Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

This is the Government who implemented £15 billion of support for communities outside of London and the south-east, which is one of the reasons why median pay growth is higher in every region outside of London and the south-east. Of course, there is a robust methodology and criteria for selecting places for funding, and I encourage the hon. Lady to look at those criteria.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

With the Darlington economic campus now having passed 750 employees and being well on its way to providing over 1,500 roles in my constituency, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of its contribution to the local economy, to reducing inequalities and to our levelling-up agenda?

[Gareth Davies]

The Darlington economic campus is an important part of this Government’s operations and of our Government estate, but it is also important to the people of Darlington, and not just in terms of the jobs it has created. Of course, it builds on the back of significant funding on my hon. Friend’s watch: the £22 million town deal and the £6 million as part of the shared prosperity fund. That is one of the reasons why the people voted to elect Ben Houchen just the other day.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on presenting the Bill and bringing it this far. Having presented a private Member’s Bill myself, I know all about the joy, and the ups and downs, of the process.

Building societies are financial institutions with the principal purpose of providing residential mortgages, and are funded substantially by their members. I have seen at first hand how their membership system brings people together, and gives many a shared sense of interest and purpose. Darlington—this will come as no surprise—is home to Darlington Building Society, which has been serving the people of Darlington and the surrounding area since 1856. Its commitment to our community is second to none; indeed, only last night at the Tees Business Awards event it walked away with the Community Champion award, which recognises its contribution to our community. While many high streets are seeing the loss of financial institutions, just a few months ago the Minister himself opened a new branch of Darlington Building Society in High Row.

Darlington is also the birthplace of the railways—bear with me here—and some years ago Darlington Building Society commissioned a children’s book by Peter Barron, the former editor of The Northern Echo, to tell the story of Darly the engine. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the railways—a very big year for us—the building society, in collaboration with the west end composer Stuart Brayson and Darlington Operatic Society, is turning the story of Darly into a musical, which will premier in September next year. I am proud to represent a town with such a strong track record of supporting our community.

The Bill is about putting building societies such as Darlington Building Society on a more level playing field with banks, in relation to their capital raising and corporate governance requirements, so that they can compete more effectively in the financial services sector and better support their members. It will help to deliver key asks from the sector itself. I welcome the provisions in the Bill, which largely mirror proposals that the Government consulted on during 2022, and I welcome that both the Government and the building society sector are supporting it. Indeed, Andrew Craddock, chief executive officer of Darlington Building Society, has also voiced his support stating:

“Darlington Building Society supports the proposed reforms to the Building Societies Act. The modernisation will cut archaic red tape by removing outdated corporate governance requirements, which building societies face but banks don’t.”

As a vital part of our financial framework, and with a deep-rooted interest in communities in Darlington, I believe the Bill will help building societies to survive and thrive. It is right that we do all we can to ensure that businesses flourish, so the cutting of red tape is welcome, as is the removing of outdated, bureaucratic governance systems that are not faced by big banks.

To conclude, I welcome the Bill as a way of ensuring that building societies are embraced and enabled to do business with fewer hurdles and red tape. It sorts out certain questions about funding, and it levels the playing field. I am pleased to support the Bill, and trust that the House will give it its full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)]

Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on reaching the Third Reading of her important Bill, which will help to ensure the future growth and success of the building society sector. She is a strong advocate for the sector, and has introduced a Bill that will help it to grow and compete with retail banks, so that it can continue to provide vital diversity to the UK financial services sector.

I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who I was delighted to join back in November to open the Darlington Building Society in the middle of town. I saw from him and the employees just how impactful they are in his community, and I am sure that they will go from strength to strength.

[Peter Gibson]

While the Minister is on his feet, I wonder whether he could outline to the House the gift he received from Robin Blair, our veteran fruiterer and vegetable trader in our historic market hall, who joined him on that opening day.

[Gareth Davies]

I was not expecting an intervention on that of all subjects, but I did enjoy the satsumas that were provided by the very nice gentleman, who I understand is an institution in the town of Darlington.

As I was saying, building societies are important to all our communities, not least mine in Grantham and Bourne. In Grantham I have the Nationwide Building Society, the Nottingham Building Society and the Melton Mowbray Building Society, a new branch of which is opening in Bourne in April.

Today I wish to outline a few things: first, the Government’s support for the mutuals sector; secondly, the importance of mutuals to our overall financial services sector; and, finally, how this Bill will further support the future growth and success of mutuals. The Government want to promote the growth of mutuals, which make a vital contribution to the UK economy. As outlined in the mutuals prospectus, there are over 9,000 mutuals operating throughout the country, with a combined annual turnover of some £88 billion in 2022, which equates to 3.5% of UK GDP. However, beyond their vital financial contribution to the UK economy, mutuals play an important role in supporting people across the country. Their unique ownership model means that these businesses are rooted in their local communities, and working to make society better.

It is for those reasons that the Government are committed to supporting the growth and success of the mutual sector. For example, last summer the Government amended the Credit Unions Act 1979 so that credit unions in Great Britain can offer a greater range of products and services. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Sunderland Central said, last year the Government supported the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), which achieved Royal Assent in June 2023. The Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 will allow the Treasury to pursue further secondary legislation to give co-operatives, mutual insurers and friendly societies greater flexibility in deciding what to do with their surplus capital and the restrictions on their assets. The Government continue to develop a modern and supportive business environment for mutuals. As part of that, we have asked the Law Commission to conduct reviews of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 and the Friendly Societies Act 1992.

