Finance (No. 2) Bill
Graham Stuart ExcerptsTuesday 16th December 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance (No. 2) Bill 2024-26 View all Finance (No. 2) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 26 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered her second Budget at this Dispatch Box. This was a Budget to build strong foundations and a secure future for our country, with no cuts to capital spending—which I am sure would have been implemented by the Conservatives, if they were in this financial situation—and no return to austerity, including for public services. This is a Budget about Labour choices.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister says that there will be no cut to capital budgets, but of course he is talking only about the public sector. Has he seen the CBI Economics research that suggests that there will be severe capital budget reductions in the private sector—the very sector that creates the wealth on which everything else depends?
Dan Tomlinson
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report—we had a bit of extra time to read it this year. He will know that according to that report, investment—both overall, whole-economy investment and private sector investment—has outpaced the OBR’s forecast from March this year. I look forward to returning to those points later.
The Budget delivers choices that were fair and necessary—choices that deliver on the public’s priorities, and that bring about the change that this Government promised. This Government have chosen to cut the cost of living, delivering £150 off energy bills and freezing train fares and prescription charges. This Government have chosen to cut NHS waiting lists, delivering 5.2 million more appointments and announcing in the Budget 250 new neighbourhood health centres. This Government have chosen to lift 550,000 children out of relative poverty in this Parliament, by removing the two-child limit, and by expanding free breakfast clubs and free school meal eligibility.
Dan Tomlinson
Our proposals on APR and BPR mean that those with business or agricultural assets will have both the additional £1 million allowance and a tax rate that is half the rate that others within the system pay. My understanding is that the system will be more generous than the one in place before 1992, throughout the whole time that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.
We are reforming the Motability scheme to end the VAT relief on top-up payments, which was a one-off payment required to lease more expensive vehicles on the scheme. We are also ending the application of insurance premium tax on leases to ensure that the scheme delivers value for money for the taxpayer, while choosing to continue to support disabled people.
We are introducing reforms to ensure that private hire vehicle operators will no longer be able to illegitimately exploit an administrative scheme intended for tour operators to pay a much lower rate of VAT than others.
Graham Stuart
The Minister is always both gracious and generous. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about the impact of BPR, imagine a company that is worth £11 million. It will have a £2 million BPR tax payment to make. The person who inherits the shares will not have that £2 million, so they will have to extract that money from the business. Am I right in thinking that that would require £3.3 million to be deducted and taken out of the company in order to pay that £2 million in tax? Is that in the right order?
Dan Tomlinson
I am happy to discuss those numbers with the right hon. Member in more detail, either afterwards or I can come in and discuss those points with him, although I did not quite follow all of the maths—[Interruption.] I thank Members on the Conservative Front Bench for their intervention about that.
Increasing taxes on online gaming and betting is another change that we are making in the Budget, with the rate for remote gaming increasing from 21% to 40% from April 2026, and the rate of remote betting increasing from 15% to 25% from April 2027, while choosing to protect in-person betting and horseracing, which plays such an important role in our sporting culture and many local economies.
Sir Mel Stride
I notice that my right hon. Friend is being restrained in his use of language, given the severity of the matters we are discussing. He is absolutely right. Business property relief is being changed in broadly the same way as agricultural property relief in this Bill. That will have a devastating and similar consequence for family businesses across the UK, and I have been up and down the country to meet many of them. One of the foremost in campaigning has been Steve Rigby of the Rigby Group. He is the head of Family Business UK, and he put it perfectly when he said that family businesses are spending too much time protecting their legacy and succession, not on promoting growth. That is the whole point. If this Government want growth, they will have to do things that get businesses to think about growth, rather than having to worry about being broken up because of onerous tax measures.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend worry, like me, about the background of those on the Government Front Bench? I do not want to disrespect either of the individuals sitting there now, because they are both fine people, but neither has ever, so far as I am aware, been involved in running a private business. They do not understand how private business works, and they equate the inheritance of money—for example, from a father to a daughter—with a family business. A family business needs to continue, because of all the employment that arises from it. Equating the two and saying that it is half the normal inheritance tax is to show a complete failure of understanding of the economy of this country and the economy of a family business.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It shows a complete lack of understanding of business, and it reflects the lack of true business experience on the Government Front Bench. It also goes right to the core of the difference in principles and beliefs between the two principal parties in this Chamber. We on the Opposition Benches believe that if someone works hard, saves hard and has something left at the end of their life, they should be allowed—because they love those who they wish to look after in their absence—to pass on that inheritance without the taxman taking a huge, disproportionate amount of what they have accumulated. All the Labour party believes in is mounding up ever more debt in a statist world in which that debt is to be passed on to future generations to be paid back.
We believe in supporting the little platoon, as Burke put it—the families that together form a mighty army. We believe in personal responsibility and for that to be rewarded.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and follow the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who is rare, as a Member on the Labour Benches, in feeling such commitment to maintaining and fulfilling the promises he made, not least to his farmers.
I will begin by focusing on the farming issue. Too often we look at it in an overall, structural way and make comparisons with other types of inheritance, rather than looking at the specifics of the farming industry. A third of farmers do not make any profit at all, and those who do make profit make very little. Although we do not have exact data, it would appear that well over half of farmers make a 1% return on capital employed or less.
Even if Treasury Ministers do not have any business experience—sadly, Labour Treasury Ministers typically do not—they should at least practice numeracy. If they are numerate, they can work out that if someone makes just 1% return annually on the capital value of their business, it would take 20 years of earnings to pay a 20% tax—and a third of farmers do not make anything at all. How is someone who makes 1% profit going to pay a 20% tax? This is not some freak thing that has just happened; it is consistent.
