Stamp Duty Land Tax
David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford
I misspoke, and I withdraw the comment. But I find it strange that Liberal Democrat Members seem to have a collective amnesia on what happened over the past few years.
Returning to the substance of the debate, families across my constituency are bracing for new taxes on homes, capital gains tax on family houses and even potentially a land value tax. This is not reform; it is a sledgehammer aimed at aspiration, mobility and stability. As I have said before, in Farnham, where the average home now costs £660,000, families could face bills of £5,000 a year on top of their mortgage and energy costs. In Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon, already stretched households will be hit again, and pensioners in Grayshott or Tilford face the grotesque prospect of capital gains on the homes they have worked a lifetime to own. Everyone—pensioners, farmers, small business owners—is treated by this Government as a cash cow. A tax on the family home is a tax on aspiration. It traps people in their properties, dries up supply and breaks housing chains. The very people Labour claims to champion—first-time buyers—will be frozen out altogether. The Government claim this is about fairness—we have heard that from a number of Government Members—but there is nothing fair about a pensioner in Greatham being forced to sell their home to pay the taxman, or a young family in Lindford choosing between childcare and a new annual levy. That is not fairness; it is a regional punishment for those of us who just happen to live in the south and south-east.
That is why I back our clear Conservative plan to abolish stamp duty on primary residences. Owning a home gives people a real stake in their community and their country. Our policy would make the economy stronger and help families achieve the dream of home ownership once again.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The hon. Member says that owning a home gives people a stake in their community, and I agree with him. Why then does his party oppose this Government’s moves to help build 1.5 million homes and reform the planning system?
Gregory Stafford
The simple answer is we do not—I cannot add more than that. As the hon. Member has drawn me on this, our problem is that we do not think that is deliverable because the Government have not met any of their targets thus far. From a parochial point of view, in Waverley and East Hampshire my constituents face the doubling of housing targets, whereas in London, where the infrastructure is already in place, the targets are being reduced. That is not joined-up thinking; that is a Government who are spraying their house targets all over the country without thinking about how they will actually deliver them.
As I said, the average price of a family home in Farnham is £660,000, which would meaning paying £23,000 in stamp duty. If we can get our proposal through, that would be an enormous cut. Most important, it is fully funded—part of that £47 billion savings plan—and consistent with our golden rule that every pound saved is split between reducing the deficit and growing the economy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calls stamp duty the
“most economically damaging tax in the UK”.
The London School of Economics found that it “cuts mobility and investment”. The Centre for Policy Studies calls it a “tax on… aspiration”. They are all right. Our plan would save first-time buyers up to £18,000 in London and £4,000 in the south-east. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said, combined with our first jobs bonus, a couple could save £28,000—enough to get on the ladder and build a future.
We have heard a number of hon. Members across the House claiming that they support the principle of removing the stamp duty land tax, with the notable exceptions of the hon. Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). What those three Members forget is that people buying a house are almost always part of a chain. Just because someone at the top of the market might be buying a £2 million house—I think they are overreaching a little with £2 million, but even if that were the case—everybody else down that chain would benefit. As soon as we can get the market moving, we will allow people to buy and sell and will give the youngest people, those buying their first home or those trying to upsize because they are starting a family the ability to actually buy. It is not just the people who are technically covered by the tax—it is everybody within the whole chain.
In contrast, Labour froze the thresholds, dragging more families into higher bands. The Housing Secretary even tried to block 237 homes in his constituency. “Build, baby, build”—I think not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I said, a number of Members across the House, especially on the Labour Benches, have expressed sympathy for the principle of the policy, but they seem entirely unwilling to make the tough decisions necessary to get there. We saw that with Labour’s total inability to cut the welfare bill by a tiny amount earlier this year. Even if they were not willing to take those decisions, though, as every Member of this House knows, this motion is not binding on the Government, so Labour Members could happily support it to show that they would, in principle, like to see this tax cut. I suspect, though, that their principles will be overridden by the decisions of the Whips Office. The Liberal Democrats were characteristically fence-sitting—so much so that I think the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) must have left the Chamber to remove the splinters.
The reality is that this Conservative Opposition is the only party with serious thinking about how to get the housing market moving again. Our alternative is clear: we will abolish stamp duty on main homes, scrap business rates for hospitality, leisure and retail and give high streets the breathing space to grow again. That is the difference—we listen to people who build, hire, own and aspire.
