Budget Responsibility Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

It is an extraordinary privilege to represent Northampton North in this place. I will continually endeavour to live up to that honour for as long as I am here.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. May I start by congratulating hon. Friends and others on delivering their maiden speeches? It has been a pleasure to be in the Chamber to hear them this afternoon. They will clearly be great champions for their constituencies.

I will take a few moments to remind the House of why we are taking forward the important clauses in the Bill, and to set out the Government’s views on the proposed amendments. At the general election, the Government received a mandate for economic growth. That is the only route to improving prosperity, and it is now our national mission. A crucial first step to achieving it is to deliver economic stability. We have seen what happens without stability: at the 2022 Conservative mini-Budget, huge unfunded fiscal commitments were made without proper scrutiny, and key economic institutions such as the Office for Budget Responsibility were sidelined. That is why we have made a commitment in our manifesto to a fiscal lock that will strengthen the role of the OBR, and why we have taken quick action to deliver on that commitment. That will reinforce credibility and trust by preventing large-scale unfunded commitments that are not subject to an independent fiscal assessment, and proves that we are a responsible Government who will not play fast and loose with the public finances as the previous Government did.

The Bill sets out the legal framework for the operation of the fiscal lock, and builds on the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. In line with that established legal framework, some of the technical detail underpinning the fiscal lock will be set out via an upcoming update to the charter for budget responsibility, a draft of which the Treasury has published to support scrutiny of the Bill today.

I will now talk through the Bill’s two clauses. The first is the main substantive clause, setting out the operation of the fiscal lock. It introduces a new section 4A into part 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, which relates to budget responsibility and was used to legally establish the OBR.

Clause 1 makes five key changes. First, new subsection (1) of section 4A guarantees in law that from now on, every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR. It will require that before a Government Minister makes any fiscally significant announcement to Parliament, the Treasury always requests that the OBR prepare an economic and fiscal forecast. This builds on existing legal frameworks requiring the OBR to produce at least two forecasts per year. Importantly, the OBR’s assessment should include the extent to which the Government are meeting their fiscal mandate. That requirement applies when two or more announcements are made and the combination of measures is fiscally significant, irrespective of whether the measures are announced at the same time. It will also apply separately to costs and savings, so that those cannot be offset against each other.

New subsection (2) strengthens the role of the OBR by requiring it to produce an independent assessment if it judges that the fiscal lock has been triggered. If a fiscally significant announcement is made without the Treasury having previously requested a forecast, the OBR is required to inform the Treasury Committee of this House of its opinion, and then prepare an assessment as soon as is practicable.

New subsection (3) defines a measure or combination of measures as “fiscally significant” if they exceed a specified percentage of GDP. In line with the existing legal framework, the precise threshold will be set via an update to the charter for budget responsibility, a draft of which will be published on gov.uk. The threshold level itself will be set at announcements of at least 1% of nominal GDP in the latest forecast—as an example, this year, that 1% threshold would be £28 billion.

New subsection (4) ensures proper scrutiny of the Government’s fiscal plans without preventing them from responding to emergencies such as the covid-19 pandemic. It sets out that the fiscal lock does not apply in respect of measures that are intended to have a temporary effect and are in response to an emergency. The charter will define “temporary” as any measure that is intended to end within two years. To safeguard against this subsection being used to avoid proper scrutiny, as set out in the updated charter, the OBR will have the discretion to trigger the fiscal lock and prepare a report if it reasonably disagrees.

Finally, new subsection (6) prevents any future Government from choosing to ignore the fiscal lock by simply updating the charter for budget responsibility alongside a fiscally significant announcement. It achieves this by requiring the Government to publish any updates to the detail of the fiscal lock, such as the threshold level at which it is triggered, at least 28 days before the updated charter is laid before Parliament.

Clause 2 sets out when the Bill will come into force and to whom it applies. Subsection (1) confirms that it deals with reserved or excepted matters, and that its provisions extend and therefore apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Subsections (2) and (3) allow for the commencement of the legislation to occur at the appropriate time, as is usual practice. We expect this will take place ahead of the upcoming Budget on 30 October.

I will now turn to the amendments that right hon. and hon. Members have tabled.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Before my right hon. Friend does so, will he give way?

[Darren Jones]

Briefly, yes.

[Karl Turner]

Is this Bill not designed to prevent the recklessness of the previous Tory Government, who effectively crashed the economy, leaving this new Labour Government with the responsibility of putting things right?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that that was one of the reasons we achieved such a large mandate at the last general election, with so many hon. Friends on the Government Benches. We will never play fast and loose with the economy, as Members on the Conservative Benches did, and this Bill will prevent that from happening again in the future.

I start with amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the shadow Chancellor. They would require the OBR to publish a report whenever His Majesty’s Treasury announces new fiscal rules. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no Government can make large-scale announcements of tax and spending without being subject to independent assessment. The Government’s robust fiscal rules will support economic stability, but do not change tax and spending. It is those decisions that matter, as we saw when the previous Conservative Government announced £45 billion of unfunded commitments in the 2022 mini-Budget.

[Andrew Griffith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Darren Jones]

Briefly.

[Andrew Griffith]

The Minister can answer this briefly as well. Could he confirm that he has no plans to change the fiscal rules?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is enjoying himself, but he knows the answer: wait for the Budget.

The amendments from the official Opposition are therefore not necessary. To answer the question from the shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), as I have been invited to do so, the Chancellor has already confirmed that the Government will set out the precise details of our fiscal rules at the Budget on 30 October, alongside an updated OBR forecast.

amendments 6 and 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), focus on the definition of “fiscally significant” measures to which the fiscal lock will apply. They would extend the definition to include measures that have a cumulative effect on public sector net debt or contingent liabilities. I welcome my hon. Friend highlighting this issue, on which I know she has worked for many years. The draft charter text states that measures will trigger the lock when the combined costing is at least 1% of GDP in any year, and specifically:

“The costing of a measure is the direct impact of a policy decision on the public finances”.

It is difficult to set and interpret a threshold consistently for contingent liabilities as they can often be large in maximum exposure, but low in expected or reasonable worst-case losses. Effective management of contingent liabilities is important, and transparency is key to good fiscal management. The Government plan to announce new significant contingent liabilities at fiscal events to make sure there is transparency with Parliament. We will of course continue to notify Parliament of new contingent liabilities, as set out in “Managing Public Money”.

The amendments would also place a condition on policies with a cumulative impact on public sector net debt, and my hon. Friend noted public-private partnerships as an example. She was referring to PFI and PF2 models, which the previous Government had no longer proceeded with, and there has been no change to this policy. As the Chancellor said in her Mais lecture earlier this year, we will also report on wider measures of public sector assets and liabilities at fiscal events to ensure transparency across the whole balance sheet, which includes non-debt liabilities. Reporting transparently on the Government’s stock of contingent liabilities is key to ensuring we do not take excessive risk. I can therefore confirm today that the Government will publish a report on our contingent liabilities. I expect the contingent liability central capability to do this in early 2025. Having said all that, I recognise the issues my hon. Friend raises, and I will arrange to meet her to discuss them further.