Building societies are perhaps one of the best-known types of mutuals. There are 42 building societies operating throughout the country, providing mortgage and savings products to around 26 million members. They play an essential role in supporting their members in building savings habits and buying their own home, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) outlined. That cause is supported by Members from across the House, but particularly by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, who has consistently championed the importance of supporting first-time buyers—not just in her constituency, but across the country.

Building societies are especially well represented in communities outside the south-east. For example, the Melton Mowbray Building Society provides vital support in all areas neighbouring my constituency, and I note that the Newcastle Building Society has a significant presence in the constituency of hon. Member for Sunderland Central. It builds on a 160-year history, and its amazing commitment to its members in the communities in which it operates remains strong. It has partnered with the citizens advice fund to provide expert advice to members, answering questions on a variety of important issues. She also has the Yorkshire Building Society in her constituency, which has done great work on financial literacy through its Money Minds programme.

It is clear that building societies contribute to the wellbeing of communities throughout our country, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. The Government are fully supportive of this private Member’s Bill, which will help the sector to compete more effectively with retail banks, so that building societies can continue to work.

This Bill is about enabling building societies to grow and compete with retail banks. We are achieving that by updating the legislation in three short ways. First, the Bill excludes three specified sources of funding from the 50% wholesale funding limit for building societies. This will provide them with greater flexibility in raising additional wholesale funding, while still operating within the mutual model. The detail of the funds will be further specified by the Treasury through secondary legislation in due course. Furthermore, the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central means that the statutory instruments will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing for greater parliamentary scrutiny; that comes on the back of very constructive work from across the House. The amendment does not change the policy outcome of the Bill in any way, but simply amends the parliamentary procedure that will be followed when subsequent regulations are made.

Secondly, the Bill allows for the option of real-time virtual participation at building society meetings. This will improve meeting accessibility and promote wider membership engagement, should the members of any building society choose to permit virtual participation under their rules.

Finally, the Bill will provide His Majesty’s Treasury with the power to further align constitutional provisions. Specifically, it will align provisions in part 2 of the Building Societies Act 1986 on common seals and the execution of documents with modifications made to company law. This will remove outdated and burdensome legislative requirements, and update the 1986 Act, in line with modernisations made to company law.

In conclusion, the Government fully support the hon. Lady’s Bill. We recognise the importance of the building society sector, which supports people and communities across the country. I extend my thanks to the hon. Lady for introducing the Bill and for progressing it to Third Reading. She can be assured that the Government share the vision set out in the Bill for supporting the future growth and prosperity of the building society sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman some positive messages he can take home to his constituents in Bradford: violent crime and burglaries have been halved, school standards are up, the NHS has more doctors and nurses than ever in history and real after-tax income for people on the minimum wage or national living wage is up by 30% if they are working full time.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend tell me how many staff are now employed across the eight Departments based at the Darlington Economic Campus? What progress is being made on naming the new building “William McMullen House”?

[Gareth Davies]

I can tell my hon. Friend that 750 staff are employed across all Departments at the Darlington Economic Campus. The Treasury’s aim is to reach 355 full-time staff by March 2025, and we are on track to meet that target. The official name of the campus will be decided closer to the 2025-26 delivery date and will be consulted on by the Government Property Agency, but we have heard very clearly his suggestion of William McMullen House, and we will consider that in due course.

Inheritance Tax

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jon Trickett]

No, I will not give way—the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak in a moment.

I want to illustrate what is happening. I think I am right in saying that, if inheritance tax were abolished, it would put £12 million back into the Minister’s constituency, which makes £60 million in a five-year Parliament. In all the 42 red wall seats in the north of England, which went from Labour to Tory, that sum is hardly more. All those seats together would raise £15 million a year in inheritance tax. Abolishing inheritance tax would put a fraction of the amount of wealth in our country back into those constituencies, and then only into the hands of the richest in our society.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way, but briefly, because I want to make progress.

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am following his logic about money staying in a constituency where inheritance tax falls, but that presupposes that all beneficiaries of that deceased’s estate live and reside in that constituency, which is not the case. Beneficiaries often live throughout the country.

[Jon Trickett]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, because I think there is £800 billion of wealth in our country that nobody—not even the Treasury—knows the owners of. That is a colossal, unimaginable amount of untaxed wealth, which has simply disappeared because the Treasury cannot find out who owns it. It is true that people can reside in one place and own property in another, but I am talking about someone’s place of residence when they died.

Let me remind Members of the figures, because I do not want to lose the argument. In all of the red wall seats that Labour lost to the Tories, £15 million in inheritance tax was paid; only in three of those seats did anyone pay any inheritance tax. However, in the 42 blue wall seats that I have looked at, £1.5 billion was paid in inheritance tax. So in Tory seats in the south and south-east, and to some extent in London, £1.5 billion was paid, while only £15 million was paid in all of the so-called northern red wall. That is a completely extraordinary set of figures.

I think Ministers and right-wing commentators really fail to understand the way in which our society is structured, with the inequalities and all the other problems that we face on a daily basis. If it were to happen, the abolition of inheritance tax would be one of the largest shifts of wealth that has ever taken place under any Chancellor, certainly in recent history. I have been in Parliament for 28 years and I do not remember anything as large. Here is the central point: this is not a fiscal strategy, and it is not about justice, or fairness, or responding to what the people of the country want. It is a political strategy to move money into those areas where the Tories are now extremely worried that they are going to lose their seats. This is about pumping money into blue wall seats. It is a political strategy rather than a fiscal one.