The Government, to be fair to them, seem to have woken up in one sense. They said, “We must have a new initiative”—I forget what it is called—“to increase the profitability of farmers”. Well, yippidy-doo, well done for that. But should they not increase the profitability of farmers before imposing a tax that, mathematically, arithmetically—whatever other word you want to use—they cannot pay? The truth is that farmers cannot pay it.
More than half of farmers literally do not have the profits to allow them to pay that tax. That simple truth sits at the heart of this. These businesses are prepared to do it because of their lifestyle, personal commitment and love of farming. They do it in order to put food on our plates that is among the highest quality in the world and at costs that are among the lowest in Europe.
The Government could think about this from a public policy point of view too. There are businesses that are prepared to do that—unlike any other business sector I can think of or have ever experienced, or would certainly ever have entertained being part of myself. There are businesses that would take such low returns, work all the hours God gives and bring brilliant food to the tables of people up and down this country at low cost. Why on earth would the Government want to drive the people running those businesses out so that the people they say they want to attack—namely, huge billionaires and vast trust-based businesses—can gobble up those very farms, which are currently run by decent people in our communities who do all that good and ask for very little in return?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The right hon. Member is making an impassioned speech that certainly represents the feeling of farmers in my rural constituency. Does he agree that farmers are also up in arms at these billionaire companies that are ripping small farms out of the system and building their empires? Any time the small family farms do make a profit, they reinvest it straight back into the farm so that they can farm the following year.
Graham Stuart
Yes, indeed—and they did. We have seen it. All the evidence is there, and it is happening now, regardless of the argument from Ministers as to what percentage of farms will be affected. We can see it in all the stats. Those stats are available—particularly, I would have hoped, to Treasury Ministers to find out what the real-world impact of this policy is. The real-world impact is that we have seen a drop in investment in the farming industry. That is a disaster.
It may be that the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway is standing alone, but let us look at the enthusiasm on the Labour Benches for the Second Reading of this major Finance Bill that is supposed to be doing such good for the country. There are more than 400 Labour Members, but they are not exactly here to cheer it on. I think they—and, I hope, the Minister—are realising just how counterproductive this is. The one thought I will try to implant above all is those numbers, which mean that it is absurd.
Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine generally being a business owner today, and not necessarily in farming. You hike your way up the mountain to get to success, wading through an eternal shower of tax rises and hacking your way through a jungle of red tape. Then, on your death bed, you are met not first by the grim reaper but by the Chancellor, armed with one final sting: a double tax bill for your children. This is the reality facing family businesses: if the Government cut business property relief next year, that will lead to a double tax bill.
I asked the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who opened the debate, to comment on how that double taxation works. He was unable to respond off the top of his head to my specific numbers, which is entirely understandable, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, armed and perhaps refreshed by the brilliant people in the Box behind her, will be able in summing up to address the specifics of the tax reality for a business faced by the double tax bill that thousands of sons and daughters will receive when their entrepreneurial mum or dad passes away.
From April, the 100% inheritance tax relief that family businesses rely on will be capped at just £1 million; anything above that will be taxed at 20%. Take a small company worth £11 million: the inheritance tax bill alone will be £2 million. But as far as I am aware, the sons and daughters of most entrepreneurs in Beverley and Holderness do not have £2 million tucked away down the back of the sofa. To pay that bill, which is a tax not on the business but on the people who inherit the business, as they are outside the business—I am not sure whether people have focused on this enough—they will be forced to extract that money from the business itself, usually in the form of dividends, and those dividends are taxed at rates approaching 40%. So a £2 million inheritance tax bill becomes a £3.3 million hit on the business, with £2 million to pay the Chancellor and another £1.3 million to pay—oh yes—the Chancellor, simply because the money was invested in jobs, equipment or the business overall rather than left idle.
Dave Doogan
Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that this is a spreadsheet Budget concerned with little more than the number in the bottom right-hand corner? That is why everything is unravelling so catastrophically. On his BPR point, I have nothing against PLCs, but does he agree further that businesses that are owned by families and rooted in communities spend their investments locally, support local organisations and charities, employ locally and have their profits going back in locally, and that this is devastating jeopardy for those businesses?
Graham Stuart
As so often, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Again, the talk is of hitting the fat cats and big businesses, but it is the huge corporates that will benefit. They will snap up the farmland and the small business. This is not fair taxation; it is irrational double taxation.
The consequences of this policy are real. If the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—I will call him my hon. Friend, if I may—is right about the Treasury being obsessed with the bottom right-hand corner, I hope that if no other argument weighs with the Minister, this might. A report by the CBI suggests that far from raising the welcome £1.4 billion forecast by the Treasury, the changes are likely to reduce tax revenues from family-owned businesses by £1.8 billion by 2030. That is yet another example of this innumerate Government having the exact opposite outcome from the one they wished, as investment falls, businesses restructure and growth is choked off. Instead of supporting the Government’s claim to be pro-business and pro-worker, this change could cost more than 200,000 jobs, on top of the 200,000 that the Chancellor has already cost the country. That is money sucked out of the economy and into Labour’s bottomless black hole. The impact will be felt directly in Beverley and Holderness, where it is expected to put 237 local jobs at risk, according to the CBI. Those are apprentices—
Graham Stuart
I had better not.
That means apprentices not taken on, machinery not upgraded and businesses downsizing. The changes will leave us all poorer, so I ask the Minister and the Chancellor a simple and constructive question: if the Chancellor will not reverse these changes to business property relief, will she at least consider a targeted mechanism so that when these dividends are necessarily extracted, solely to pay the inheritance tax bill, those dividends are not taxed again?