Moving on to the Liberal Democrat amendments, amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As she said, it would enable the OBR to notify the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests if the fiscal lock was triggered. I remind hon. Members that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that never again do we find ourselves in a situation, like at the 2022 Liz Truss mini-Budget, in which fiscally significant measures are announced without accompanying OBR analysis. If a future Government were to act in this way, the Bill provides a clear remedy. The OBR is empowered to independently notify the Treasury Committee and to produce its own report. This would be available for full scrutiny by stakeholders and Parliament, which would be able to hold Ministers to account in the normal way. We therefore do not consider the amendment necessary.

Amendment 1, also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would broaden the definition of fiscally significant measures to cover anything that is likely to have an impact on the cost of Government borrowing, interest rates or economic growth. The Bill is focused on preventing irresponsible large-scale fiscal announcements that could undermine macroeconomic stability, such as at the mini-Budget. To support that, we need clear and robust legal frameworks that ensure the provisions are triggered only when appropriate. This requires precise definitions that everyone, including the OBR in particular, can understand clearly and work with practically. It would therefore not be helpful, in the Government’s view, to have a broader, vaguer definition that might repeatedly trigger the fiscal lock under many different circumstances.

Amendments 3 and 4 would require the Treasury to consult the OBR and the Treasury Committee before the charter can be updated for the purposes of the fiscal lock, and to publish a report on the outcome of any such consultations. It is of course important that the views of the OBR and of Parliament are taken into account when making changes to the charter. However, I hope the hon. Member will accept that it will not be necessary to set out this specific process in primary legislation, because the Bill already includes an important safeguard on the fiscal lock, which is the requirement that any changes to the charter for budget responsibility are published in draft at least 28 days before they are laid in the Commons. That will ensure that the OBR, the Treasury Committee, this Parliament and all stakeholders will have a clear opportunity to make representations to the Treasury and to publish their views, as they see fit.

Amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), would require the OBR to take net zero targets into account when preparing a report on fiscally significant announcements. Strong legal frameworks are already in place in the Climate Change Act 2008 to support the transition to net zero in 2050. The Act legislates for interim five-year carbon budgets, and requires the Government to report on those periodically. Parliament and its Select Committees already scrutinise that in great detail. The Green Book, the Treasury’s guidance on how to appraise policies, projects and programmes, requires Departments to assess the climate and environmental impacts of policy proposals, with major bids and proposals at fiscal events being assessed accordingly in that way. We therefore do not consider the amendment to be necessary.

[Ellie Chowns]

Does the Minister agree that having committed to give a net zero mandate to all relevant regulators, the OBR is indeed a highly relevant regulator?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

And it is equipped to do the job it is supposed to do, alongside the other regulatory body that holds the Government to account, the Committee on Climate Change.

In conclusion, I hope I have been able to provide some assurances and that hon. Members will be content to retract their amendments. If not, I urge the House to reject them. I thank other Members for their contributions to the debate. I gently invite the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) to reflect on his own party’s record in crashing the economy through unfunded tax cuts, losing control of public spending and ruining family finances, before offering advice to this Government on fiscal responsibility. I say to the SNP spokesperson, who is not in his place, that I was surprised to see so many discredited Conservative party lines to take in his speech. Who knew that the SNP and the Tory party were one and the same thing?

With this Labour Government our commitment to fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of all our plans. The Bill will guarantee in law that from now on every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR. That delivers on a key manifesto commitment to provide economic stability and sound public finances by strengthening the role of the independent OBR. That is a crucial first step to achieve sustained economic growth, and I commend the Bill to the House.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call shadow Minister Nigel Huddleston.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will not detain the House long by repeating the arguments that I made in my opening comments, but I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, and in particular by his refusal to accept our amendments. It is alarming that he is refusing to do so because, as I outlined, I believe they are consistent with the goals of the Bill overall, and I think the credibility of the Bill will be seriously undermined if it does not include the fiscal rules. I like the Minister a lot. We go back a way and have always had civil conversations, but if he does not believe or consider the level, type and definition of debt to be “fiscally significant”, then with the greatest respect perhaps the Treasury is not the right home for him. They are transparently fiscally significant, and an important part of the consideration we are talking about today.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for inviting me to suggest whether I should try to find a job in another Department. I just point out that, having arrived at the Treasury, I have seen the impact of fiscally significant levels of debt after 14 years of the Conservative Government. Has he got anything to say to the House on that matter?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes, I have indeed. As I outlined in my original statement, the arguments the right hon. Member is making do not stack up with the facts. The economic circumstances that Labour inherited are better in many areas than those we inherited from them back in 2010. The economy is the fastest growing in the G7. On unemployment, every Labour Government since the second world war has increased it while in power, for us to then clear up and reduce it when we take over. Inflation was lower when Labour took power then when we inherited it, and annual debt was higher when we took over in 2010.

Labour Members keep saying all those things, but the challenge is that it does not stack up with the facts. They make arguments about the level of debt, as I outlined earlier, but they have already announced £10 billion for inflation-busting salary increasing for their union mates, £8 billion on energy provisions, and £7 billion on the national wealth fund. That is £25 billion of additional money that they have spent. If there is a black hole in the finances, it is clearly one of their own making by the announcements they have made since coming into government. That £25 billion is a huge amount of money, but I will finish discussing those points, because we had this debate earlier.

[Darren Jones]

rose—

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will not give way at the moment, because I want to move on to some more positive things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

I will not take up too much more time, but I will provide a final reminder of how important this legislation is. At the general election, the Government received a mandate for economic growth. Sustained growth is the only route to improve prosperity and to improve the living standards of the British people. It is now our national mission.

Economic stability is key to achieving this. We have seen what happens without it, when huge, unfunded fiscal commitments are made without proper scrutiny and when key economic institutions such as the OBR are sidelined. We cannot let ourselves get into that position again. Unfunded, unassessed spending commitments not only threaten the public finances, they can threaten people’s incomes and mortgages, as we saw under the previous Government.

I therefore encourage Conservative Members—who have told us today that, after 14 years of Conservative government, the economy has never been so good—to reflect, if only for a moment, on why they lost all credibility for economic competence and suffered the worst election result in their history.

Once again, I congratulate all my hon. Friends and other hon. Members on their excellent maiden speeches today. I thank hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, and I thank the Clerks and officials who have supported the Bill’s rapid passage.

The Budget Responsibly Bill forms a small but vital part of our plan to restore economic stability and deliver economic growth. For these reasons, I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debates on the Bill, both today and before the summer recess, especially new Members who have made their maiden speech: the hon. Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) and for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby). They all spoke incredibly well, with passion and eloquence, and we wish them well for their time in the House.