The choice before the House is stark: a Labour party that punishes aspiration, or a Conservative party that rewards it. Do we want a Government who trap people where they are, or one who set them free to move, work and grow? Only the Conservatives have a serious plan to get Britain working, grow the economy and give every person a real stake in their community through the security of home ownership.
Taxes
David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Earlier this month, the House witnessed the Government lose control of swathes of their own party. They have had just more than a year in office, and yet the cracks could not be clearer. In the last year, the country has had to endure U-turns, tax increases and a stagnant economy, and yet the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been pushed by their disapproving Back Benchers into the inevitable: they will have to break their fiscal rules and manifesto commitments.
The OBR has warned of an up to £12 billion cost from the watered-down welfare reforms. Labour promised to stop the chaos and support business through a stable policy environment. That was in its manifesto, yet employer national insurance contributions increased in April—another pledge disregarded. We have seen the national insurance exemption for Indian workers transferring to the UK, which the Indian Government said was a competitive advantage for them. The Leader of the Opposition opposed such a deal as Business and Trade Secretary, yet the Government continue to sell out British workers. Whose side are this Government on? Deals and decisions like that explain why 73% of voters believe that the Government do not have things under control.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
This is the Government who got trade deals that the Conservative party failed to do, and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. Are you saying that you would not have signed those deals? Are you saying—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am not saying anything. Please address the Chair.
Government Performance against Fiscal Rules
David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady will know that when the changes in national insurances contributions for employers were implemented, the scheme was designed so as to protect smaller businesses, in relation to bigger business. She points to our fish and chip shops, which are often beloved in all our communities. I know from fish and chip shops in my own constituency that the price of fish, for example, has gone from about £100 to £300 a box. The price of oil has gone up following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and even the price of potatoes has gone up, often because those products are imported from the European Union into the UK. That is why our trade deal on food and drink with the EU as well as our investment into cheaper renewable energy will make a big difference to fish and chip shops such as the one that the hon. Lady mentioned.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is always amusing to hear the shadow Chancellor, who presided over a crisis in the welfare system, complain about this Government’s actions to restore fiscal stability. It is like listening to an arsonist complaining about the fire brigade. Does my right hon. Friend agree it is difficult to take the Conservatives seriously when they will not tell us what their plans are or even whether they support the spending laid out in the spending review?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. If any party on the Opposition Benches wants to be competitive in the next election, it needs to set out what it proposes to do with the country and how it will pay for it. Time and again, whether it is the Conservative party, Reform UK, the Green party or any other party, it is all promises of jam tomorrow, with no idea about how to pay for it. The public have been burned by that already because of the last Government, and they will not be burned by it again.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on securing the Mansion House accord, which will channel billions into the economy and make a real difference to my constituents. One of the reasons that pension funds agreed to join the accord was because of the strong pipeline of investable projects that the Government are creating. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s infrastructure plans and planning reforms, opposed by the Conservatives, will unlock growth?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Raising investment in the UK is about boosting not just the supply of capital, but the demand for it—the investment pipeline. We are approving infrastructure projects, from wind farms to reservoirs, that the Conservatives blocked for years. By reforming the planning system, we are doing something really radical: building homes.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]
David Pinto-Duschinsky ExcerptsThursday 24th April 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 View all Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - large print - (24 Apr 2025)
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I rise to speak in opposition to amendments 1, 3 and 4. Under the previous Government, the country was subjected to years of economic chaos. This Government have made restoring stability a cornerstone of our strategy to boost long-term growth. Ensuring macroprudential stability, underpinned by an effective recovery and resolution regime, is a key part of that. Changes undertaken in the UK and globally through the Basel III reforms have made our large banks safer and more resilient, and we should welcome that. The reforms have improved solvency and reduced risks for the taxpayer.
However, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 has demonstrated the need for new tools to help minimise the risk to consumers, taxpayers and broader financial stability posed by small bank failures. We need an approach that goes beyond the bank insolvency procedure, and that is why the proposals in the Bill enjoy so much support across our financial services sector, as I know from my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. But in designing this new approach, we must make sure that the proposals reflect the lessons of experience. In all candour, I am concerned that the amendments do not do that, and will impede the functioning of the new regime, rendering it less effective at moments of crisis.