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
As an eight-year-old girl sheltering in the little library at my primary school, I was able to escape my bullies by using my imagination. Later, I harnessed my love of reading to build a successful career as a screenwriter, so I am delighted that the Finance Bill extends the Libraries for Primaries scheme to secondary schools. The Government have already committed £10 million to create libraries in the 1,700 primaries across the country that do not have one, and now we are giving £1,400 to every secondary school to purchase new library books. This £5 million investment is targeted at getting more children reading for pleasure, and is part of the Government’s aim to make 2026 the national year of reading.
Feeding a child’s imagination is wonderful, but making sure they do not go hungry is essential. The Chancellor’s choice to lift the two-child benefit cap will lift around 1,850 children in Scarborough and Whitby out of poverty, and next year, up to 4,000 children in my constituency will benefit from the expansion of free school meals. I have visited some of my local primary schools with fully funded breakfast clubs and seen for myself how incredibly popular they are with both children and parents. All these measures are expected to lead to the largest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. The choices that the Chancellor has made in this Finance Bill and previously will endure for generations. In my constituency, children will be helped to fulfil their potential. These are the barriers to opportunity that we promised in our manifesto to break down, and they are the barriers that this Finance Bill is breaking down—promise made, promise kept.
One of the projects I loved at my primary school was “My Breakfast Table”, where we looked at where our food and drink came from. Tea from Sri Lanka was incredibly exotic; bacon from a local pig farm was decidedly less exotic, as the aromas from said pig farm often wafted as far as the school playground. Growing up surrounded by farms, I learned to value their contribution, not just through the food they produced but through the difference they made to our community. I was reminded of their practical, altruistic attitude this summer during the wildfire that centred on Langdale forest and Fylingdales moor. At its terrifying height, that wildfire covered an area 10 miles square, ripping mercilessly through shallow peat, deep peat, forest, grassland and heather moor. The farming community reacted immediately by cutting fire breaks, back-burning, bringing water in tankers, and generally assisting the firefighters from North Yorkshire fire and rescue. The farming community did not think about anything other than putting the fires out—they were all heroes, and we must value them.
Alison Hume
I will just make some progress, thank you.
I started my speech with children at the start of their lives, and I end it with people coming towards the end of their lives. I owe it to the farming families who I represent to raise my concerns about the anti-forestalling clause in the Bill. That measure means that any elderly or terminally ill farmer who transfers their ownership of their farm to a descendant, but dies within seven years, will be liable to pay inheritance tax under the new system. If they do not live seven years after the gift, that could also trigger capital gains tax.
If a farmer does not make a transfer but dies before April 2026, the agricultural estate will pass inheritance tax free. I have met several families in Scarborough and Whitby who told me that they are having heartbreaking conversations with their parents, who talk about ending their own lives before April next year. I ask my hon. Friends in the Treasury to please look at removing the anti-forestalling clause from the Bill, or at the very least introducing a transition to protect the most elderly, and those with a terminal medical diagnosis. We have shown before that we can listen and amend our policies; please can we listen again? It is my hope that we can show the same compassion for our farmers in the winter of their lives as we have for our children in the spring of theirs.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening. The increase to the block grant is spread over the entire spending review period—five years—and it does not cover more than half of the cost faced by the Scottish Government as a result of the increase in employers national insurance imposed by the same Chancellor. I am glad that I got the opportunity to say that twice.
Energy bills have gone up by £340 under this Government, despite the fact that they were supposed to fall by £300. That is what people voted for—that is the prospectus that Labour gave them—and the Government are not taking it seriously. They are coming back with a £150 reduction to energy bills, which is coming out of general taxation. As sleight of hand goes, that is not very slick. The money comes out of people’s standing charge, but goes directly on their general taxation.
In the interests of time, I will not dwell on agricultural property relief; I have said a fair bit during interventions, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) will contribute on that issue.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way while he is on the subject of energy. Of course, what should have been in the Bill was an end to the additional tax levy, because there are no sky-high profits any more, there are no excess taxes that need to be paid, and 1,000 people a month are losing their job in the oil and gas industry.
Dave Doogan
The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. The energy profits levy should be coming to an end, but it has been extended by this Labour Government until 2030. That has caused 100 job losses from Harbour Energy, and it is causing 1,000 job losses every month, according to Offshore Energies UK. We are in this situation because the Prime Minister lacks the mettle to get rid of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is one job getting protected in Whitehall, but it is costing 1,000 jobs a month in Scotland. That is the Labour way, and it always will be.
On electric vehicles, this thruppence a mile probably does not sound that much to those who live in Chelsea or Kensington, but it will cost an awful lot more to those who live in Angus and Perthshire Glens. I get the politics of it: half of the entire Labour membership lives within Greater London, and the other half lives in other English cities, and in Glasgow and Cardiff. They probably think it is a tremendous wheeze to make people in my constituency subsidise the tax on the Labour membership’s electric vehicles, but people are smarter than that. People who live in the countryside can add up, and they know that this Government’s attack on their electric vehicle taxes does not add up. They are being swindled by a Labour Government.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I was elected to this House to be a voice for working people, and the thousands of families in Erewash who, in 2022, saw their mortgages skyrocket because the Conservatives sent markets spiralling with billions in unfunded tax cuts. The people who I represent did not vote for Liz Truss—most of them did not know who she was. It was hard-working families up and down the country and in Erewash who paid the price for her failures all the same. That should never happen again.
What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did last month in the Budget—made actionable by this Bill—was take the necessary decisions to ensure that there will never be another Liz Truss moment. The Bill will, by the end of the decade, deliver the fiscal headroom that we require to withstand shocks and help pay down the national debt. It does so while we deliver record levels of public investment, and without a return to the brutal, crippling austerity that gave this country 14 wasted years under the previous Government.
