservatives, and promises delivered by the Labour Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement and in particular the focus on housing and transport, because Glasgow has a real housing crisis. In my constituency, the busy Bridgeton train station does not even have lifts for disabled people. All taxpayers are concerned about value for money, particularly given the huge overspend and utter chaos of HS2 under the last Government. In Scotland, there is the absolute scandal of the Arran ferry. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and set out the steps that the Government are taking to ensure value for money in this infrastructure spending? Will he commit to sharing the learnings with the Scottish Government, who desperately need help on that?
Darren Jones
The key thing I will point my hon. Friend to is the role of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority sitting in the Treasury. The assessment on delivery, assurance, design and commercial capabilities for projects will be part of the advice now coming to me as Chief Secretary and to the Chancellor, and it will be aligned with spending decisions on budgets. That means that if a project is not delivering effectively or is not yet ready to start, we will not release the money for that project, and we will stop funding projects that are failing. That is a key difference from how decisions were processed previously, and we think it will lead to much better discipline in delivering big projects.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Last week, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement of investment in public infrastructure and transport projects, which we have long called for. We are glad that today the Government are setting out a 10-year infrastructure plan to realise those projects, and the Liberal Democrats will be closely scrutinising it to ensure that it delivers for communities across the UK.
Boosting our infrastructure is vital, given the appalling mismanagement under the last Conservative Government that left our school and hospital buildings crumbling while neglecting critical infrastructure, from transport to renewable energy generation. Today’s plan must draw a line under the disastrous mismanagement of projects such as HS2, which promised to connect our country and communities only to end up another hollow Conservative promise, long delayed and billions over budget. While we welcome the Government’s intention to deliver productive investment, we will closely scrutinise its implementation.
I have been concerned that Ministers have been unable to answer questions regarding delegated funding from the structures fund, such as for Hammersmith bridge in my constituency. Will the Minister confirm that specific projects have been selected, and will he ensure that infrastructure funding is distributed fairly for the benefit of all regions? Will he set up a crumbling hospitals taskforce to identify creative funding ideas, speed up construction timelines and put an end to the vicious cycle and false economies of delayed rebuilds, which lead to rising repair costs?
As we look carefully at the implementation of these plans, the Government must ensure that we have a workforce equipped with the necessary skills to meet these commitments. Does the Minister therefore agree that it is time to replace the broken apprenticeship levy with a broader, more flexible skills and training levy? Will the Government fulfil their promise to make Skills England an independent body with employers at its heart?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister missed the Mexican wave that took place behind him. It was down to Chris Vince mostly, although probably it was also down to the length of the answers, which could be shorter.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his excellent work on this strategy, which will turbocharge confidence in the investment community while improving the lives, incomes and opportunities of my constituents in Darlington, which is exactly what I was elected to do. It will not surprise him to hear me ask politely for him to outline more detail on his ambition for the place-based approach, the Green Book reforms and the pilots that he has mentioned. Can we have one in Darlington, the home of many of his Treasury colleagues?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for her question. Without wanting to go through the entire infrastructure strategy or spending review, there is significant money coming to all parts of the country. The Chancellor has increased day-to-day spending by £190 billion and capital spending by £120 billion, so I am confident that the hon. Member’s constituents will benefit from an improved national health service, improved road maintenance and improved digital infrastructure. There is a very long list of things people will be able to experience, and they will see the difference made by a Labour Government as we deliver on our promise of change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am hoping that the next question will be as entertaining as his constant chuntering. I call Alan Gemmell.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very nice to finally be recognised by the Chair.
Does the Minister agree that this approach to investment is fundamentally different from the Conservative chaos that led to crumbling schools, hospitals and roads, and light-years away from that of the SNP Government, whose profligate waste of public money has led to a £1 billion ferry fiasco in Ayrshire?