That is where we are. The Government think that they can bung people, whether with contracts or honours or by putting money back into the pockets of the richest people in our society, in order to secure their own continuance in office. But the British people do not like this stuff. It is grossly unfair and it should not be happening. I hope that the Minister can say, “Well, we might have had a look at it, but we’re not going to do it, because—you’re correct—it would be unfair.”

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate.

As a practising solicitor—I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it was common for me to provide advice to clients while they were planning for later life. While I was drafting wills and preparing powers of attorney, the dreaded subject of inheritance tax often came up. It is indeed a much-feared tax and a real motivator for many people to consider estate planning.

As house values have increased, many more families who never before would have considered themselves to be wealthy are brought into the scope of inheritance tax. For many, however, through proper planning and structures, it can be very much avoided. Indeed, it is often said that inheritance tax is a voluntary levy paid by those who distrust their heirs more than they dislike the Inland Revenue. As a Conservative, I believe that families should be able to keep as much of their money as possible and, ultimately, I would like to see the complete abolition of inheritance tax, when the time is right.

I only have a very short speech; I really only have one suggestion to put to the Minister. A number of years ago, additional nil-rate bands were introduced to enable a joint estate to leave up to £1 million free of inheritance tax. However, that privilege only extends to those who have children, either naturally or by adoption. It seems unfair that those who have children can be given a significant tax advantage that does not benefit those who either do not choose to have children or are unable to have children. To my mind, a much fairer approach would be to equalise the inheritance tax threshold at £500,000 for everyone, enabling even childless couples to leave an estate of up to £1 million free of tax.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. Does he agree that by doing those sorts of things—lifting thresholds, taking people out of fiscal drag and giving more people the opportunity to benefit from a nil-rate band—we would actually be able to grow the economy? As the Swedish equivalent of the CBI has said,

“if you abolish a stupid tax that is complicated and forces wealthy people to leave the country”—

or, by extension, reduce the amount that people pay—

“you get more tax revenue…That is the Swedish experience.”

[Peter Gibson]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. We know that when we reduce a tax, the effect has the potential to cascade throughout families—and throughout the country, because not all beneficiaries of estates necessarily live in the constituency where the house that is left behind is situated.

I will conclude on that point. Will the Minister respond specifically to my point about the equalisation of rates for all individuals?

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

Thank you for the short speech. If we stick to about five minutes each, I think that we will get everybody in.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing the debate, which is an opportunity for us as Members of Parliament to think about the sort of society that we wish to create. It is interesting that Conservative Members intervened on my hon. Friend to talk about raising thresholds, fairness and so on. I say to any of my constituents who have tuned into the debate: let us not lose sight of the fact that currently only 5% of people pay inheritance tax. That means that 95% do not pay it. If we are talking about fairness and the type of society that we want to create, we should look at the implications of either abolishing or providing further concessions to those currently liable for inheritance tax.

I know that this debate is narrowly defined. On previous occasions, I have asked whether we are serious about providing additional support for ordinary working people—not the 5%, but the 95%. Why are we not considering a proportional property tax to replace council tax? That would boost the income of every household in Easington on average by more than £750 per year, not 5%. There are levers that can be pulled, and that one would be revenue neutral. It would not involve levying any additional taxes; it would be a simple matter of applying a proportional property tax at a fixed percentage of the value of a property.

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I consider a friend, for giving way. I am interested in his points on a proportional property tax. We know from research that northern constituencies like ours would benefit significantly from that. Does Labour propose to include it in its manifesto?

[Grahame Morris]

Regrettably, at this point, no. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, I am not a Front-Bench spokesperson for the Opposition. Irrespective of which political party grasps this nettle, it will bring enormous electoral dividends. There have been academic studies about the benefits of a proportional property tax. My constituency, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Darlington and virtually every constituency in the north and the midlands would be better off. [Interruption.] I apologise, Sir Robert: we are talking about inheritance tax. I was tempted off the subject—it was my own fault, and I am sorry.

The fundamental question is: are we going to champion equality, fairness and social justice, or are we going to perpetuate wealth inequality? Are we a democracy or a plutocracy? The current system is already generous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said, it allows £325,000 to be passed on tax free, and where a child or grandchild inherits an estate including a home, the threshold is £500,000. Above those thresholds, a 40% tax rate is applied, which means that a £1 million estate would pass on £800,000 to the beneficiaries.

As my hon. Friend indicated, there is chronic tax avoidance. In 2016, the Duke of Westminster inherited a huge estate that estimates suggest was worth about £9 billion. Reasonably, the Exchequer would anticipate a tax liability of about £3.5 billion at 40%, but sadly, by employing tax avoidance, using very clever lawyers and getting the best advice on trust laws, the aristocracy and the richest in our society regularly avoid paying their fair share of tax. We should be outraged at that. I suspect that in other countries there would be riots and demonstrations, but that is not our way.

Part of the problem is that the issues are not aired objectively through the mainstream media. This abuse of privilege not only entrenches economic inequality but places a larger tax burden on the vast majority—the 95% who do not inherit large family assets and are struggling in this cost of living crisis with stagnating wages and the highest tax burden in modern history. Tory plans to cut inheritance tax will not help my constituents. Instead of funding tax cuts for the richest on the backs of the poor, the Government should be looking to close the inheritance tax loopholes exploited by the wealthiest.