Change is already under way. The economy is now forecast to grow faster this year than previously expected, and as record investments and trade deals made and secured by this Government pay off, and reforms to stifling planning rules finally come through and deepen, it can grow further. In the first year of this Government, average wages grew more than they did in the entire lost decade of the 2010s, and what happens when workers have more money? They do not sequester it in Dubai or the Cayman Islands; they spend it—on housing, on food, on our high streets, in the pub, and on their children, the greatest investment of all. Rewarded properly for their labour, they fuel our economy.
Graham Stuart
I wonder when the people of this country will catch up with the hon. Gentleman and start to express the appropriate gratitude for all that has been bestowed on them by this Government.
Adam Thompson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his amusing intervention. I am sure that time will tell.
We must all contribute to Britain’s renewal, and there are things that only Government can do to secure that renewal. If we want to get the NHS back on its feet, fix our crumbling schools, cut waiting lists and truly invest in Britain’s future, we must pay for it. We know that the alternatives proposed by the Opposition parties lead only to calamity. Liz Truss showed us that when Governments cut taxes for the wealthy, it is working people who end up paying. Nor should we want infinite borrowing, however; I do not want to spend £1 in every £10 serving debt interest. It should go to our schools, our hospitals, and our country.
So yes, in the Budget and in the Bill, the tax burden has increased, but it is those with the broadest shoulders who will bear the greatest weight—those with property to let, those with shares to sell, those paid not through wages but through dividends, those with such vast savings that they pay tax on the interest alone.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was in Dumfries and Galloway just last week to speak to farming businesses that will be impacted by the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in. He hits on a very important point, because the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers have over the past year continually tried to put forward progressive options for this Government to listen to and engage with, but they have not listened. That just shows the naivety associated with this Government. Indeed, at the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that he was aware of farmers who have worked all their lives within the farming community and who are considering taking their own lives. Despite that knowledge, he wanted to crack on with this policy regardless. It is callous and heartless, and it just shows what this Government are about.
Graham Stuart
I am reminded again of Shakespeare, who I believe said:
“Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.”
Robbie Moore
Absolutely. All I advocate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, is that this Government simply engage with and listen to our farming community. It is not just our farming community that is hit by the IHT changes; it is family businesses more widely.
Lucy Rigby
I will make a bit of progress. Our choices are different: they seek to rebuild and repair our country and our economy. They are choices to renew our public services and reform our welfare system; we are rebuilding our NHS, helping to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and investing in getting more people into work. They are choices to strengthen our economy; we are maintaining the highest level of public investment for 40 years, backing British aspiration and, importantly, cutting borrowing and doubling the headroom against our fiscal rules.
Graham Stuart
If we look at employment over time, we see that employment was growing every month until a certain thing happened in July last year: Labour came to power. As of this morning, unemployment has officially gone up 5.1%. As it stands today, there is a 25% increase in the number of people who are not in employment. How can that possibly correspond with a mission for growth?
Lucy Rigby
I am afraid to tell the right hon. Gentleman that employment is rising in every single year of the forecast.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) raised the importance of getting debt and borrowing down. I could not agree more. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about spending over £100 billion a year on servicing our debt. That is more than five times our annual policing budget. It is money that could be spent on schools, hospitals and the urgent public service renewal that this country so desperately needs. That is exactly why, under this autumn Budget, borrowing falls in every year of the forecast, and we are bringing the national debt under control. The Chancellor is putting in place the fastest rate of fiscal consolidation in the G7, and she is doubling the headroom to £21.7 billion.
Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
I have had many things to say about the mini-Budget, both at the time that it happened and subsequently—and more recently too. Can I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the day of the general election, we had a near record level of employment and a near record low level of unemployment? We had the highest growth in the G7, and we had inflation bang on target at 2%. It is almost double that at present. The reason this Government have failed can be distilled to just two words: one is “deceit” and the other is “incompetence”. In the run-up to the last general election, the Labour party said that it would not put up taxes left, right and centre, and yet, within a few short months, they were to roll out £40 billion-worth of tax increases, including £25 billion by way of increased national insurance contribution taxes on employment.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is right to put his finger on the issue of trust. It is not the 280,000 people who are not employed now compared with last year; it is not the lost opportunities for so many young people in hospitality or, indeed, the so many other areas of failure, such as the reduction in numbers of teachers. The issue that is most corrosive for this Government is a loss of trust, because we can see their mendacity from Mars.
Graham Stuart
I wonder how best this behaviour can be described—as a falsehood, an untruth, a fib, a lie or a whopper, or are there other synonyms that better describe the repeated failure to do what one promises?
Sir Mel Stride
I thank the right hon. Member for that observation. I have been cautioned by the Chair as to the language—“misleading”—that I use, but it was clearly misleading for the Chancellor to come to the House and say that she would not be putting up taxes and that this was a one-off, as she used the expression “wipe the slate clean”, and yet be back for £26 billion more only a matter of months later.
The Chancellor also said that she would control welfare spending. Well, how did that go? The first thing that Labour did was to scrap the reforms that we had brought in—in fact, from when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—that the OBR had scored as 450,000 fewer people going on to long-term sickness and disability benefits with a multibillion pound—
James Murray
I am unclear whether the hon. Gentleman supports our £150 off energy bills and our extra £150 off for those 6 million households on the lowest income. That will benefit people right across the UK with the cost of living challenges they face. We know that that is what matters to people right across Britain.