We Conservatives believe that sound public finances, fiscal responsibility and independent forecasts are the foundation of economic stability, which is why it was a Conservative Government who created the OBR more than a decade ago, and it is why today we tabled our amendments to improve the Bill and stop Labour moving the goalposts on the fiscal rule. By voting against our sensible proposal, Labour Members have shown they are not serious about our public finances. What are they trying to hide? It is clear that the purpose of the Bill is to distract everyone from Labour’s economic record and pave the way for tax rises in the autumn Budget.

Let us examine Labour’s economic record. The party has been in government for just nine weeks and has already carried out nine acts of economic vandalism. It has removed the winter fuel allowance from 10 million pensioners despite promising not to; caved in to its union paymasters by agreeing inflation-busting pay rises; failed to commit to investing 2.5% of national income on defence; cancelled vital infrastructure upgrades on the A27 and A303; cut funding for a vaccine manufacturing plant that would protect our health; imposed Whitehall diktats to concrete over our green spaces; stopped Conservative plans to build 40 new hospitals; scrapped funding for a next-generation supercomputer, undermining our status as a tech superpower; and appointed Labour donors to senior civil service jobs without open competition. Nine weeks, nine acts of economic vandalism.

We know there is more harm to come, with Labour’s autumn Budget set to raise taxes. During the election campaign, Labour promised over 50 times not to raise people’s taxes, but the Labour Government are planning to do just that. It will be hard-working people, pensioners and businesses who will pay the price. May I invite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to return to the Dispatch Box to rule out raising taxes on working people, such as drivers, savers and business owners? At the same time, will he rule out changing the fiscal rules to allow for more Government borrowing and debt?

[Darren Jones]

I always welcome the opportunity to return to the Dispatch Box, and I thank the shadow Minister for inviting me to do so. Opposition provides an opportunity for reflection. While he is offering his thoughts on our two months in office—two months of great relief for the British people—does he have anything to say about his 14 years in office before the election?

[Alan Mak]

I think the answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is no, which confirms everything we already knew. It means that the people can never trust Labour with our economy, that Labour will raise taxes and cut investment at every opportunity and that Labour’s honeymoon is well and truly over.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

House of Commons Commission

Resolved,

That

(1) in pursuance of section 1(2)(d) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, Rachel Blake be appointed to the House of Commons Commission, and

(2) in pursuance of section 1(2B) of that Act, the appointment of Shrinivas Honap as an external member of the Commission be extended to 30 September 2026.—(Lucy Powell.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What fiscal steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform the planning system.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

We have committed ourselves to delivering 1.5 million new homes as part of our mission to achieve economic growth across the country, and we have already announced reforms of national planning policy that will help to get Britain building. They include the reintroduction of mandatory housing targets, and the removal of the effective ban on onshore wind in England.

[Alice Macdonald]

If unlocked, Anglia Square, a significant brownfield site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), could provide more than 1,000 homes and many jobs. The last Government failed to support the progression of this important site. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what local authorities such as Norwich city council can expect from this Government’s approach to delivering brownfield sites with partners?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her follow-up question and welcome her to her place. As she knows from the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister, this Government take seriously our target to deliver 1.5 million new homes, and we will look at each and every opportunity across the country to do so. That includes making improvements to the system of developer contributions for community benefit to support the delivery of affordable housing and local infrastructure.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister knows that the planning system is built on the ability to make millionaires at the stroke of a pen as a result of passing planning permission, which does not necessarily result in developments that are in the best interests of a local community. Surely there is more that the Government can do to ensure that we tip the planning system towards meeting need, rather than greed.

[Darren Jones]

The issue of so-called hope value was referenced in the Labour party’s manifesto, and the Government will set out further detail in due course.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

3. What fiscal steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to encourage inward investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

T3. The prospect of the financial collapse of a major utility company such as Thames Water should cause us all grave concern given not only what it would mean for consumers in my constituency and many constituencies like it, but the wider implications it would carry for our economy and the Government finances. Does the Chancellor therefore agree that putting Thames Water into special administration and reforming it would protect not just consumers, including my constituents, but the wider economy?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

Water companies are commercial entities. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on that. It is for the company and its investors to resolve their possible issues.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T8. For decades, members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme in Cannock Chase and across the country have seen billions go to successive Governments. With an average of 19 scheme members passing away every day, resolution cannot come too soon. What progress has been made on transferring the Government’s share of the MPS investment reserve to scheme members?

[Darren Jones]

I championed this issue in the last Parliament as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. I am pleased to confirm that I am working with colleagues across Government to make progress, and I will update the House further in due course.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T6. Stories of crumbling public infrastructure are all too common. Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove has had to close buildings because their condition was no longer deemed safe, and we have seen footage of medics having to wade through flooded corridors when pipes have burst. The allocated capital money simply cannot cover the repairs backlog. How will the Chancellor ensure that hospitals such as Stepping Hill can access the capital investment they need both to repair crumbling buildings and to deliver additional sites where needed?

[Darren Jones]

The Government are reviewing the new hospitals programme as part of our spending review. We will undertake a full and comprehensive review while continuing to deliver the most advanced and most urgent hospitals in a realistic timeframe.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T9. The letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the former Chancellor that emerged this morning clearly stated that the failure by the last Government to hold a spending review following the unexpected national and global pressures significantly contributed to the fiscal challenge that the Labour Government inherited. What can the Chancellor learn from this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

A forthcoming Transparency International report has identified 28 contracts worth £4.1 billion that were awarded to parties with direct political connections to the Conservative party, so can the Chancellor update us on the progress in appointing the covid corruption commissioner and whether they will take evidence from corruption campaigners such as Transparency International?

[Darren Jones]

We are appointing a fixed-term covid fraud commissioner through an open competition that is now running as of this morning. The commissioner will make sure everything is done to return money owed to the taxpayer. It will report to the Chancellor, working with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and will report to Parliament in due course.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The economic potential of the Brigg and Immingham constituency and the wider Humber region is heavily dependent on the renewable energy sector. However, there is a cloud on the horizon, with the future of Scunthorpe steelworks in doubt. Can the Chancellor give an assurance that if there are redundancies at Scunthorpe, there will be a generous package of support for workers and investment through the local authority to redevelop the area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As Departments are preparing their spending review submissions, will the Chancellor and her team consider allowing the international development budget to be on the same footing as the research and development budget, and looked at over 10 years, so that we can get back to the 0.7% figure? Will she be willing to meet me and a delegation to discuss the benefits of that approach to such an important budget?

[Darren Jones]

The Government’s spending review is currently under way. All decisions on official development assistance spending will be taken in the round as part of that process. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues to discuss this issue.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

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

I congratulate you and welcome you to your place in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to open this debate in my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a Minister in this new Labour Government.