The sixth Duke of Westminster, Gerald Grosvenor, who passed away in 2016, outlined his advice to entrepreneurs on how to be successful. He was speaking at some sort of conference or event, and he suggested that the best way was to have an ancestor who was good friends with William the Conqueror. As with many tongue-in-cheek comments, there is a grain of truth in that advice.

Inheritance tax is meant to address widening inequality in society by taxing those with the greatest assets. However, wealth and privilege are entrenched in this country. Elite schools dominate our politics: we have had Prime Ministers from Winchester and Eton. The majority of our leaders went to elite universities. Perhaps I should correct that by saying “a single elite university”, since 13 out of 17 post-war Prime Ministers—more than 75%—attended Oxford University. Given that our leaders are entrenched in wealth and privilege, we should not be surprised that the Conservative party seeks to maintain a status quo that sustains that existence. Our society is dysfunctional when the richest 50 families in the UK have more wealth than half the population. Just think about that: they have more wealth than 33.5 million people. Recent analysis by Ben Tippet and Rafael Wildauer from the University of Greenwich found that if the wealth of the super-rich continues to grow at the current rate, by 2035—not too far away—the wealth of the richest 200 families in the UK will be larger than the whole of the UK’s GDP.

There is immense wealth in our society. Most people do not realise that there is sufficient wealth in society to address the range of economic, social and investment challenges that we face. The accumulation of wealth, concentrated in the hands of a few, is detrimental to a fair society. Those with immense wealth are not using it for the good of society. My constituency—no surprise here, Sir Robert—is devoid of benevolent billionaires; I wish we had a few. I am not a believer in trickle-down economics. However, my constituents look to the Government to create an economy and society that uses the wealth that they have generated to improve the quality of life for all. That is a task that this Government are failing to deliver on, not through neglect but through a deliberate policy that entrenches and expands pre-existing economic inequalities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

He is chuntering away, so I just wondered whether he wanted to come in.

It is amazing how inheritance tax can be avoided. The biggest exemption, of course, is the nil rate on leaving everything to a spouse. Other exemptions include transfers to qualifying charities or registered clubs, and lifetime gifts given within seven years before death—this one is interesting: wealthy grandparents use it as tax relief on paying their grandchildren’s private school fees. Another exemption is business property relief, which allows no inheritance to be paid on the transfer on death of shares in a business that is not quoted on the stock exchange. Many of those shares are in valuable family firms. Agricultural land also often passes tax-free. Debts owed by the deceased can be deducted from the tax bill.

[Peter Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

I will in a minute.

This one is absolutely unreal: the largest landowner in Northumberland donated a painting in lieu of tax. In 2015, the largest landowner in Northumberland avoided a £2.8 million inheritance tax bill by leaving a Van Dyck to the Bowes Museum. In that family’s property—it is not a terraced house, you know—they now have one less picture hanging on the wall for his heirs, but there is also almost £3 million less that could have gone to help poorer families in my constituency. I divvent care what anybody thinks; that’s not fair, man. It is not fair at all.

It is unreal to think that the wealthiest can avoid inheritance tax by giving a painting instead. How many people who have personal tax issues can say, “Look, if I give you a book, is that all right?” Of course it is not all right, man. It is one rule for the rich and another for ordinary working people who work hard and pay their taxes.

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I particularly wanted to intervene when he was talking about business and agricultural property relief. Does he agree that the survival of many farms and family businesses relies on the fact that they are not taxed at the point of death?

[Ian Lavery]

I would not dispute that that is the case.

But let me get back to the political issue. This is pure politics. It is simple: it is about red meat. The Conservatives, through the press, support the myth that abolishing inheritance tax will somehow have an impact on ordinary people in communities because some people have their own houses. I have already explained that very few working-class people in communities right across the country will actually be impacted if we continue with this. Leaving properties to children, especially in areas with high property values such as London, makes a huge difference.

This will benefit wealthy people in electorally vulnerable blue wall seats. Seventy-five per cent of the top 60 seats in which inheritance tax has been paid are held by Conservative MPs, mostly here in the south. It will help the families of the wealthy Conservatives, such as the Prime Minister. That is why I oppose this measure. Inheritance tax is a means of lessening inequalities and mitigates against gross amounts of unearned wealth going to the children of the wealthy—children who did absolutely nothing to create that wealth. Most of the money saved from cutting or abolishing the tax will go to benefit wealthy areas in the south. It will do nothing to help people in Wansbeck, Hemsworth, Easington or Coventry —nothing at all. There would be less money for their health, less money for their education and less investment in the infrastructure that all the areas I have mentioned badly need. Our social mobility statistics in Wansbeck are some of the lowest in England, but instead of doing something to increase my constituents’ life prospects, the Conservatives are spending their time planning on how to give more money to the already wealthy.

The few very rich families in Northumberland, with all their large agricultural assets, pay less inheritance tax than they should now, while thousands are still using food banks and claiming benefits just to survive. Instead of cutting or abolishing inheritance tax, the rate should be increased and the exemptions eliminated to help to alleviate the current obscene gap between the rich and the poor. Public services are in tatters and councils are going bust left, right and centre. Taxing those who can afford it most is one means of alleviating the horrendous damage that this Government are doing to the social fabric of communities like mine up and down the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as the Chair, Sir Robert.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate. I am pleased to respond to it on behalf of the Opposition, following the contributions of Members from right across the House, including those of my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana).