Instead of focusing on what this Budget means for people across Britain, we heard the shadow Chancellor’s comments on a motion that focuses so much on process. While I accept that process is very important, it has been covered extensively in recent weeks—indeed, most recently by the Chancellor in the Treasury Committee this morning—so let me put on record our response to the motion and to the comments that the shadow Chancellor made about process.
Let me begin by again addressing the speech that the Chancellor made on 4 November. When the Chancellor addressed the country that morning, her purpose was simple: to give the British people an honest sense of the circumstances we were facing and the principles that would guide her as she took decisions at the Budget. She wanted to highlight the challenges that our country was facing and her priorities in the face of those challenges, and that is exactly what she did.
Following the OBR’s review of productivity—the review of the impact of 14 years of the Conservatives being in power—the Chancellor knew that we faced a downgrade. To understand the scale of the impact, members of the Opposition need only to consult the Budget document. There, they will see that the OBR’s productivity review, which covered the Conservatives’ time in office, reduces
“the amount of revenue the OBR expects the government to collect by around £16 billion in 2029-30.”
Graham Stuart
I think it is the dishonesty that is catching at everybody’s throat. A year ago at the Budget, the Chancellor said that she was not going to freeze income tax thresholds because—I think I quote—it would be an additional tax on working people, and therefore in breach of the Labour manifesto. A year later, she did exactly that, and then claimed that it was not a breach of the Labour manifesto. That is rank dishonesty. That is why Madam Deputy Speaker is allowing language that would not normally be used in this Chamber: because this motion and this Government mean we have to address issues that normally do not occur.
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. We have kept to our manifesto commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance on working people, and VAT. We also said in our manifesto that we would keep taxes on working people as low as possible, and we have been able to do that only because of the other fair and necessary choices that the Chancellor made on taxation.
James Murray
I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he supports our changes to council tax on high-value properties.
Graham Stuart
On the issue of the manifesto, will the Minister confirm that it does not say that it would not raise the income tax rates? It just says that it would not raise those taxes. The word “rates” is not in there. It is that that is misleading. It is that that makes everyone outside throw things at their television, because they are disgusted by a Government who cannot face up to simple truths!
James Murray
The word “rates” is definitely in there. The manifesto talks about the income tax rates and additional, main and higher rates of income tax, and it is very clear that we were talking about the rates of tax on working people. As I said, the manifesto also says that we will keep taxes on working people as low as possible. I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not take my suggestion to comment on some of the other tax choices we took at the Budget—the fair and necessary choices. The Opposition are picking and choosing what they want to refer to in the Budget. The Budget is a package. If they do not like it, they should explain what they would do instead.
Daisy Cooper
I am concerned about the impact of this Budget on businesses, and particularly about business rates.
We have been very clear that we are trying to be a party of constructive opposition. In last year’s Budget, it was clear that the jobs tax would raise £10 billion, once we had adjusted for spending, for rebates for the NHS and education, and for changes to behaviour—not the £25 billion that the Government claimed. We set out a number of proposals that could have raised that £10 billion. We Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government raising remote gaming duty in this Budget, because that was in our manifesto at the last general election. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) that there are other ways of raising taxes, and we hope that the Government look at some of our proposals, including our ideas for reforming capital gains tax, which would be a fairer way of raising revenue. It would raise more money from the 0.1% of the population who are super-wealthy.
Graham Stuart
Let me make a point before the hon. Lady makes it herself: the jobs tax is a peculiarly misconceived tax. It is a £25 billion or £26 billion hit on the real economy, with all the lost jobs that we have seen as a result, and it does not even raise much money. Looking at all the negative impacts in the round, it may actually raise even less than £10 billion. There is a £25 billion or £26 billion hit, and the measure potentially raises less than £10 billion. It is economic madness, and it shows why the Government need to think more deeply.
Daisy Cooper
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the jobs tax has been damaging. I say to Treasury Ministers that the combination of the jobs tax and higher business rates bills will have a profound impact on the very small businesses on our high streets, and our high streets are critical to our communities. Most ordinary folk do not follow the statistics on growth, unemployment, GDP and everything else; when they walk out their front door and look at their high street, they decide how they would answer the question, “Is the economy working in our area?”. It is so vital that we support our high streets.
On that point, I genuinely urge Ministers to look again at the multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. They talk in a very technical way about one element of the bills and continue to say that the rates are coming down. They have come down by 5p for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, but Ministers gave themselves the power to reduce them by 20p. However, businesses heard “lower business rates”. They did not think about the technicality of how the rates are calculated; they just heard the word “lower”, and made decisions on that basis—but bills are now higher, and they are really struggling.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: we cannot tax our way to prosperity; we have to grow our way to prosperity. We hope very much that, as Ministers move ahead on this debate, they not only reform the OBR and Budget process, so we have more transparency in this House, but think again about going for growth with Europe.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think I could ever be accused of being devoid of sympathy. I became an MP because I genuinely and passionately care about making a positive difference to people’s lives. In fact, as Members across the House know, I previously worked in the charity sector and as a teacher. I got involved in those jobs because I wanted to make a positive difference to people’s lives.
One of the big things in the Budget—before I go completely off my speech—is the scrapping of the two-child cap. I recognise the concerns raised by Opposition Members about increased welfare spending—although, it went up on their watch too—but when I am presented with the statistic that over 1,000 young people will be taken out of poverty as a result of that policy, I find it very difficult to ignore.