At the general election, the British people voted for change, and this new Labour Government began work immediately to deliver on that mandate. Sustained growth is the only route to the improved prosperity that this country needs and to improve the living standards of the British people. After 14 years of Conservative failure, this work is urgent—it is now our national mission. To deliver on that mission, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out days after taking office, we must fix the foundations of the economy and restore economic stability. She emphasised that commitment to delivering economic stability by meeting with the Office for Budget Responsibility soon after becoming Chancellor.

Under the legal framework we inherited from the Conservative party, there is no requirement on the Treasury to subject fiscally significant announcements to independent OBR scrutiny. We all experienced what happens when huge unfunded fiscal commitments are made without proper scrutiny and key economic institutions such as the OBR are sidelined. The country cannot afford a repeat of the calamitous mini-Budget of September 2022, when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s reckless plans unleashed economic turmoil that has loaded hundreds of pounds on to people’s mortgages and rents. Conservative Ministers put ideology before sound public money and party before country.

This Labour Government are turning the page: we will always put the country first and party second. Our commitment to fiscal discipline and sound money will never waver. That is why we are firmly committed to the independence of the OBR, and to the important principle that in normal times, the announcement of a fiscally significant measure should always be accompanied by an independent assessment of its economic and fiscal implications, in order to support transparency and accountability. That is why we made a commitment in our manifesto to strengthen the role of the OBR, and it is why we have acted quickly to deliver on that commitment today.

This action will reinforce credibility and trust by preventing large-scale unfunded commitments that are not subject to an independent fiscal assessment. As Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, reiterated in his recent letter to the Chancellor,

“it is a good principle of fiscal policymaking that major fiscal decisions should be based upon, and presented alongside, an up-to-date view of the economic and fiscal outlook”.

In line with this, the Chancellor yesterday commissioned a full forecast to accompany our Budget on 30 October, following the important principle that significant fiscal policy decisions should be made at a fiscal event and accompanied by an independent OBR assessment. That fiscal lock is an essential part of our mission to deliver economic stability. It is one of our first steps towards fixing the foundations of the economy, and it is our guarantee to the British people that this Labour Government are a responsible Government who will never play fast and loose with public and family finances, as the Conservative party has done before.

The Bill sets the legal framework for the operation of the fiscal lock. It builds on the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, which established the OBR. In line with that, the technical detail underpinning the fiscal lock will be set out via an upcoming update to the charter for budget responsibility. The charter sets out the Government’s fiscal framework, including guidance on how the OBR performs its duties within that framework. To support scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through Parliament, the Treasury has published a draft of the relevant charter text, which will make clear exactly how the Government plan to implement the fiscal lock. A full update to the charter will be published in due course, and Members will vote on it in the usual way.

The Bill itself does five things to ensure that proper scrutiny of fiscal plans will take place. First, it requires the Treasury, before the Government make any fiscally significant announcement in Parliament, to request that the OBR presents an assessment taking the announcement into account. This builds on the usual process whereby the Chancellor commissions the OBR for an economic and fiscal forecast to accompany a fiscal event. It guarantees in law that, from now on, every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR.

Secondly, the Bill gives the OBR new powers to independently decide to produce an assessment if they judge that the fiscal lock has been triggered. If a fiscally significant announcement is made without the Treasury having previously requested a forecast from the OBR, the OBR is required to inform the Treasury Committee of its opinion and then prepare an assessment as soon as is practicable. That means that, come what may, the OBR, through Parliament, will be able to hold the Government to account.

Thirdly, the Bill defines a measure, or combination of measures, as “fiscally significant” if they exceed a specified percentage of GDP, with the charter then setting the precise threshold itself. Setting the threshold in this way provides clarity for both the OBR and external stakeholders about what constitutes a “fiscally significant announcement”—that is, when the fiscal lock has been triggered—and it ensures that the Government can set it at the right level going forward, recognising economic conditions. The threshold level will be set at announcements of at least 1% of nominal GDP in the latest OBR forecast. As an example, this year the 1% threshold would be £28 billion. This will ensure that we properly capture any announcements that resemble the growth plan of former Members Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng in 2022, with the broader risks to macroeconomic stability that this entailed.

Fourthly, the Bill ensures that the fiscal lock does not apply to Governments responding to emergencies, such as the covid-19 pandemic. The Bill does so by not applying in respect of measures that are intended to have a temporary effect and which are in response to an emergency. The charter will define “temporary” as any measure that is intended to end within two years. This recognises that it is sometimes reasonable—for example during a pandemic—for the Government to act quickly and decisively without an OBR assessment, if that is needed in response to a shock. Of course, in emergencies it may be appropriate for the Chancellor to commission a forecast from the OBR to follow measures that needed to be announced or implemented rapidly, and that would happen in the usual way. Alongside any such announcement, the Treasury will be required to make it clear why it considers the situation to be an emergency. As set out in the updated charter, the OBR will have the discretion to trigger the fiscal lock and prepare a report if it reasonably disagrees.

Fifthly and finally, the Bill requires the Government to publish any updates to the detail of the fiscal lock—such as the threshold level at which it is triggered—in draft form at least 28 days before the updated charter is laid before Parliament. This is an essential safeguard in the Bill, preventing any future Government from choosing to ignore the fiscal lock by updating the charter without the consent of Parliament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is setting out the stark realities of where we are financially, which it is important that we all understand. Given that the financial positions of all of us within the United Kingdom could be fairly dramatically changed, regionally, it will be important that discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament take place early enough for the impacts of what might happen to be better understood.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. As I am sure he knows, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is traditionally the lead Minister in Government for relationships with the Finance Ministers in the devolved Governments. I have already met a number of times with counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as those in Scotland and Wales. I look forward to meeting them in person in Northern Ireland, I hope in September, for further such discussions.

To conclude, people across the country are still suffering the consequences of the Conservative party’s economic experiment in 2022. Conservative Ministers took the most reckless decisions without any thought for their real-life impact on the British economy and on family finances. Astonishingly, they have still made no apology.

With this Labour Government, our commitment to fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of our plans. The Budget Responsibility Bill guarantees in law that, from now on, every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR. The Bill will reinforce credibility and trust by preventing large-scale unfunded commitments that are not subject to the scrutiny of an OBR fiscal assessment. This delivers on a key manifesto commitment to provide economic stability and sound public finances by strengthening the role of the independent OBR. This is a crucial first step to fix the foundations in our economy, so that we can achieve sustained economic growth and make every part of the country better off.

For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

The only productivity improvement we have seen from this Government is the awarding of wasteful contracts. On top of all the PPE waste that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to, there are still £1 billion-worth of unresolved PPE contracts that this Government awarded, but that have not been delivered on. Only one company, PPE Medpro, is facing legal action. Why are the Government not taking legal action against the other companies that have not delivered on their contract with members of the public?

[Jeremy Hunt]

Let me be clear: there is absolutely no hiding place for anyone, whether they are connected to the Conservative party, the Labour Party or any other party. If they have defrauded the taxpayer, we will go after them.