Any debate about tax in this country must begin by recognising that under the Conservatives the tax burden is set to be the highest since the second world war. We have seen 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone and the decisions taken by this Government will leave the average family £1,200 worse off. No wonder the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are feeling pressure to cut taxes. However, the problem for them is that the average family will still be £1,200 worse off even after the recent national insurance cuts. Indeed, the Conservatives have put up taxes so much that there is now nothing they can do to repair the damage they have done to the economy and to family finances.

The truth is that the personal tax rises introduced by this Government will far outweigh any relief arising from their recent change to national insurance. Even taking this year in isolation, many of those on lower incomes will see their taxes rise. Consequently, with a general election approaching, we can expect the Conservatives to get more and more desperate, and—frankly—more and more reckless, in what they are prepared to throw at holding on to power. The Opposition will always stand with working people; that is why we have made it clear that we want the tax burden on working people to come down. We are also always clear that, unlike what we have seen from the Conservatives during this Parliament, we will always set out exactly how we would pay for any tax cuts.

As the 6 March Budget approaches, we are again beginning to hear rumours that the Prime Minister and Chancellor are considering abolishing inheritance tax, as they feel growing pressure to assuage their Back Benchers and members. All parents have a natural desire to pass on to their children what they have worked hard for in life, but the truth is that an inheritance tax cut would benefit only the top few per cent. of estates. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, when families across Britain are struggling and our public services are on their knees, that cannot be the right priority.

According to figures from HMRC, in 2020-21 only 3.7% of estates paid inheritance tax, while the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the cost of abolishing the tax would be £7 billion. The IFS also notes that about half the benefit of abolishing inheritance tax would go to those with estates of £2.1 million or more, who make up the top 1% of estates and would benefit by £1.1 million on average. Given the state of public finances and services, that simply cannot be justified as a priority when taxes for working people are already so high and set to keep rising.

[Peter Gibson]

I am very interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about hard-working families. Will he outline how much those hard-working families would be hit by his party’s plans to borrow an extra £28 billion each and every year?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but, as we have set out, all our plans are within our fiscal rules. Frankly, that was the hon. Member’s attempt to distract from the fact that he is a member of a party presiding over a Parliament that has put up taxes 25 times and is on track to have the highest tax burden since the second world war. There is simply no getting away from that record and from the burden that his party has increased on working people during this Parliament.

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being incredibly generous with his time. I am incredibly proud of my party and the track record of what it has delivered for our country over the past few years: the incredible support given throughout covid and to working families up and down the country through the cost of living crisis.

[James Murray]

Frankly, I think that an increasing number of people across Britain would disagree. The one question that they are going to be asking themselves as we approach the next general election is: am I and my family any better off than we were 14 years ago? Is anything working better or in a better state in this country than it was 14 years ago? The answer to that question is a resounding no.

[Peter Gibson]

rose—

[James Murray]

I see the hon. Gentleman gesturing, but I have given way twice; I am going to make a bit of progress before taking any more interventions.

We are not concerned just that inheritance tax would be the wrong priority; we are also concerned about the damage that the Government might do to our economy if the tax cut were unfunded. People across Britain will remember the chaos unleashed by the disastrous mini Budget, when the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor promised irresponsible unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest. I ask the Minister: how would the Government pay for the £7 billion abolition of inheritance tax that it appears they are briefing the media about?

Which of our public services would see their funding reduced? What other taxes would the Government expect to increase? What investment in our future would they plan to cut and how much more do they want to push up debt? I would welcome it if the Minister were upfront about what the Government are considering. If they are not considering abolishing inheritance tax, they should say so now.

Perhaps, though, it is unfair to ask the Minister to be clear about what the Government are thinking, as the Prime Minister and Chancellor may, in all honesty, not know what to do. The Conservatives need to call an election in the next 12 months and they know that they are out of options when it comes to what to say. After 14 years of Conservative government, public services have been run into the ground, the economy has stagnated and the tax burden is set to be at its highest in generations. Yet what we hear from their briefings to the media is speculation that they want to cut inheritance tax—something that would benefit the top 4%, while taxes on working people keep rising. That is the wrong priority when both public and household finances are so stretched.

What the country needs is a Labour Government with fiscal responsibility at their heart and a plan to reform public services while growing the economy. That is the way to make people across Britain better off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member will be aware from his own party and the Opposition that there is a wide range of views within parties on policy. I am not going to speculate on tax policy. We always keep tax policy under review and always welcome insights, evidence, information and views when developing tax policy, as do the Scottish Government. We have heard a wide variety of views today. As I said, announcements will be made at the appropriate time and place.

[Peter Gibson]

Does this not clearly illustrate the distinction between those of us on this side of the House who would love to see inheritance tax reduced and ultimately abolished, and those Members on the other side who only want to tax working people more?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We saw that in the recent autumn statement with the national insurance cuts. Our instinct and wish as Conservatives is to lower taxes, wherever appropriate and possible. We are also responsible with public finances and recognise that every single penny of Government spending is paid for through taxation, either immediately or in the future as deferred taxation—that is, borrowing money. We need to, and do, respect every single penny, because it is the public’s money, not Government money, that we are spending. Taxation is an important issue, and I am glad we are talking about it today. I am confident that it will be a major topic in the run-up to the election.

The Government support wealth creation but also understand the importance of ensuring that wealthy individuals make a fair contribution and pay tax appropriately. We do not have a specific wealth tax, as some other countries do, but if we look at the facts, it is clear that the Government do tax wealth, in a number of ways that generate substantial revenue, while remaining fair. For example, OBR forecasts for 2023-24 indicate that we can expect inheritance tax revenues of about £7.6 billion, capital gains tax revenues of £16.5 billion and stamp duty tax revenues of about £13 billion.