Darren Jones
Our universities play a crucial part in our education and skills landscape. They are, of course, privately-owned organisations and so are funded separately from the departmental budgets we have allocated in the spending review. The money announced last week and in the infrastructure strategy today is for schools and further education colleges. Any further changes to help universities with their estates will be announced in due course.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I spent a week in Leeds at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum, banging the drum for Bournemouth and the south-west to say that we are open for business with this Labour Government. Investors and builders are responding. They are encouraged by the pension, regulatory and planning reforms and by this infrastructure approach, but we need more investment. We have £1.6 million going into Bournemouth and Poole college, £500 million into two new NHS buildings and £230 million into water upgrades, but we need more. Will the Chief Secretary meet me and Dorset MPs to consider how we will take forward this place-based approach towards investment, so that Dorset can benefit?
Darren Jones
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for championing not just his own constituency, but the region in which it sits. He is right to raise the fact that many communities have lost out on funding over many, many years because of the chaotic approach under the previous Government. Our approach to this long-term strategy, with long-term funding and partnering with private capital, is essentially set up to try to drive investment in the places that have missed out. I would be delighted to work with him to try to unlock those opportunities.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and in particular for the funding for the maintenance of hospitals. I will be lobbying the Health Secretary in due course, but first will my right hon. Friend let me once again advocate for Harlow in respect of the future of the UK Health Security Agency? It is shovel-ready, well located and cost-effective.
Bank Closures and Banking Hubs
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have shy of 30 Members hoping to contribute, so we will have a hard speaking limit of four minutes to begin with.
Esther McVey
I agree—the lack of banks is a disgrace. Where do people go for their banking needs? The reality is that the banks that are closing have entered into an agreement with businesses and individuals; when they opened their bank account, they opened it with the bank on the high street. The business was there because it expected a certain amount of customer service—that is why they went there in the first place. Face-to-face banking offers confidence, security and efficiency, especially for businesses handing over cash and making significant financial decisions. Without those services, it just will not work.
In 2022, the Federation of Small Businesses found that four in 10 small businesses still relied on cash as a primary payment, and six in 10 needed to make regular cash deposits. I regularly hear from businesses in Tatton that they simply cannot deposit cash or access the basic services needed. Why? Well, that is because 64% of bank branches have closed in the last decade and 65% of cashpoints have gone. That is reducing the ability of businesses to deposit cash in the local area. The shift to online poses risks from technical failures and cyber-attacks. We have heard that through this monopoly and lack of access, there is a squeeze, and commission is being charged for the transactions of these businesses.
Our high streets are at the heart of our communities, but without access to banking services, our high streets, which are already under pressure, have become even harder places to trade, grow and thrive. If we are serious about supporting small businesses and seeing investment on our local high streets and in our town centres, we must stop the decline in banking infrastructure.
Some may argue that closures would be reasonable if banks were losing money and needed to take cost-cutting measures, but that is simply not the case. Banks are not struggling institutions. Last year, HSBC reported nearly $25 billion in post-tax profits. Barclays made $6.4 billion. Lloyds made $4.5 billion. NatWest made $4.8 billion. Those are all eye-watering profits—
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Cash is still alive and well, and for some, access to it is still a necessity—indeed, last year £80 billion in cash was withdrawn from the Link network. However, with the rise and rise of internet banking and contactless payments, we have seen a near-complete withdrawal of bank branches from certain parts of the country. As has been mentioned, there were 10,000 branches 10 years ago; now, there are just 3,000. One of those closures was the NatWest bank in Bakewell, in February 2024. It was not just the last bank in Bakewell; it was the last bank in the entire Peak District national park. In a few weeks’ time, when the Lloyds bank in Ashbourne closes, there will be no banks in the entire Derbyshire Dales constituency—an area of nearly 400 square miles.