[Darren Jones]

The Chancellor says that he is making progress, and that there is no hiding place, but that money belongs to our public services. The Government know that the contracts have not been delivered on, but they will not reveal the names of the companies and the contracts that have not been delivered on. If there is no hiding place, why would the Chancellor not name them today?

[Jeremy Hunt]

Because we are taking legal action, and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, when we take legal action, that information belongs to the police.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). As we all know, it is sheer luck to come top of the private Member’s Bill ballot, but drafting a Bill that generates strong cross-party support and becomes law is the result of tremendous hard work. This is a classic private Member’s Bill that, as she suggested, might look technical in nature but will make a huge difference to those people affected. The Bill is also true to Labour and Co-operative values, and we in the Labour party are delighted to support it.

My hon. Friend has worked painstakingly over many months to draft and develop the Bill, engaging with Treasury civil servants and Ministers. She has also worked closely with Labour’s sister party, the Co-operative party, and the wider mutual sector, including the Building Societies Association and Nationwide. We have heard excellent contributions in the debate that have highlighted the importance of the sector and the positive impact that the Bill will have for communities and families, not least in the context of bank branch closures across the country.

Building societies and mutuals have a long and proud tradition of supporting working people in accessing affordable finance. Today, the sector continues to play a crucial role in promoting financial responsibility and resilience among its members. Building societies also enable families to get on the housing ladder. As we have heard, they direct a significant proportion of their lending to first-time buyers, and the Bill could unlock significant additional lending capacity from building societies, supporting more working people to become homeowners, not least in my constituency of Bristol North West, where so many people are struggling to buy their first home.

Since the Bill first came before the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has launched the Labour party’s financial services review. That landmark review outlines Labour’s plan to work hand in hand with businesses and the financial services sector to drive economic prosperity. It also reaffirms what the first priority will be of a Labour Government: to provide a secure platform for growth, which builds on the strengths of our economy and gives citizens across the UK financial stability. To deliver on those priorities, a key aspect of the review is Labour’s commitment that the next Labour Government will aim to double the size of the co-operative and mutual financial services sector under. The Bill is an important step towards achieving that aim, as it will help to level the playing field for banks and building societies.

While Labour strongly welcomes the measures in the Bill, we believe that further legislation is necessary to deliver on our ambitions and ensure benefits for communities across the country. That is why our review set out measures that will help to underpin rapid mutual financial services growth, including new requirements on regulators and policymakers to: consider properly the needs of mutuals and actively reduce barriers to their growth; support credit unions in offering more products; and strengthen the small and medium-sized enterprises bank referral scheme, in order to support businesses in securing financial resources from co-operatives and mutuals.

Labour’s ambition, working together with the Co-operative party and the wider co-operative and mutual sector, is clear: to support the sector, so that the vital contribution that it makes to our economy can go further and drive much needed growth in the future. Labour recognises that the Bill is an important step forward, and we are delighted to give it our full support. May I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on her excellent work?

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

Why does the Treasury Minister think people feel worse off after 14 years of Conservative Government?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I said, we are turning a corner and have therefore made measures to put money back into people’s pockets. I do not think it would come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, or to those of any Labour Member looking at the Labour Opposition’s recent record, that Labour claimed on the one hand that it was supportive of tax cuts, but last week failed to support those tax cuts when it came to it in Parliament.

[Darren Jones]

The Minister did not answer the question about why the public feel worse off. We on the Labour side of the House know why. He mentions tax cuts, but he does not talk about the freezing of tax thresholds, or indeed about the council tax that is about to be levied on people, not just this year but each year for the next five years. Why cannot he admit that, for every 10p extra in the pound taken from people since 2010, the Government are only now giving back just 5p?

[Nigel Huddleston]

If I am hearing correctly, the Labour Front Benchers are announcing fundamental changes to policy that they have not yet costed. They did not object, as far as I am aware, to any of the measures required to support households and businesses during the pandemic, which necessitated increases in taxation. We are now reducing the level of taxation because we have turned a corner. They did not support that. It is interesting that they say one thing but then do not take action. I think they need to explain to their constituents why they failed to support the tax cuts last week.

Budget Resolutions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I am starting to worry about right hon. and hon. Members of the Conservative party—not just because there are so few of them here today to defend their Budget, but because of their state of mind. I am not sure whether it is confusion, delusion or denial, but whatever it is, they need an intervention from the public.

On Conservative confusion, the Chancellor called this a tax-cutting Budget, but the independent forecasts confirm that the tax burden is due to go up each and every year over the next five years. On Conservative delusion, the Chancellor called this a Budget for a long-term plan for growth, but in the middle of this recession, the growth forecast per person was downgraded once again, after seven quarters of decline. On Conservative denial, which is the worst of the three examples, the Conservative party came out of the Budget promising to abolish national insurance contributions altogether —an irresponsible, unfunded and massive spending commitment costing £46 billion a year, all without a plan to pay for it.

[Alan Brown]

The Budget bakes in post-election cuts of between £19 billion and £20 billion, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there is a conspiracy of silence from both the Conservatives and the Labour party. The Labour party has committed to sticking with the Tories’ spending plans. On the conspiracy of silence, will Labour keep the £20 billion of departmental cuts, or will it raise funds to offset that?

[Darren Jones]

Two short answers: first, we are not sticking to the Conservatives’ spending plans and, secondly, the OBR forecasts Conservative party failure, not the success that the Labour party will bring to this country and the economy.

I know that Conservative Ministers do not like to think about their fourth Prime Minister since 2010, who only recently crashed the economy off the back of unfunded tax cuts, sending mortgage bills rocketing, but they really do not need to look back far in history to understand the risks of a £46 billion unfunded tax cut promise. They do not even need to ask their predecessors about the consequences of such risky behaviour, because the British people are still paying the price today for their economic vandalism through higher mortgage and rent costs every single month. Conservative Ministers need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they have learned anything from the last 14 years in office. I have given just a few examples of confusion, delusion, denial and risk-taking with the economy, which prove that the biggest threat to the economy is the Conservative party.

[Stephen Doughty]

On the subject of confusion and the unfunded £46 billion commitment on national insurance contributions, my hon. Friend will note that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would not give clarity on the date for her Government’s promise, yet the Chancellor said in an email to Conservative party members that he wanted to make progress on that promise “in the next Parliament”. Other members of the Government are saying completely different things. Is this not an example of the chaos that the Conservatives are in?

[Darren Jones]

That is yet more evidence of the Conservatives’ ill discipline. Last time, they wanted to disregard the Office for Budget Responsibility, and announced unfunded tax cuts; now the former Chancellor supports these new, unfunded tax cuts, and yet again the Government are not giving the OBR the information that it needs to make policy forecasts.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between an ambition and a promise?

[Darren Jones]

I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain that to the public. Given that the Conservative party makes promises at every single election and fails to deliver them, I think the public have the same question in mind.