We also have a progressive income tax system, so that the top 5% of income taxpayers pay about half of all income tax. The top 1% is projected to pay about 28% of all income tax. It is also important to stress that in 2010, under the previous Labour Government, the top 5% accounted for 43% of income tax and the top 1% for 25%. Therefore, the system under the Conservatives is more progressive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

If the hon. Member will give me a moment to proceed, I will allow him to come in later, because I have other points to make in response to some of his comments.

Inheritance tax is a wealth transfer tax and applies to the estate of the deceased. Transfers made in the seven years before death are also taken into account. The estates of all individuals benefit from a £325,000 nil-rate band, and the targeted residence nil-rate band is a further £175,000 available to those passing on a qualifying residence on death to their direct descendants such as children and grandchildren. That means that qualifying estates can pass on up to £500,000, but the qualifying estate of a surviving spouse or civil partner can pass on up to £1 million without an inheritance tax liability. That is because any unused nil-rate band or residence nil-rate band is transferable to a surviving spouse or civil partner.

[Peter Gibson]

Could the Minister specifically address the point I made about the inherent unfairness to those who do not or are unable to have children, in respect of the nil-rate band that applies to them?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Again, I cannot make any promises today, but I understand the important point he is making about the nil rate. Changes have been made over the years in that area, and I will come on to that point later.

The vast majority of estates pay no inheritance tax. The combination of nil-rate bands, exemptions and reliefs mean that only 5.1% of UK deaths are forecast to result in an inheritance tax liability in 2023-24. That is forecast to increase slightly to 6.3% in 2028-29: it is still a relatively small number, but it makes an important contribution to the public finances. It is forecast to raise £7.6 billion in 2023-24 and £9.9 billion in 2028-29. That revenue is important because it is spent on a whole variety of public services, levelling up and many other areas of Government policy.

The headline rate of inheritance tax is 40% but, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck acknowledged, a 36% rate is charged when at least 10% of the net estate is left to charity. That is an important point of this system as well. It is important to remember that the rate is charged on the part of the estate that is above the threshold and after the application of reliefs and exemptions.

The Government have made changes since 2010 that have increased the threshold to £1 million, made the system fairer and reduced administrative burdens. For example, in 2017 the Government introduced the residence nil-rate band, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, to make it easier to pass on the family home to the next generation, but we restricted the residence nil-rate band for the wealthiest by tapering it away for estates over £2 million. More recently, we made changes so that for deaths from January 2022, over 90% of non-paying estates each tax year no longer need to complete inheritance tax forms when probate or confirmation is required. At the same time, we have tightened the rules to make sure that individuals make a fair contribution and pay the tax owed. For example, in 2017 we introduced new rules to limit abuses of the rules by people with non-domicile status who used complicated structures to make their UK homes look like offshore assets.

Several hon. Members talked about loopholes and avoidance. It is important to distinguish between the legitimate use of reliefs and those who engage in avoidance by bending the rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament and none of us ever intended. It is not true that the wealthiest do not pay inheritance tax: national statistics for the tax year 2020-21 show that taxpaying estates valued at over £1 million accounted for 81% of the total inheritance liability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I am happy to do that. In fact, I hosted a reception for Lord Harrington and the people responsible for that review last week. We will start by increasing the budget of the Office for Investment so that it can give a more bespoke service to potential overseas investors.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

We are all mindful of the need to control public finances and slim the civil service, but can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the Darlington Economic Campus will receive the jobs that were promised, and will he give consideration to my proposal to name their permanent home of DEC William McMullen House, in recognition of the sacrifice William made for people of Darlington?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

There are two things I would say in response to that. First, it is important, when we talk about banks, that we have a globally broadly competitive tax regime, and we do not apologise for that in the Treasury. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the reduction he talks about in terms of the levy on banks was offset by rising corporation tax.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) for his recent visit to Darlington, where he opened a new branch of Darlington Building Society. He will know from that visit the impact that Treasury jobs are having locally, including an additional £80 million of spending in our local economy. Does he agree with me that Darlington Economic Campus is a fantastic levelling-up project, ensuring that people can stay local but go far?

[Gareth Davies]

It was a great pleasure to visit my hon. Friend and open the Darlington Building Society in his town, a very prominent business that is important for in-service banking facilities. The Darlington campus is an important part of our Treasury levelling-up agenda and long may that continue.

Approved Mileage Allowance Payment Rate

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) not only for the eloquence with which he presented his argument, but for its very balanced nature. This issue unites the Chamber; there is almost a manifest injustice here. There is little that has not increased since 2011, and there has been a significant number of elections, never mind of changes in office. As he correctly pointed out, it is not simply the voluntary sector that is affected. Not only those employed by the council, but those who are self-employed—the traditional white-van man and those in other occupations—also need recompense for the mileage that they are required to do to carry out their trade, their services or whatever.

