Finance Bill

Tim Roca Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her phenomenal maiden speech. She is already proving to be a powerful advocate for her constituents.

The Finance Bill is a necessary corollary to the Budget. It is the beginning of a process that the new Labour Government are undertaking to rebuild the foundations of our country, after an incredibly poor inheritance from the predecessor Government. I have been quite shocked to hear the joy with which Conservative Members have been speaking about the phenomenal economy that they left the country with. It is an economy in which wage growth has flatlined at the lowest level since the Napoleonic wars, leaving households £10,000 worse off per person. Trade has fallen 15% lower than our neighbours’, and national debt went from 64% in 2010 to 96% just before the pandemic. I know they love blaming the pandemic for everything, but things were pretty bad before the pandemic. The heart of the problem is that the Conservatives lack credibility.

In 2010, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) stood for election on a manifesto that said that the Conservatives would “eliminate” the deficit by the end of the Parliament. In 2015, he stood for election on a manifesto that said the same thing, as he did in 2017. In 2019, he and his colleagues decided to give up entirely on tackling the national debt, which is one of many things that we now have to tackle. Of course, that was the more rational end of the previous 14 years, and there were seven Chancellors in 14 years, by the way. We had the blip, which I know Conservative Members do not like talking about, when one of their Chancellors, with the backing of a Prime Minister, Liz Truss, promised £45 billion—2% of GDP—of unfunded tax cuts. I am incredulous that the Conservatives were talking about gilts earlier. Gilts moved more in one week under Liz Truss than in a whole year on average. There is no comparison—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I asked Members to return to debating the Finance Bill, rather than the rather context of the Budget.

[Tim Roca]

I was, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tried to intervene on the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness a number of times, but he would not give way, so I felt I had to squeeze in a couple of points before getting to the Finance Bill.

The Finance Bill includes many important measures that I support. The freeze on fuel duty is an important and welcome decision by the Chancellor. The Conservatives imposed a stealth tax on the country by freezing thresholds on income tax, and the Chancellor rightly committed to changing that in 2028. It was a revenue-raising Budget, but despite all the changes, we will have capital gains and corporation tax rates that are very competitive with those of our G7 colleagues.

My constituency needs this Budget because it needs stability. It needs the investment that this Budget will bring. That investment is crucial because the legacy that I talked about spanned a number of areas, including a lack of public investment. The Institute for Public Policy Research said that nearly £500 billion less was invested in the public sector than in comparable economies, as we can see in our public services, hospitals and schools. The Budget was about choices. It was a difficult Budget, and not a perfect Budget, because of the inheritance. We have to deal with the facts. There was disagreement on the Budget, but people who disagree with the revenue-raising measures and agree with the spending have to say what taxes they would have increased. I say gently to Liberal Democrat colleagues, who have found other sources of income, that the Institute for Fiscal Studies effectively said that their plans to raise income elsewhere had no real credibility.

This is a difficult Budget, but it is the beginning of plotting a course for stability, economic growth and investment in public services in our country. That is what my constituents very much hope will be the legacy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Well, we shall see. As a teacher, he will know that teachers move between the state and independent sectors all the time. They move in both directions, but that is not what the Association of School and College Leaders was talking about. It was talking about the fact that the change is being made mid-year, and said that it carried a risk of redundancies, and of the permanent loss of teachers to the profession.

Labour Members—the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is one of them—frequently like to say to Opposition Members that we have to choose. They say: “Are you on the side of the many or the few? Are you with 94% or the 6%?”. Well, we refuse to choose. It is not a question of whether we care about the 94% or the 6%. We care about the 100%—all the children. It is definitely true and right that at the Department for Education—this was true when I was a Minister there—Ministers spend way more than 94% of their time and effort on the state sector. In our time in government, between 2010 and 2024, that paid off with huge results. When we supported our brilliant teachers in their great work, our results went up. We went from 27th in the world to 11th for maths, and from 25th in the world to 13th for reading. We had the best primary school readers in the western world. Free school meal eligible children were 50% more likely to go on to university, and the number of schools rated less than good was down from one in three to fewer than one in 10. That was through supporting teachers, academy trusts, a broad knowledge-rich curriculum and the propagation and spread—from school to school and teacher to teacher—of proven methods, such as maths mastery and synthetic phonics.