Moving on to the confusion about this being a tax-cutting Budget, the Budget documents confirm that the United Kingdom has the highest tax burden in 70 years, and that burden rises each and every year for the next five years under the Conservatives, so overall, taxes are going up, not down. Figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that for every 10p extra in tax paid by working people, the Conservatives give only 5p back. That is why the public see the measures as a pre-election giveaway by the Conservatives—but it is no giveaway at all, given that successive Conservative Chancellors have taken double what they now promise to give back.

This is bad news, and not just for those already paying taxes. Tax thresholds are being frozen for the next five years, which will increase the tax take overall by an additional £40 billion, so 3.7 million people, including pensioners, who are not paying tax at all will do so by 2028-29 under the Conservatives. The tax burden is going up; Conservative Ministers are taking more in tax than they say they will give back; and more people will pay tax after this Budget, so I have to ask: why are Conservative Ministers calling this a tax-cutting Budget at all?

May I gently point out that the Scottish National party is just as bad? In Scotland, the SNP has increased taxes on working people, so that even the low paid pay more in tax in Scotland than they would in England, yet the SNP campaigns against the windfall tax on the big oil and gas companies. Are SNP Members really putting oil and gas company tax cuts ahead of tax cuts for working people?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

rose—

[Darren Jones]

I was waiting for an intervention from the SNP. Is the hon. Gentleman an SNP Member?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am not in the SNP, but I do like a bit of accuracy and proof. The reality is that those earning under £28,000 are not paying more tax. The hon. Gentleman’s reference is a straight lift from an article in the Holyrood magazine. It was a very good article otherwise, but on that little bit, it was not very accurate at all.

[Darren Jones]

I read the article on the BBC, which I can assure the hon. Gentleman is a pretty reliable source of information. If the SNP wants to tell teachers and nurses earning £28,000 a year that they are high earners, I encourage it to do so in the general election coming up this year.

Labour first called for a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies in January 2022. The Conservatives finally agreed to introduce the energy profits levy in May that year, though there were significant holes in the Government’s approach. Since then, Labour Members have been pressing Ministers to close them. Ahead of the general election, we have set out our plans for an energy profits levy if we win. We will increase the levy to the same rate of tax as in Norway, end the windfall tax investment allowances, and maintain the levy until the end of the next Parliament, with a statutory sunset clause, if there continue to be windfall profits. We have set out our plans now to give those operating in the North sea as much certainty as possible when making future investment decisions. To give further certainty, I can put on record today that we fully support an energy security investment mechanism, and we will therefore support Budget resolution 18 today.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about how this has been a high-tax, high-debt Government, but at the same time they have been presiding over low living standards. Does he agree that the £17 rise in real weekly earnings under the Conservatives is in huge contrast to wages rising by £183 under Labour? While they have been presiding over low living standards without any plan to sort that out, we will have higher living standards and lower bills under Labour.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which I think reflects the mood of the public. When Conservative Ministers stand up and say that we have never had it so good, people at home look at their payslip and their bank balance and realise that is not the case.

Let us now turn to the delusion of this Budget being a so-called long-term plan for growth. The independent evidence is clear: this will be the worst Parliament on record for living standards. It is the only Parliament where living standards have fallen instead of risen, with real pay having gone up by only £17 a week under the Conservatives, compared with £183 a week under the last Labour Government, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out. The Chancellor could not bring himself to say the R-word, but the Budget documents confirm that, despite 22 Budgets or statements from successive Conservative Chancellors over these past 14 years in which they promised they would get the economy growing, we are now in recession—a recession that for working people has been felt for some time.

We have had seven quarters of downgraded growth per person extended by a further downgrade in the Budget last week. That is the longest period of stagnation since the 1950s, with an economy that has shrunk on a per capita basis since the Prime Minister took office and overall GDP forecast to increase only because of a dependence on migrant labour. That is quite the record for a Conservative party that promised to reduce migration and get the economy growing.

[Tim Farron]

The issue in rural communities such as mine is that growth is being hampered, despite there being demand, because hospitality and tourism businesses do not have a big enough workforce to support it. In the Lakes, 63% of hospitality businesses are not at capacity because they do not have the staff. Part of that is a result of silly visa rules, so will he look at those again? The other reason is the lack of affordable housing for local families. Would he allow local authorities, and give them the finance, to once again build social rented homes, so that we have enough homes to enable people to work in communities such as ours?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is right. What we need is a country that creates the opportunities and jobs for people who need them in the areas in which they live, whether that is about affordable housing, delivering transport infrastructure on time and on budget—something the Conservative party seems unable to do—or ensuring workers have access to skills and training so that they can take the jobs available in their local communities. The Conservatives have consistently failed on those measures, which is why they are so dependent on migrant labour to keep the economy above a recessionary level in the Budget forecasts.

Turning to the denial of the Conservative party, its £46 billion a year plan to abolish national insurance contributions altogether is an irresponsible, unfunded, massive spending commitment without a plan to pay for it. The public rightly look to their national insurance contributions as the bedrock of our welfare state, where working people and their employers all contribute towards funding our national health service and the state pension. It was originally designed as an insurance to give people the financial help they needed during illness and unemployment.

Given the Conservatives’ pledge—confirmed again across the Dispatch Box today—to abolish national insurance altogether, without a plan to pay for the £46 billion annual cost, what do they propose to cut? Will it be funding for our GPs, driving patients to pay for private health care? Will it be the right to be seen in the local hospital? Maybe they will cut support towards the cost of social care, or end incapacity benefit or jobseeker’s allowance. Maybe there would even be a reduction in the state pension itself. What is it? The public have a right to know—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to an intervention from Ministers if they can tell us how they are going to fund their £46 billion tax cut. There are no interventions.

The Conservatives must answer this question. After their previous Prime Minister and their previous Chancellor crashed the economy through a £45 billion tax cut, they are now celebrating the latest form of a £46 billion tax cut. How will it be funded? Surely not through higher taxes or higher borrowing, given that both are at record highs already.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives should come clean about whether their plan to abolish £46 billion of national insurance contributions will mean putting up taxes on working people, cutting spending on public services or borrowing billions, like the previous Prime Minister, and risking crashing the economy again?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. Ministers should answer this question and I am repeatedly giving them the opportunity to do so. What is the answer to the question? How will the Conservatives fund their £46 billion unfunded tax cut commitment? We can only assume, given that taxes are the highest they have been for 70 years and borrowing is the highest it has been for many decades, that further cuts must be coming from the Conservatives to our national health service and our state pension. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives’ plan to abolish national insurance is not just fiscally irresponsible but morally abhorrent. In contrast, the Labour party will never promise to do anything it cannot pay for—[Interruption.] I seem to have woken them up on the Government Benches. I encourage them to continue to try to answer the questions we put to them.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on national insurance. Does he agree that the plan to abolish national insurance raises fundamental questions about the future of the state pension? Even if income tax were increased by 8p in the pound to pay for it, the question of eligibility for the state pension and other contributory benefits would be very difficult to address.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, for raising that important and, I might say, obvious question. The public will want to know the answer. Why are Conservative Ministers not telling the Office for Budget Responsibility how they plan to pay for this £46 billion unfunded tax cut? When do they plan to do so? Why can they not tell the House today how they will pay for this £46 billion unfunded tax cut? The public will have to look at what the Conservatives are offering, and at their record in office over these past 14 years, and make a judgment call.