On a lighter note, I would like to state—there will be collective relief across the House—that no members of my immediate or extended family have ever worked for the Treasury or the OBR. That said, like many Members across the House, particularly on the Labour Benches—I am glad that the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), mentioned this too—I value the work done by the OBR and, in particular, its independence. Of course, as many Members have mentioned, it is extremely disappointing that the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” was prematurely accessed by external users before the Chancellor’s speech on Budget day. I am really pleased that the OBR responded to that very quickly. In its own words:
“It is also important to note that the EFO contains market-sensitive information, i.e. information that is not public and could have a material impact on financial markets. This is why, in the run-up to the delivery of the Budget, any leaks concerning the OBR’s forecasts, whether accurate (as in this case) or inaccurate, whether inadvertent (as in this case) or deliberate, are to be greatly deplored.”
This is a good Budget for residents and families in Harlow, with rail fare freezes; prescription fee freezes; additional investment in our local NHS, which I have covered previously, and which had sadly been neglected; a rise in the minimum wage; a rise in the state pension—yes, a brief mention of my mother, who is delighted—and, for the vast majority of residents in Harlow who do not own a property worth over £2 million, no increase in tax.
We saw in 2022 what happens when the OBR is bypassed in the Budget-setting process, but we must ensure that the IT that backs up this non-departmental public body is fit for purpose and that such mistakes do not happen again.
Graham Stuart
I think it was Gladstone who said that the first duty of a statesman is to be honest. Is the hon. Gentleman, who I think would be recognised across the House as someone for whom honesty is a natural state, entirely comfortable with the Chancellor cherry-picking the confidential briefing from the OBR in that 4 November speech and not setting out the full circumstances that she was then aware of?
Chris Vince
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OBR was very confident that the Chancellor did not mislead in the statement she put out, and I am confident about that.
The Chancellor was consistent in her priorities for this Budget: tackling the cost of living crisis, bringing down waiting times and cutting borrowing. It cannot be right that £1 in every £10 is being spent on interest payments alone. We cannot go back to the austerity we have seen, with schools and hospitals that would literally fall apart.
I would like to finish with two quotes. The first is from Margaret Thatcher:
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means that they have not a single political argument left.”
And finally, to quote Dickens:
“charity begins at home, but justice begins next door”.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Britain is hurting: families are cutting back, bills are soaring, and inflation is twice the Bank’s target. Just last month, the Chancellor claimed that she had no choice but to raise taxes on working people, and in true Harry Enfield style she blamed the Tories, the Tories, the Tories—and, of course, the OBR.
On the subject of honesty—the thread that runs through today’s debate—it is worth me returning to my earlier exchange with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in which I said that the Labour manifesto did not specify that it was the rates of the taxes that would rise. I was quite wrong, and the Minister was correct. I would like to apologise to him and the House for getting that incorrect.
The OBR told the Chancellor in October that tax receipts were £16 billion higher than expected. She knew that but suggested otherwise. That is not spin or sophisticated political communications; it is deceit, and it does matter.
Graham Stuart
I have very limited time, so forgive me but I will not.
It matters because the Chancellor has a nearly £3 trillion debt to service, and because trust is everything. Because the policies that are being implemented and the promises that were made by the Chancellor are at such variance, the markets—unlike in any other western nation, I believe —have put a higher and higher cost on borrowing for this country. That has very real-world impacts. Investors from Beverley to Berlin need to believe what the Chancellor says. After all, “credit” comes from the Latin “credo”, meaning “I believe”. If that belief falters, borrowing costs rise and more of our taxes go to paying lenders instead of funding the priorities of the British people. When trust goes, growth goes. Investors hesitate, businesses hold back and families feel the pinch.
The Chancellor appears to have learnt nothing from last year’s Budget of broken promises. It was a Budget that brought higher unemployment, fewer businesses and lower growth. She did not learn from that first exercise. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) pointed out, the weakness of the jobs tax is not just that it will hurt growth; it does not even raise much money. It was peculiarly poorly thought through.
This year’s Budget repeated more of the same. The British people know that the way to tackle the cost of living is by getting people into work, not increasing the number of people on welfare; and by creating opportunity, not dependency. But Britain has a Chancellor who talks about helping working people while making it harder to work, to save and to succeed—and throwing the OBR under the bus while she is at it. That is not a vision for the future, and it is certainly not leadership; it is fantasy dressed up as policy, and the people of Beverley and Holderness can see right through it.
Labour came to power promising change. Unfortunately, change has been delivered, but it is not what we were promised. We have 280,000 more people on the unemployment register, more than 200,000 businesses have closed, and 5,000 people are signing off sick every single day, because of the decisions made by this Labour Government. People are angry about the impact of Labour policy, but my constituents tell me that they are particularly angry about feeling misled. I hope I have shown my own candour in addressing my earlier error, for which I apologise again. Can we Members of this House try to speak honestly and accurately, and not gaslight or mislead?
Dan Tomlinson
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a strong advocate of ensuring that we do all we can to support people, lift people out of poverty, and grow our economy and our towns and cities across the country.
By contrast, the Opposition are stuck in the past, playing the songs of old again and hoping for a new audience. After a year and a half on the Opposition Benches, the Conservative party knows that all it has to offer the country is the same as it offered before: a reheated and not renewed set of Conservative policies, tax cuts for the wealthy, wages held down for the poorest, cuts to public services and a rise in child poverty.
The problem is not just that the Conservative party is playing the old tunes but that half the old band has jumped ship to join the more extreme party, which has not even bothered to show up to this debate. I do not know how the band will manage to perform without the likes of the hon. Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), Jonathan Gullis, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, Nadine Dorries, Ann Widdecombe, Sir Jake Berry, Mark Reckless, Maria Caulfield and Marco Longhi—those are just the Tory-to-Reform switchers I have heard of. There are many more who I think are probably as well known as I am, so I do have a soft spot for them. For completeness, let me remind the House of their service and their defection, too: Lia Nici, Chris Green, Anne Marie Morris, Graham Simpson, Adam Holloway, Alan Amos—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last time I checked, this debate was supposed to be about the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know the Minister is relatively new to the Dispatch Box; perhaps he may need a little guidance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the Minister has heard it and will return to his speech.