Yes, the system does also need money. Per-pupil funding under the last Government was higher than it was under previous Labour Governments. Among the G7 nations, it was middle of the range in cash per child, and the highest as a proportion of national income. Of course, we have to keep increasing the resourcing that we put into key services, none more so than education, but the Conservatives did that as a priority from general taxation, not by taking from another part of the wider education system. I repeat: the Government do not have to choose. These are all children.

[Tim Roca]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his comment that all the education spending that he mentioned came from general taxation? My understanding is that the figures that he just quoted include the student loan system.

[Damian Hinds]

No, they do not. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the OECD figures, they are for primary, secondary and college-based education in the state sector, but I am grateful to him for his intervention.

When Government Members talk about “the 6%” in the same tone in which they sometimes talk about “the 1%”, I think they believe that they are about to topple the toffs and achieve some sort of great victory in the class war. They are not. Eton college will not miss a heartbeat over this measure. The pupils who will be hit will be those in smaller town schools—the ones that are significant employers locally and a big part of the local community. They do not have big endowments; they do have pretty thin margins. Schools that cater to children with special educational needs will be hit. Denominational schools will be hit.

There have been some concessions from the Government. They are not the most massive concessions in the world, but they are not nothing either. We should acknowledge them, and I thank the Government for them. The first is on the music and dance scheme, with extra help for families with children at the schools in question, albeit that the concession will benefit only a little less than half the total number of families in what is a means-tested scheme anyway. There is also the confirmation that centres for advanced training will be exempt, and of what the Government plan to do on the continuity of education allowance. We need to ensure that those mitigations are more comprehensive than they are now, and that they become permanent.

Of course, the Opposition would prefer the Government to drop this measure altogether and not be the international outlier by taxing education, but if they are determined to bulldoze on, we must have key changes in Committee. We must have an exemption for all children with an EHCP—not only if it specifies the individual school—children who have SEN support, and those who are currently applying for an EHCP. We must have exemptions for schools whose fees are lower than the average charge in the state sector, and for religious denominations where there is no faith school provision in the state sector.

I do not accept the notion that, as Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, members of religious faith communities are not discriminated against by this measure. It may well be that, as a whole, people of faith are not discriminated against more than others because the vast majority of people of religious faith are in the state sector anyway, where there are plenty of Catholic schools, Anglican schools and other denominational schools, but it is not credible in the slightest to claim that there is no discrimination, and that the effect will not be felt much more strongly by members of certain traditions within Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

We also need key postponements. Children who are already in public exam years, or the year before public exams, cannot have their education disrupted in this way. The school that they move to may not even offer the same GCSEs or A-levels, the same exam board or the same syllabus. Most significantly of all, the Government must for good reasons, including simple practical reasons, at least postpone the introduction of the measure in areas where state schools are already full, or almost full, at that stage of education, because the biggest effect of this divisive, destructive tax attack will be on state schools. It will be felt in class sizes, and ultimately in all parents’ ability to get the preferred choice of school for their child.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Tim Roca Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her fantastic maiden speech. She is a really powerful advocate for her constituents. She talked movingly about her father losing his voice, but she has certainly found hers in this place. I was with her on that visit to Ukraine in September, and I still find it incredible that in this day and age, in 2024, it is possible to visit the capital city of a fellow democracy on the European continent and hear air raid sirens and see civilians—women and children—heading for air raid shelters. That is the dystopian future that Vladimir Putin has set out for Ukraine in this terrible war, but also potentially for the rest of the continent if we do not get our act together.

Several times this afternoon, hon. Members have made the powerful point that this is an existential war for the people of Ukraine. They are not fighting for some unforeseeable future, but to ensure their national independence and preserve their sovereignty. Some 3 million Ukrainians are living under occupation at the moment, and the people of Ukraine know what the full occupation of their country would entail: the destruction of their national life and of their liberty. We know this because, despite Vladimir Putin’s mendaciousness, he has set out time and again his historical worldview—his perverted sense of world history and Russian revanchism. There is the essay that he published just before the invasion and the strange speech he gave on the eve of the invasion itself, in which he basically posited the idea that Ukraine was not a real country. Well, it has very much proved to be a real country, and it has defeated him in his evil ambitions for the past two years.