I started my speech by highlighting my concern for Conservative Ministers, given their obvious state of confusion, delusion and denial, but my real concern is elsewhere. My concern is for working people who are paying more in tax than ever before; for pensioners who are dragged into paying tax out of their fixed income for the first time; for families who are struggling with the cost of living crisis and seeing the economy going in the wrong direction; for our national health service that is now presumably at threat from the £46 billion unfunded promise to abolish national insurance contributions with no plan for how to pay for it; and for our country which, after 14 years of Conservative failure, is exhausted, on its knees and staring into the abyss.

We are all fed up with the weak leadership that the latest Conservative Prime Minister is offering our country. We are bored to the back teeth with the Conservative party’s chaos and infighting taking priority over the country. We want to get our economy back on track and our public services back on their feet, to close the book on 14 years of Conservative failure and to get Britain its future back. I have only one ask of the Conservative party today: to set the date for the general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I am happy to be welcomed to intervene, but the debate is about the Conservative Budget here in Westminster. If the SNP has questions to answer about its performance in Government, it should do so in Scotland.

[Richard Thomson]

That was absolutely ridiculous—a complete waste of time. The reason I brought it up was that the hon. Gentleman brought it up; clearly his memory is very short.

Scotland needed much more money for investment in infrastructure, the public sector and public services, but the UK Government have let us down again in this Budget. Any attempt at boosting productivity—that is the subject of this debate, although I did not hear a great deal of mention of productivity from either Front Bencher—will run headlong into the effects of the austerity that has been prevalent since the financial crisis of 2008.

We know from first hand the impact that austerity has had on public services across the UK. As a result of those spending choices, investment levels in the UK remain the lowest of any country in the G7. Research by the UK in a Changing Europe group has found that investment is 10% lower than it would have been if we had remained in the EU. and that our GDP is already 5% lower. If the Government want to increase productivity and drive investment, it is clear that they to do more to recognise the vital role they have to play through their capital expenditure.

Capital expenditure is what maintains our infrastructure. It is what builds houses, replaces hospitals and schools, maintains roads and, crucially, drives and encourages private investment. It is utterly bizarre that as a consequence of their spending decisions here, the UK Government will be cutting the Scottish Government’s capital budget in real terms by 10% over the next five years.

Another key area where the Budget does nothing to shift the dial is research and development, as I have said before. The UK lags behind our European competitors when it comes to overall levels of investment in research and development, but London and the south-east are taking the lion’s share of even that reduced amount. Wales and the north of England lag behind. Scotland holds its own, but if the Government genuinely want to level up—not words we hear paired with each other terribly often these days—they need to shift the dial and start to address inequalities inherent in the way the Government carry out business as usual.

Let me turn to energy. The decision to continue the energy profits levy can only be described as a slap in the face for all the bold and brave Scottish Conservative politicians who were boasting about how they were going to personally oppose it and get rid of it. However, the Labour proposals to increase its level further risks killing the goose that laid the golden egg. I am a big fan of the way the Norwegians have run their oil and gas sector. Scotland and the UK would be in a much better place if we had done the same, but the UK basin is closer to the end of its life than much of the Norwegian basin. Simply saying everything will be alright on the night if we tax at the same level as Norway puts investment decisions on a precipice. I caution the Labour party to think about that carefully if or when it forms the next Government. Increasing taxes beyond their current level in that industry risks putting tens of thousands of jobs on the line.

Finally, we are all quite bored with weak leadership, but does leadership get any weaker than a party taking its one and only identifiable policy—investing £28 billion in renewable energy—and throwing it on the fire because its leader is absolutely terrified of losing political ground to the weakest and worst Conservative Government any of us have the misfortune to remember in our lifetime?

It is absolutely vital not just for the country, but particularly for the north-east of Scotland, to get the energy transition right. Labour is absolutely correct to say that it will have a pretty dismal economic inheritance from the current UK Government, but, my goodness, what a dismal legacy Labour will leave for the Government who eventually replace it if it continues on the current path. That is why Scotland needs to be away from both the Labour and Conservative Front-Bench teams and making decisions for ourselves as a fully sovereign independent country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

It is not our plan to resurrect anything from the mini-Budget. We have our plan and we set it out in our Budget.

As the son of a doctor and a pharmacist, as many of us are on the Government Benches, I am mindful that any good doctor will say that in order for the medicine to work, one has to complete the course and stick to the plan. This Budget sticks to the plan we set out in 2023 and has three key objectives: to reward work, to grow the economy and to improve productivity. Before I get on to those points, I will address some of the remarks made by hon. Members during the debate.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) made a point about some of the most vulnerable in our country and their access to credit. I commend her long-standing support for her constituents, including the most vulnerable. We are extending the household support fund, as she will know, and we are making it easier to access the debt relief order. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) welcomed the decision to extend the household support fund. In response to his question about making the fund permanent, that is a decision for the next fiscal event, whenever that will be.

I say to Members of all parties who are concerned for the most vulnerable that this is a Budget and a Government for them. Since 2010, the real income—the take-home pay—of those working full time on the national living wage is 35% greater than it was in 2010. On rewarding work, thanks to the actions that this Government have already taken, falling inflation means that wages in real terms are on the up, even while unemployment is low. In response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), real household incomes overall have increased by 8% since 2010. But we all know that we can go further. The simplest and most effective way to do so is by reducing people’s taxes and getting rid of the double taxation on work, which means reducing national insurance.

I was listening carefully to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is a man I rather like. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I rather admire him. We came to the House at the same time. We are practically the same age—he is about five months younger than me, but let us not go into that. But I was very surprised to hear him say—he can intervene on me if this is not correct—that it was “morally abhorrent” to cut national insurance.

[Darren Jones]

I always welcome the chance to return to the Dispatch Box. Just to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I said that it was morally abhorrent to abolish national insurance contributions at a cut of £46 billion a year with no plan to pay for it. The Minister has the opportunity once again to tell us how he is going to fund the £46 billion.

[Bim Afolami]

This is great fun, Mr Deputy Speaker. I say to the shadow Chief Secretary that we have been very clear about this. We have cut national insurance by a third in the last two fiscal events. It is our long-term ambition to do so and to eliminate this double taxation on work. If Labour Members do not believe that we should eliminate this double taxation, they should say so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

The Labour party has set out clear proposals to close tax loopholes on non-doms, private schools and private equity to give a much-needed boost to our public services. Will the Treasury Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed, or plan to assess, the merits of such a policy?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for closing down tax loopholes and going after the abusers. It begs the question why Labour did not vote in favour of the Finance Bill last night, which included measures along those lines.