Stamp Duty Land Tax
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
As Members from both sides of the House know, we are determined to get people back into work, because that is the way to bring the welfare and benefits bills down, and to make people better off. What is not the right thing to do for this country is to follow the Conservatives’ plan for £47 billion of cuts, for which they have no plans and that would represent nothing less than a return to austerity. If their £47 billion were to come from cuts to public services, that would mean 85,700 fewer nurses, cutting every police officer in the country twice and cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail is in their motion today.
To have proposed the motion is a shame for British politics, because with the Conservatives’ long history, they really should know better. Were it to be the Greens, Plaid Cymru or Reform proposing policies with little regard for the consequences, I would not be surprised because they have never had a chance to implement them, but to see the party that was in charge for 14 years acting this recklessly shows just how far it has fallen.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister is always generous with his time and always has a smile, which is a welcome thing in this Chamber. Government spending this year is approaching £1,300 billion, but Ministers could not save £5 billion because of their own Back Benchers. Is it his complete failure to make even the smallest savings on that monumental budget that makes him find it impossible to believe that others would have the will to do so?
James Murray
What I find it impossible to believe from the Conservatives is that they now have a shadow Chancellor who claims to have a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, when he himself presided over the biggest increase in welfare spending in decades when he was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. That is the record that gives him no credibility whatsoever in this debate.
In their motion, the Conservatives also claim that they want
“to get Britain working, to grow the economy and to give people a stronger stake in their communities”.
Yet they spend their whole time trying to claim that Britain is broken. They have joined the ranks of those who are trying to co-opt our flag for their own ends by claiming that it is in tatters. I cannot believe that so many who claim to be proud of our country are so willing to talk it down. Our country is not broken; we are a great country, filled with great people and great businesses. We are willing to roll up our sleeves and work together for a greater future. However, it is clear that many people across our country feel stuck. Under the last Government, our economy stalled, our public services were starved and opportunities dried up.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Let us get straight to the point: what we are discussing today is a Tory plan for tax cuts for the better off, with no plan to pay for it. That is what the Tories have chosen to spend their Opposition day on.
My constituents are frustrated by the stark regional inequality in our country that means that London and the south-east are, economically speaking, another country all together. They lament the lack of public investment in transport, infrastructure and skills that this Labour Government are seeking to put right, so it is staggering that the Tories have chosen to propose tax cuts for people buying expensive homes in London and the south-east, further entrenching that regional inequality.
In the north-west, the average house price is about £200,000; in London, it is over £550,000. That means that 95% of first-time buyers in the north-west of England do not pay stamp duty, whereas 80% of them in London do. These are, let us be clear, the priorities of the same old Conservative party we have always known: the protection of wealth in the south-east above the concerns of constituents such as mine. Where would their supposed spending cuts fall? The motion does not tell us, so we can only assume that they would fall on public services in areas such as Pendle and Clitheroe.
The funny thing is that I am a strong advocate for serious property tax reform, but the Tories are not proposing to address the most unfair, regressive tax in Britain, which is council tax. Our council tax system punishes working-class people in the north precisely because they live in a poorer area. Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that someone living in a £1 million London townhouse will pay £1,000 less per year in council tax than a constituent of mine living in a house worth £250,000? It bears repeating—£1,000 less for someone who lives in a £1 million London townhouse than for someone who lives in a £250,000 house. That is outrageous, and if the Conservatives were still a serious party, perhaps they would focus on council tax, which is so emblematic of the regional inequalities I have just mentioned. Those inequalities have condemned once-prosperous regions of the country to steady economic decline.
The Conservatives will not do so, though, because they quite literally no longer represent regions such as mine. Looking across the Chamber, I cannot see a north-west Conservative MP, but that is not surprising, because there are now only three—they are a rare species, just as Conservative MPs are in many other regions outside the south-east. The Conservatives’ answer remains the same as it has always been: that growth in the south-east will lift up constituencies such as mine. “Make those with wealth wealthier and everyone else will benefit”, they say, but that economic thinking has failed time and again.
Jonathan Hinder
I am going to finish.
Property taxes in this country do need radical reform—on that, I hope I can find allies on all sides of this House. We need a more proportional property tax, but the Tories’ hare-brained idea to scrap stamp duty—a big tax cut for the better-off in the south-east—with no plan to pay for it, while leaving the regressive council tax untouched, is just not serious.
Chris Curtis
I will make some comments about the unfairness of the council tax system in a moment. We can have a conversation about tax and spend, and there is a much wider conversation to have, but today’s debate focuses on a very specific cut in a very specific part of property taxation, and there is a problem with having that conversation in isolation, rather than having the bigger, bolder, politically braver conversation that I would like the Opposition to start about wider reforms of our property tax market.
Graham Stuart
I must say that I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. For once, he is not purely engaging in the “14 years of failure” rhetoric of the Labour party. He recognises that stamp duty is a bad tax, and he says that we need a proper, joined-up and deeply-thought-through approach to getting rid of it. Is he pledging to lead such an operation in the Labour party? Given that for the next four years there will be 400-plus Labour MPs, the debate within his party is more important than the one within ours.
Chris Curtis
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to comment on the 14 years of Tory failure—years in which his party failed to grow the British economy and created a number of the problems that the country faces. While the shadow Chancellor made many good remarks in his opening speech, there was a little bit of amnesia about the state of affairs that was left to this Government. However, we do need an honest conversation about tax reform, including reform of property taxes.