There are many reasons why people need access to cash, all of which are ably demonstrated by the magnificent market town of Bakewell. Of course, there are residents there on low incomes or benefits, who find it much easier to budget using cash and are less likely to have access to the internet. There is an ageing population there who simply will not want to change, or do not trust the technology. We have had elderly residents taking two-hour round trips on the bus simply to withdraw cash from what was their new nearest bank, rather than use the ATMs in Bakewell. There are several successful markets each week; the traders will all have electronic card readers to take payments with, but despite what the mobile networks may say, people struggle to get a signal in Bakewell and traders often have to ask shoppers to pay in cash. There are also numerous independent shops that serve Bakewell’s 6 million visitors. Those shops need cash to run, and when they queued up for cash at the post office they found that they were being rationed, as it simply could not cope with the demand.
Despite all its attributes, Bakewell was turned down for a banking hub the first time around. When I was elected, I went back to Link, which does the assessments and makes the decisions on banking hubs. Over the course of several conversations, I tried to understand what had been missed the first time around. I have to say that Link was very responsive, and after we had submitted another application following a slight relaxation of its criteria on population size, its representatives were happy to come back to Bakewell. I took them to the agricultural business centre to see the livestock markets, where the auctioneers demonstrated to them the staggering number of transactions taking place using cheques. This, I am glad to say, seemed to be the missing part of the puzzle. Back in December, we were told that we had been given a full counter service banking hub—it was the best Christmas present ever.
The experience in Ashbourne was completely different, showing that one size does not fit all. The process there was seamless: Lloyds announced that it would close, an assessment was done, the criteria were all met, and I liaised with Cash Access UK over timeframes, locations and so on. I am very glad to say that the permanent Ashbourne banking hub will open on 27 June, and it looks like the permanent Bakewell hub will follow towards the end of July. This will continue the excellent work and growing reputation of the temporary Bakewell hub.
A national Cash Access UK report suggests that over 90% of customers believe that banking hubs are extremely important to the community, and the feedback that I get from service users is all positive. The evidence suggests that banking hubs increase footfall and boost the local economy, and I am very relieved that we will shortly have two in the Derbyshire Dales.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now three minutes. I call David Mundell.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The banks have more or less abandoned my constituency, and it sounds like that is the case for many others. Some 6,500 branches have closed in recent years, as have more than 200 post offices. There are 23 separate settlements in my constituency with no access to banking. We do have banking hubs. It is an hour each way by bus to get to one, and it costs at least six quid to get there and back. I represent large numbers of people living in poverty, and it is hard for them to raise that kind of money just to have access to banking services.
I will make two other points about my constituency and then a general point. The bus services are very poor. As I have just said, it can take an hour each way to get to the banking hub, and the banking hub does not provide all the services that a bank should provide.
My other point about my constituency is that there are 15 zones for the internet, and 11 of those 15 zones are among the worst for internet provision in the country. How on earth is someone supposed to access banking on an internet system that is simply not working? It shows the extent to which Britain’s infrastructure is creaking, and it is not acceptable that banks should abandon the people who helped to create them in the first place.
I will just make this final point about mobility and accessibility. One in four households in my constituency has no access at all to a vehicle. That is more than 20,000 people without a van or a car to get them to a bank, even if a bank were available. It is a disgrace that the banks have turned their backs on all those people who were their loyal customers for so many years. Businesses that rely on cash and collect cash each day have nowhere to deposit it. People are driving home from their place of work or their business with cash in the boot and nowhere safe to put it. That is a dangerous thing.
It is odd, ideologically, to hear Members from the party of free enterprise and the free market saying, “We have to do something about capitalism withdrawing from communities.” That is what is happening, and that is the nature of capitalism itself. We should just say that the financial sector in this country is worth £17 trillion, which dwarfs our GDP of £2.5 trillion. The banks are worth eight times more than the total output of the whole UK. As we have heard elsewhere, £44 billion of profit has been made by the banks in recent years. It is time we brought the banks to order to serve our communities—
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsThursday 24th April 2025
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 View all Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - large print - (24 Apr 2025)
Emma Reynolds
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We can hopefully do Third Reading in a more relaxed fashion. As we have discussed through the Bill’s passage, the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will strengthen the UK’s bank resolution regime by providing the Bank of England with a more flexible toolkit for responding to the failure of banking institutions.