Because this war is existential and because it is crucial for the defence of this country, we have a duty to be realistic. I do not expect Ministers to comment on this today, but we in this Chamber are all very much aware that there has been a sea change in American politics, and that the comments from people who will either be part of the future Administration, or are likely to be part of it, suggest that the United States’ support for Ukraine might not be what it has been. That brings me to the issue that the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) mentioned, which is that we are running up against the clock. We have limited time. We have to be realistic: there is a new Administration coming in, so Europe has to pick up the slack and provide greater leadership.

However, we are also seeing massive changes in Europe. On the day that President Trump was elected, the German Government began to fall apart, and in France, we are seeing a presidency stumble towards the end of its term. The United Kingdom is the country that has to provide the leadership in Europe on these matters, as it has done since the start of the war, but we need to go even further.

The support that Ukraine gets at the moment is already subject to so many restrictions. It has been drip-fed to them over the past two years, rather than giving them what they need right away, which has potentially made the war longer. We have not given the Ukrainians the tools they have needed when they have asked for them. Ukrainians talk about the “long yes”, where European partners say “Yes, of course” and promise delivery of arms, but those arms take months or even years to arrive and make a difference on the battlefield. I wonder whether we would be in a different place if all the systems that have eventually been given to Ukraine had been given at the start of the war.

This Bill is absolutely crucial, as various Members have said, and I support it. I think it is extremely important, but Members have also talked about going further with Russian assets. I can completely understand why, a year or 18 months ago, it might have been rational to think that those assets could be used during the peace negotiations—that they could potentially be the source of funding for rebuilding Ukraine. However, as Members have pointed out several times, there may not be a Ukraine if this war is not won. That is why we have to give serious consideration to unlocking those funds and using them now for the defence of Ukraine.

The last time this country was fighting for its life, in 1940, there was also a presidential election. We were much luckier back then, because both the Democratic and Republican candidates were stalwart allies of the UK in its fight against fascism. This election has changed things, but going back to that time, when President Roosevelt announced lend-lease, he said that when your neighbour’s house is on fire, you do not haggle over the cost of the hose. You give them the hose—you give them what they need to put out the fire—and then you go back to the details later. That is the attitude European partners should have towards the defence of Ukraine.

Earlier today, I mentioned that one of the Defence Ministers has said that the world is becoming darker every day. If this war is not won, the world will be plunged into darkness, because it will send an incredibly dangerous message to other autocracies around the world about the rules-based order and “might is right”, and the refugee crisis that we see here in Europe at the moment will pale into insignificance as millions of Ukrainians flee the prospect of living under Vladimir Putin’s tyranny. As such, I welcome this Bill, but like many colleagues, I hope to see Britain’s leadership continue to grow and for us to go further, seizing Russian assets and giving the Ukrainian people what they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Roca Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Last week, when I was in Washington, I was very pleased to hear the International Monetary Fund say how important it is that countries, including the UK, borrow to invest in their capital infrastructure. Under the plans we inherited from the previous Government, capital spending as a share of GDP is due to fall from 2.6% to 1.7%. If those decisions were to go forward, it would mean plans delayed and cancelled. We will set out our plans tomorrow in the Budget, but it is crucial that we have rules ensuring that we pay for day-to-day spending through tax receipts, and that we borrow only to invest, unlike the previous Government.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

9. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of recent fiscal events on investor confidence in the UK.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

The Conservative party oversaw years of chaos, which cost not only families but businesses. The Government are committed to delivering the economic stability needed for investor confidence. Our commitment to a credible Budget, strong institutions and robust fiscal rules are at the heart of that plan. Earlier this month, we announced a record-breaking £63.5 billion of investment at our international investment summit. That shows that the UK can attract investment from around the world, to boost jobs and growth here in Britain, through serious, stable Government policy.

[Tim Roca]

When does the Chancellor think that the Conservative party lost its fiscal credibility? Was it with the Liz Truss mini-Budget? [Interruption.] Was it when national debt rose from 65% to nearly 100% of GDP? Or was it when they made the farcical promise to abolish national insurance?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Who wants to go for that cup of tea? Normally this happens at Prime Minister’s questions; I do not want it starting in Treasury questions.