[Darren Jones]

That is a short answer, but the answer to the wrong question—perhaps the Minister can have a second go. While he is thinking about the answer, I point out that the Comptroller and Auditor General has highlighted that the Government are wasting up to £28 billion a year on mismanaged procurement and governance of major projects. Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Chancellor and his predecessors have had to raise taxes so much partly because they are wasting so many billions of taxpayers’ money each and every year?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The reason we have had to raise taxes is £350 billion of support during the pandemic, which I did not hear the Opposition oppose, and an additional £100 billion to help people during the cost of living crisis, which I did not hear the Opposition oppose. We therefore had to increase taxes out of necessity, but we reduce them out of choice, which is exactly what we are doing. Labour increases taxes out of necessity and then continues to increase them out of choice.

Loan Charge

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

May I start by congratulating the right hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows)—with whom I have worked for many years on the Post Office Horizon scandal—and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), on securing this important debate today? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time and pay tribute to the members of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, other right hon. and hon. Members here in the Chamber today, and the journalists who have investigated this issue so doggedly, including The Yorkshire Post.

One of my core political beliefs is that, when one person has power over another, they must be subject to effective checks and balances. That is a crucial part of our democratic system and at the heart of the freedoms that we should all enjoy in a democracy such as ours. In my roles as a lawyer, a trade unionist, a Member of Parliament, the Chair of a parliamentary Select Committee —the Business and Trade Committee—and now a member of the Shadow Cabinet, I have always contributed to ensuring that the delicate balance of power is tilted towards the citizen and away from the powerful, and that unchecked power is challenged and brought into line. On this issue today, I recommit myself to that cause.

That is why we in the Labour party believe a key principle of our tax system is that the Government should treat everybody fairly. It is why we support attempts to tackle tax avoidance schemes, including disguised renumeration schemes. However, HMRC’s approach to the loan charge, which has affected tens of thousands of people to date, means that the Government have failed in ensuring that duty of fairness.

As we have heard, ordinary people who are victims of mis-selling are facing financial ruin and personal harm because of the way in which HMRC has pursued the loan charge. Tragically, at least 10 people affected by HMRC’s behaviour are known to have taken their own lives. The House should pause and reflect on that fact. We are talking about 10 people who were in such a state of despair—10 people who had not only the thought of ending their own lives, but the will to do so. There are 10 families now grieving for the loss of a loved one, all because of an administrative approach to tax collection. It could therefore not be clearer that the Government’s approach is not working. Ministers, including the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, routinely referred to the 2019 Morse review and asserted that there was nothing else to do. That review cannot and must not be the final word on the matter or a roadblock to getting a fairer solution for people who have been victims of bad professional advice and mis-selling.

While people in everyday jobs, from NHS workers to social workers, are being pursued by HMRC, and some taxpayers are being told that they owe hundreds of thousands of pounds, the Government, as we have heard repeatedly, are doing little to pursue the actual promoters behind mis-selling schemes. Incredibly, HMRC has been issuing fewer than two fines a year against the architects and enablers of failed tax avoidance schemes. How can the Government possibly justify such a light-touch approach for the promoters of such schemes while many of those people caught up in them suffer such serious harm?

Over the course of this Parliament, the Labour party has repeatedly called on the Government to find a fair and effective way forward on the impact of the loan charge. There is no disagreement that such schemes are illegitimate and damaging. However, there have now been significant cases and testimonies to raise alarm bells in the heads of Ministers about the nature of the current approach.

In June 2020, during consideration of the then Finance Bill, hon. Members debated a new clause that would have forced the Government to review the impact of the loan charge scheme, including the fairness with which HMRC implemented the policy. Unfortunately, the Government dismissed the proposal, claiming that the Morse review went far enough. Again, in December 2021, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) tabled a new clause to then Finance (No. 2) Bill. It would have required the Chancellor to commission an independent review to consider HMRC’s approach to the loan charge scheme and make recommendations on how it should be altered. That review would have required the Government to explain to this House what efforts they had taken to guarantee the review’s independence. Also, once the review had made recommendations, it would have required the Government to say, on a six-monthly basis, whether they agreed with them, and if so, how effective they were on implementing them.

Such a review could finally have offered a way forward. Labour voted in favour of that new clause and the review it proposed in December 2021, but sadly it was defeated by the Government. Treasury Ministers must realise that this issue is not going away. Two years on from that vote, it is still clear that the Government’s approach to the loan charge means that ordinary people who are victims of mis-selling are suffering financial ruin and personal harm.

Ministers and hon. Members across the House have heard the harrowing accounts of people whose lives have been ruined. That cannot be what the Government envisaged in the first place, and it must not be allowed to continue. Will the Treasury use this moment today to finally agree to commission a further truly independent review? Such a review could consider the approach of HMRC towards the ordinary people caught up in the loan charge schemes and further consider what action should be taken against the architects and promoters of those schemes. That would be in the interests of restoring fairness in our tax system. It could provide a way forward for the many thousands of people caught up in the loan charge and should end the devastating consequences suffered by the people involved to date. That is all we are asking for: an independent review—albeit one, as hon. Members have said, that should be conducted quickly.

Finally, I urge the Minister to answer the specific question put to him today of whether HMRC officials are being awarded bonus payments for the recovery of loan charge moneys. I urge the Government to learn the lessons of other scandals and to stop burying their heads in the sand. I urge the Minister to be brave and to do the right thing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and to the House, Mr Speaker. Let me start by thanking the Chancellor for his kind words about the late Lord Darling, which I think show the gratitude of Members from across the House for his lifetime of public service.

The public have a right to know why so many billions of pounds of their taxes have been wasted by this Government. Baroness Mone has claimed today that Conservative Ministers knew about her personal connections to the company PPE Medpro from the very beginning. So why did the Government not correct the record when a misleading picture was being painted in the media about Baroness Mone’s personal connection to PPE Medpro in the first place?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I am not going to comment on allegations by Baroness Mone or, indeed, on the individual case, but let me say this: we put together a taskforce of more than 1,000 people that opened 46,000 investigations and so far has made more 80 arrests, so we will stop at nothing to tackle fraud and bring to justice anyone who was responsible for wrongdoing. But what we did in a moment of extreme crisis was to make sure that we got personal protective equipment to the frontline as quickly as we could, and had we not done so many more lives would have been lost.

[Darren Jones]

We all know that Baroness Mone’s enrichment via PPE Medpro is subject to an investigation, but that does not allow Ministers to refuse to answer questions here in the House today. So let me ask another: Baroness Mone’s husband, Doug Barrowman, alleged that in November 2022 he was approached by a Government official asking if they would

“pay more for the other matter to go away.”

Is that specific and incredibly serious claim now being investigated and, if so, by whom?