I was an adviser in the Treasury to Alistair Darling during the global financial crisis, when we had to resolve and recapitalise a number of major banks. The action that the Labour Government took then—often in the face of resistance from Conservative Members—helped to save our financial sector from catastrophe and stabilise not just the UK, but the global economy. There are many lessons to be learned from that period, but in relation to the Bill, one stands out. When we had to act to save our banking sector, we learned that successful resolution relies, among other things, on two key factors: speed and flexibility. It was the combination of those factors that was so important in 2008, and since then, I would argue, they have only become more important.
In 2008, we watched banks’ liquidity and solvency deteriorate by the day, but now, as the collapse of Signature Bank in the US in 2023 shows, the combination of banking apps and social media mean that a full-scale banking run can develop in hours or even minutes. If we are to resolve banks successfully, regulators must be able to move as quickly. Speed has become more important than ever. So, too, has flexibility. As we see increasing financial innovation and diversification among banks, with new challengers, new forms of institutions and new types of markets and assets emerging, allowing regulators sufficient flexibility has become more essential, not less.
The value of flexibility was demonstrated in the case of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK subsidiary. The creative use of powers to resolve that bank through a sale, rather than putting it into the bank insolvency procedure, protected consumers, minimised market turbulence and shielded the public purse. Contrast that with the US regulators’ approach to the parent company, SVB. There, rigidity and a mechanistic failure to apply major bank rules led to failures of regulatory oversight that contributed—as US regulators have acknowledged—to the bank’s failure. I raise this matter because I fear that amendments 1, 3 and 4 will militate against speed and flexibility, and will reduce the effectiveness of the Bill, especially in acute crisis situations.
Let me start with proposed amendment 4. This would require the Bank of England to consider competitiveness and the growth impact on the market before directing resolution through the FSCS. However well-intentioned the amendment is, it could have a catastrophic effect. At a time of crisis—policymakers have sometimes just hours to act—it would place a duty on them to make a market assessment, which, by the way, could presumably be challenged. This is simply impractical and could fatally slow down action to restore financial stability. As someone who has sat in the room during a bail-out process, I have to tell the proposer of the amendment that spending time on this kind of exercise during a disorderly bank failure is simply a luxury that we do not have.
I am also concerned that such a requirement would have a chilling effect, staying regulators’ hands when they have to act quickly. This could not only increase the risk of disorderly collapse, but raise the cost to the FSCS of a recapitalisation if it does proceed. Experience tells us that the longer we put off a resolution, the more expensive it becomes. This is a recipe for higher risk and higher cost. Moreover, leaving aside the practical difficulties, the underlying logic is flawed. First, in seeking to analyse the market before deciding on whether to resolve an institution or wind it up, we are putting the cart before the horse. Surely a much better course of action is to prevent the potentially disorderly collapse of the institution, and then to work out its long-term future and the role, if any, it should play in the market.
Secondly, the amendment fails to take into account other objectives that the Prudential Regulation Authority should properly consider in deciding whether to act, including the protection of retail savers, the prevention of contagion and the safeguarding of macroprudential stability. As drafted, the amendment, however well-intentioned, could distort PRA decision making. Its intentions may be good, but its impact might not be.
The same is unfortunately true of amendments 1 and 3. Both seek to circumscribe the use of the FSCS via statute, to prevent it being used to bail out larger institutions. The amendments would rob regulators of the flexibility to use the instrument in unusual or unforeseen circumstances, in the name of solving a problem that does not exist.
The powers provided by the Bill are already aimed squarely at smaller banks, and there are various safeguards in the Bill to prevent the use of those powers for larger banks in most scenarios. For example, the Bill states that the FSCS-funded resolution may be used only for institutions that are placed in a bridge bank or transferred to a new institution, and this would not be applicable for larger bank in most scenarios, as they are expected to be resolved through an MREL bail-in. The Bill also provides for de facto Treasury sign off, requires the Chancellor to report to Parliament on the use of the powers and mandates the bank to inform the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees whenever an FSCS-funded resolution is undertaken. As such, it is already well-policed and circumscribed. There is little danger of this approach being regularly or routinely used with large banks. Adding a statutory prohibition on using this approach with firms meeting their minimum MREL thresholds would add little, but it would create risk.