As volatility over recent weeks has shown, global uncertainty can have a real impact on financial markets across the world. That is why it is important that the UK remains equipped with an effective financial stability toolkit. The primary objective of the recapitalisation mechanism introduced by the Bill is to protect the taxpayer; it will provide more comprehensive protection for public funds when banks fail. I think both sides of the House can agree that this is of vital importance to ensure that our constituents are not left on the hook when a bank collapses. The Bill achieves that without placing new up-front costs on the banking sector, and therefore strikes the right balance between protecting financial stability and supporting the Government’s No. 1 priority of driving economic growth.
I would like to thank all those in this House and the other place who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. In particular, I would like to thank the Opposition for their constructive engagement. As I said on Report, there is broad agreement on the primary objectives and principles of the Bill, but differing views have been expressed on the scope of the mechanism and certain finer details. I reiterate the Government’s position: it is important to learn the lessons from the case of Silicon Valley Bank UK, which demonstrates that the implications of a firm’s failure cannot always be anticipated, and things move very quickly. It is important that the legislation avoids overly restricting the Bank of England’s ability to use the mechanism in unpredictable and fast-moving failure scenarios, and can achieve its primary objective of protecting the taxpayer. I hope that those in the other place will agree with the Government’s position when the Bill returns there for their consideration.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), the hon. Members for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), and others who were on the Committee. I thank the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), and the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for their contributions on Second Reading. I thank the Minister with responsibility for pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who assisted me on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for his input. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for his speech on Report.
I would like to extend my gratitude to my officials in the Treasury for their hard work in developing this highly technical Bill, which could not easily be rushed, and for supporting me throughout the Bill’s passage. I am also grateful to the House staff, parliamentary counsel and all other officials involved in the passage of the Bill.
This Bill supports the UK economy’s resilience to the risks posed by bank failures. We all remember the damage caused by the financial crisis, and the Bill, alongside other measures that allow failures to be managed in an orderly way, upholds the economic and financial stability that will deliver on the Government’s growth mission. I am pleased that the Bill has received broad cross-party support in this House and the other place, and I look forward to its enactment. I commend it to the House.
Mark Garnier
May I first say a hearty congratulations to the Minister on bringing through her first Bill in the new Government? She was parachuted into the job rather recently, but she has done a magnificent job, and it has been a pleasure to engage with her. We share the aim of working in the interests of the wider economy, and we have worked together on the Bill. We may differ on a few tiny details, but we agree on its overall objective.
As I mentioned on Report, I spent some time on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards looking at how we can stop another banking crisis, and on the Treasury Committee doing pre-legislative work on the Financial Services Act 2012. This is an iterative and organic process. We will never be able to stop financial crises happening, but working together, we can ensure that there are no more instances of contagion flooding through the system. This Bill is extraordinarily good in following that iterative process, in order to make the banking system unsinkable, I hope—and I do not use that term lightly, as someone might have done in the film “Titanic”; this is genuinely very important.
I pay credit to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and their officials, who worked tirelessly to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank UK was transferred to HSBC over that weekend, which undoubtedly avoided wider disruption to the financial system. We are delighted that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and we welcome the Government’s decision to carry it over into this Parliament. I was about to say that our swords will cross in the coming months and years, but I do not think they will; I think we will almost certainly agree on things. We will engage with the Minister and her officials to ensure that we have a world-class financial system that is the envy of the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Spring Statement
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have another 45 minutes on the statement. If questions are short, more Members will get in.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is absolutely right that the Opposition devastated our communities and left us with billions of pounds’ worth of debt, but it is not right that disabled people and the most vulnerable in our society should pay for it. Thousands of my constituents continue to be fearful about the announced welfare cuts, and disability organisations have warned that hundreds of thousands of people will be pushed into poverty. So I say to the Chancellor: we must make the right political choice. We must protect the most vulnerable in society and introduce a wealth tax so that multimillionaires and billionaires can pay their fair share.