In a matter that I have been pursuing locally it has often been put forward that there can be local settlements, but, as the hon. Member correctly pointed out, the template tends to be HMRC’s and there are implications for taxation if that is not followed. Even when I have had negotiations and discussions with officials, it has been very difficult to get political sign-off, so it is one thing for officials to be persuaded. There are Members here who were at the meeting held by Unison along with the RAC Foundation. Although some might view Unison as having a vested interest, I do not think that that can be said about the RAC Foundation.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I, too, was at the Unison-organised meeting and I can say only positive things about its engagement with Members right across the House. Let me put on the record my thanks to Anna Birley from Unison for the report that she so ably prepared.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Absolutely. I am sitting with a copy of the report myself and the hon. Member is correct; there were people from a variety of parties at the meeting. The RAC Foundation was not there in a political capacity. I think Unison did the right thing to hold the meeting with the RAC Foundation. It gave the meeting ballast and legitimacy because the RAC, along with the AA, is a specialist in motoring matters and has come to the conclusion that 63p, together with some form of system, is what is necessary.

Locally, I face all the difficulties that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington ably pointed out. East Lothian is not the biggest constituency—it is not the size of some of those in the highlands of Scotland—but it is still significant. It runs along the A1 for in excess of 60 miles, from Musselburgh all the way to the villages before the Scottish Borders. Although the principal town tends to be Haddington, with the community hospital hub and the council based there, people are unable to work without going into the other towns, which are equally jealous of their independence and seek to retain their own facilities, whether it is those on the coast such as Dunbar, where I live, and North Berwick, or inland at Tranent or elsewhere, never mind the small villages. Whether someone is doing voluntary work, working for the council or carrying out a trade, they cannot do their job without running up significant mileage.

We are not only talking about those working in fields such as care. There are people in senior positions and health visitors who are struggling financially because, as with others, they have seen their mortgage go up while they have to keep a roof above their head, yet it costs them to work because they are not recompensed for the daily mileage that they rack up. They need a car to carry out their work on behalf of their employer, and they have to pay additional costs to do that. That is why the issue has to be taken on board.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington correctly pointed out that we should not just seek to remedy the mileage allowance once and then have to look at it again; it could be worthwhile to make it index linked. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) will be aware from the meeting I mentioned, we also have to bear in mind that when the allowance is paid by employers, it is meant to recompense workers not simply for the cost of fuel—the £1.45 that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned resonates with what Asda is currently charging in Dunbar—but for the wear and tear on their cars and for insurance.

One of the most significant things that I learned from the RAC Foundation was that fuel costs had increased at the lowest rate; insurance, as I recall, had increased at the highest rate, but other things had increased too. Not only do people have to pay for their petrol or diesel, but they have to pay the car costs that are necessary for their work and that their employer expects them to pay, because otherwise they cannot do their job. That is certainly true in my area, but it is the same in others, whether they are urban or rural. That is why the mileage allowance should be increased.

There is, as I say, political buy-in from across the Chamber. There is a recognition, not just from trade unions but from motoring organisations, that the rate is long past its sell-by date. It is clear from what others have said that this is not simply about people struggling to do their work, but about getting people into the labour market—a statement is being made elsewhere in this building on that very subject. People must be recompensed for their work and not pay out of their own pocket to do their job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on ably leading yet another Petitions Committee debate. Thirty-eight of my constituents in Darlington have signed the petition, but I know that it is an issue of great importance to many more. Mileage rates were first introduced to reflect the costs of using a vehicle for work and to make reimbursing them administratively straightforward. However, as we have heard, HMRC’s current rates have not changed since 2011, despite many increases in the cost of motoring, particularly the rapid increase in fuel prices that began in early 2022 as a result of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine.

It is estimated that one in five frontline service workers are required to drive to do their job, often travelling significant distances to carry out their work. Moreover, research from the RAC Foundation shows that the vehicle of a public sector worker who drives for their job is typically older and driven further than the average. As that will result in a greater effect on the servicing and depreciation of their vehicle, it is clear that a significant number of those workers will be left out of pocket by the present mileage allowance payment rate.

I welcome that the mileage allowance of NHS workers under the agenda for change agreements are reviewed twice a year, taking into account changes in motoring costs, and I know that current NHS mileage approved payment rates were increased on 1 January 2023 to 59p per mile. That is above the HMRC approved amount. Although the approved mileage allowance payment rate is advisory, it is ultimately up to employers to choose what they reimburse. It is still hugely important to public sector workers, charities and many others in society that mileage rates are reviewed across the board regularly, and not just for those working in certain sectors.

It would be remiss of me to not mention that, compared with others in the region, many of my constituents face another issue when it comes to the cost of motoring. Fuel prices at forecourts are significantly higher at Morrisons, Asda and Sainsbury’s branches in Darlington than they are at the exact same supermarkets in Bishop Auckland, so I ask the Minister to look at what more can be done to ensure that my constituents get a fair deal. I appreciate that it is not the specific topic of this debate, but it highlights the postcode lottery of forecourt fuel competition in this country.

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) was unable to attend today’s debate. However, she has asked me to raise her concerns on her behalf. Her constituency is made up of 187 villages, with a number of elderly residents relying on incredible carers who get to them by car. We face a similar issue at Herriot hospice in Harrogate, of which I am a trustee. I know all too well about the impact of mileage rates on those who take part in rural community hospice care. An increase from 45p to 60p per mile would be of significant benefit to people such as carers, and I know that my hon. Friend also supports an increase in mileage rates.

I appreciate the efforts that the Government have taken to support motorists with increased costs. At the spring statement this year, the Government announced a temporary, 12-month cut to fuel duty of 5p per litre. Furthermore, to continue supporting motorists, they are extending the 5p fuel duty cut, which is worth £100 a year to the average driver. Ultimately, the Government have to balance support for individuals with the responsible management of public finances, which fund our essential public services, but it is clear to me, and should be clear to the Minister, that mileage rates need to be looked at very closely. I urge him to do all he can to ensure that we see this vital increase and that public sector workers who drive for work are not left out of pocket merely for doing their job. The Minister should be mindful that the HMRC mileage rate is used as a benchmark for many charities, voluntary groups and small businesses. Although it is up to such organisations to set their own rate, they take a lead from HMRC.