My experience in the Treasury during the global financial crisis, and in my work across financial services since then, is that we cannot say that the highly improbable will never happen, and we cannot always predict what form the next crisis will take, or what will trigger it. Conservative Members should surely understand this lesson better than most. After all, it was Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget that sparked market chaos through a product—liability-driven investments—that most people had never even heard of, and were thought to be very stable and low risk. Given this, it would be exceptionally unwise to statutorily bar the Bank from being able to use all the tools at its disposal in exceptional circumstances. There are eventualities that, however unlikely, are possible, such as a well-capitalised bank suffering a very rapid deterioration of its position due to a mass redress event. We must allow the Bank flexibility to access the tools that the Bill provides in exceptional circumstances, in order to ensure stability and protect the taxpayer. We must not bind its hands in a crisis.
The power of the Government’s proposals lie in their ability to be deployed rapidly and with flexibility. That is what will give them their traction and help safeguard our financial stability. It is critical that we preserve those facets of the Bill. For that reason, I urge the House to join me in rejecting the amendments.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the Bill, because the last thing taxpayers need to worry about are the consequences of an under-regulated banking sector. I have brought amendment 3 back from Committee, because the size of banks eligible for the new mechanism has been a key debate through the Bill’s passage.
The Minister has regularly set out that the Bill’s stated aim is to enhance the resolution regime, so that we can respond to the failure of small banks. However, the Bill does not restrict the regime to small or medium-sized banks. If applied to large banks, it would create high costs for banks and customers. The costs would persist for many years, adding a significant long-term burden on the banking sector and consumers. Amendment 3 would ensure that the Bill does not apply to banks that have reached the end-state minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—put more simply, the largest UK banks. That would mean that only small and medium-sized banks could be supported by the mechanism. That would protect consumers and the banking sector from unnecessary financial burden.
Amendment 4 has also been brought back from Committee. It would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of a failing small bank through a levy on the banking sector. We believe that further consideration of the effect on the competitiveness and growth of the market is important before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks.
To conclude, I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the remarks made in Committee and explain how precisely the amendment would complicate the process of managing a bank failure.
Spring Statement
David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I will not make any apologies for putting more money in defence. This Labour Government take the defence of our country seriously, and so we should. We are the party that created NATO, and the leadership of the Labour party today will always defend our country.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on her action to end austerity by investing £26 billion in the NHS and £3 billion in education, raising defence budgets, and unleashing over £100 billion of additional capital investment to build the foundations of our economy. On the day after this Government voted through a pay rise for 3 million working people by raising the minimum wage, does she agree that it is only by making the tough decisions to restore stability and push ahead with our bold plans for reform that the Government can repair the terrible damage done by the Conservative party, deliver strong public services and get more money in people’s pockets?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for all his work to back growth and improve living standards for working people. I was pleased to announce in the spring statement £13 billion extra for capital spending during the course of this Parliament. We know that the previous Government always made the easy choice to cut capital spending, and the deterioration of infrastructure is why we are in the mess that we are today. We will not make those short-term decisions; we will invest to grow our economy, working with business to do so.
Financial Services: Mansion House Speech
David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tulip Siddiq
I have already mentioned our first step with the two SIs laid on 14 October, which try to modernise the Building Societies Act, and I am happy to send my hon. Friend further information on that.
The main thing we will do is carefully consider the findings of the Law Commission reviews to understand whether reform of the legislation is needed to ensure that businesses are better supported and grow more in the future. The response to the calls for evidence will be carefully considered by myself and others, and any potential reform will require formal consultation. I want to make sure that my hon. Friend knows that at the top of our agenda is trying to unlock the full potential of this important sector after 14 years of that not having happened.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for sharing her statement and welcome the support that it has gathered from across the House. However, I noted that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned concern about pensions. Members will, of course, remember that it was the Conservatives who caused chaos in the markets with their mini-Budget, putting all our pensions at risk. What will the Government do to ensure financial stability and make sure that there can be no repeat of the chaos that they caused?
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend knows this area well, having worked in the Treasury in a former life. We will absolutely make sure that we avoid the mistakes of a certain Liz Truss and work very closely with the TPR and the FCA to deliver all our reforms and ensure that we do not make any decisions that shake the stability of the economy, because we want to have a stable financial services sector and a stable economy to encourage investment and ultimately deliver on our growth mission.