Public sector workers, charities, volunteers and small businesses need to see a change in the rates. I trust that the Minister can see that this has cross-party support, and reform would be welcomed by people in every constituency. Please, let us level up these mileage rates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

That is a fair question. I assure the hon. Lady that an extensive review is taking place, which takes into account a range of factors, but a big part of it is engagement. We have engaged extensively with various industries and unions, and we will continue to do that around the fiscal event cycle, as I have said. All taxes remain under review.

I have magically received an answer to the hon. Lady’s earlier question: between 1.8 million and 2.1 million people use their own vehicles for business travel, and 200,000 employees claim mileage allowance relief. That is 40% of all those entitled to it. I hope that answers her question.

I am coming to the end of my remarks, but I want to ensure that I address as many points raised as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made points about the importance of NHS staff, and I want to put on record my thanks to all NHS workers who use their own cars. I entirely agree with the emphasis he put on the importance of those workers to our society. I stress that paying the AMAP rate is voluntary. It is up to the NHS as an employer to determine expense rates. Travel cost reimbursement is covered by NHS terms and conditions, jointly agreed between trade unions and the employer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) pointed out, as of January 2023, the NHS increased its rate above the AMAP rate to 59p for cars up to 3,500 miles, in recognition of the fact that a number of NHS workers travel a shorter distance.

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful for the clarification. Will the Minister clarify why it is right and fair for that scheme to apply in the NHS, but not outside it?

[Gareth Davies]

As I said, the scheme is voluntary. Any organisation can apply a higher rate than the AMAP rate, and the NHS has chosen to do that. If my hon. Friend believes that other organisations should offer a higher rate, that is something he should take up with them.

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Will he outline what tax consequences there would be if an organisation chose to take those higher rates?

[Gareth Davies]

If a rate is provided that is above the AMAP rate, national insurance and income tax would be applied to that difference, depending on the personal circumstances of the individual—for example, depending on the overall amount of income tax they pay, or whether they are over the personal allowance amount. Voluntary organisations, which my hon. Friend spoke about, can offer any rate they want, as I pointed out to my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney, and for Carshalton and Wallington. So long as evidence is shown for the journeys, organisations do not have to use the AMAP rates. I hope that clarifies things.

In conclusion, it is ultimately for employers to determine the expenses paid in respect of motoring costs that employees incur with their private vehicles. The Government set AMAP and simplified expenses rates with the aim of creating administrative simplicity. Those rates will necessarily be more appropriate for some motorists than others. However, the Government have taken decisive steps to support households with the costs of living, which I have extensively set out. The Government will continue to keep AMAP and simplified expenses rates under review, as they do all taxes and allowances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)]

We have a world-leading track record on net zero, but we must balance that correctly with who bears the cost. Critical to the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is mobilising more private capital, and we are making great strides on that front.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend update the House as to when we will see spades in the ground on the Brunswick site in Darlington for the Darlington economic campus?

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of Darlington, and Darlington’s economic campus is a critical part of levelling up. The Government Property Agency has been working hard to finalise commercial negotiations. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend when I have a more substantive update.

Council Tax and Stamp Duty Alternatives

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Harris, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on securing this debate.

The council tax system is fundamentally flawed. As we have heard from the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), the property values are from 1991 and are in many cases entirely hypothetical, leading to individuals paying a higher share of their property value and an ever-increasing share of their income.

Analysis by Fairer Share computes that almost 99% of the 50,000 homes in Darlington could benefit from a reduction of approximately £750 a year in their local council tax. That is a significant saving for every home in my constituency. We cannot ignore the potential savings for that community.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I declare an interest: I was a high street solicitor prior to being elected to this place. I saw on a daily basis the adverse effects on the housing market of stamp duty, which is putting a barrier in the way of home ownership and home moves, causing a bunching of pricing where tax levels change and, basically, using the legal profession as an unpaid tax collector.

A reform to local council revenue and housing market taxes is overdue. Some 30 years since its introduction, we must consider alternatives to council tax. There is the potential to make the system significantly fairer for some of our poorest communities across the country, and we should not dismiss the idea of a proportional property tax too quickly. I look forward to the Minister’s considered responses and thoughts on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of investment zones on the performance of the economy.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

25. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of investment zones on the performance of the economy.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I would like to inform the House that the Chancellor is not with us today because he is at the G7 in Japan.

The refocused investment zones programme will grow the UK economy and bring investment to areas that have traditionally underperformed economically. The programme will catalyse 12 high-potential, knowledge-intensive growth clusters across the UK, including four across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in our key future sectors.

[Peter Gibson]

I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement that the Tees valley will be the location of one of their new investment zones, and this £80 million investment will unlock new opportunities for my region. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is further evidence of levelling up for Darlington and the Tees valley? Can he outline a timescale for when we will see things start to happen?

[John Glen]

The Tees Valley investment zone will boost productivity and drive sectoral growth while providing benefits for the local communities that my hon. Friend represents. The Government want to make rapid progress on delivering investment zones. We are engaging with partners to ensure that we can support those with the ambition to move at speed, and we intend to have all proposals agreed by the end of the financial year, and sooner if at all possible.