We have spoken a little about what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, and the IFS is right. The UK essentially relies on two big but fairly broken property taxes. Council tax does not create the distortions that stamp duty creates, but it is regressive; stamp duty creates distortions, but it is at least progressive, and mitigates some of the regressive elements of council tax. If we look at only one half of the equation and simply cut stamp duty, we will tilt the system further in favour of the wealthiest households, many of them in London and the south-east, while telling lower and middle-income families elsewhere that there is nothing in the system for them.
We should consider just how unfair council tax has become. Given that the top band is capped so lightly, the bill for a modest family home in the north or the midlands can be similar to that for a multimillion-pound townhouse in London. Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, has already been quoted, but let me read out a tweet from him:
“Buckingham Palace, valued at around £1bn, sits in band H and is charged £1,828 by Westminster City Council, less than an average three-bedroom semi in Blackpool...46% of households in England will receive a bigger council-tax bill than the Palace.”
That is clearly a broken tax system, and if we ignore that and focus solely on stamp duty, we will only make things worse.
Moreover, because successive Governments have not had the bravery to revalue, the tax bands are still based on 1991 values. In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee had just invented the world wide web, Nirvana had just released “Nevermind”, Will Smith was filming the first series of “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”, and I had not been born. A lot has changed since then, yet we have still not reformed the way in which we carry out council tax valuations. So yes, I agree that we should set a path to reducing stamp duty and ultimately reform the way in which we deal with it, but that should be part of a broader package that shifts tax away from transactions and towards ongoing occupation of higher-value properties. It could include revaluation and re-banding of council tax, so that bills reflect today’s values. There could be a higher rate or surcharge for the most expensive properties, and targeted reliefs to support downsizers and first-time buyers.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is giving a brilliant speech, I must say, and given the energy that he is bringing to it, it “Smells Like Teen Spirit” to me. I agree with most of the points that he made about council tax. It is outrageous what we see when we compare the tax on a small flat in Beverley with that on a multimillion-pound apartment in Westminster. Does he recognise that the cut in business property relief will impose huge costs on businesses, such as house builders, one of which I met last week? If that business was worth £100 million, say, on the death of the owner, the tax would be £20 million, and the person inheriting the business would have to extract £40 million in order to pay it. That house builder told me that for every £40 million taken out of the business, there would be £120 million of investment not made in housing. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a real problem?
Chris Curtis
With respect, I think that I have already taken the debate a little bit away from stamp duty, and I do not want to go into the wider tax system—although, as I have said, it is important to broaden the debate and engage in a wider conversation about property taxes, as I have tried to do. If the Opposition genuinely want to remove stamp duty, I invite them to engage in that wider conversation in good faith. If we want to remove costs at the point of transaction for those buying high-value homes, it is only fair to ask them to contribute more through day-to-day charges. Such a system would be fairer, would support mobility, and would meet the objectives that I think are shared by Members on both sides of the House: a housing market that works, more building, and a tax system that is both pro-growth and fiscally responsible.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I think the quality of contributions from both sides has been excellent—which has not always been the case over recent months.
No one in Beverley and Holderness likes paying stamp duty—not first-time buyers in Beverley and not grandparents seeking to downsize in Hedon. Of course, as we know, it is not even popular with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).
Stamp duty was first introduced in 1694 to fund our war against the French. While we may have our differences with our friends across the channel, when I checked this morning, I was pleased to find that we are not currently at war with France. What began as a temporary wartime measure—raising £91,206, 10 shillings and fourpence in 1702—has become a permanent tax. But it is more than just a tax; it is a barrier to opportunity for young couples in Sproatley in my constituency, an impediment to aspiration in Aldbrough, and a block on families in Withernsea trying to climb the property ladder.
We, the Conservative party, have always been the party of opportunity, of home ownership and of family aspiration. That is why, at the next election, we will abolish this three-century-old tax. There have been welcoming signs that I did not expect to hear today: too often, colleagues on the Government Benches just slavishly repeat their speaking points, but we have heard thoughtful speeches and a recognition that stamp duty is a harmful tax. They may question our way of implementing the policy, but they recognise that.
We will abolish this three-century-old tax and unlock the housing market in Beverley and Holderness—and beyond. I encourage the Chancellor, and colleagues behind her, to follow our lead.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The shadow Chancellor would have us believe that the Conservatives have changed, and that the days of Liz Truss and her disastrous mini-Budget are behind them, but we can all see that nothing has changed. Once again, we see the same reckless attitude towards the public finances—cutting public expenditure to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest without being honest with the British public about who pays the price. The shadow Chancellor tells us he can fund this Liz Truss-style tax-cutting bonanza by making £47 billion in spending cuts. I simply ask him: if these fantasy savings are so easy to find, why did the Conservatives not make them during the 14 years they were in government?
Rachel Taylor
No, not at this point.
We have been here before with the Tories. They tell the public they can slash the state without any downsides, but the next thing we know is that our local library is being shut down, our local swimming pool goes with it and our vital services such as the NHS and schools end up in crisis. My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have suffered 14 years of austerity once, and they do not want to suffer it a second time. Let us look at some of the real facts about stamp duty.
Rachel Taylor
I am not saying whether stamp duty is a good or a bad tax. I am saying that I do not support simply abolishing it without any thought about the impact that that will have on the poorest people in our society.
The Tories have dressed up this fantasy tax cut as standing up for first-time buyers, but as a former property solicitor, I can tell them for a fact that that argument is completely false. In my constituency, a first-time buyer purchasing a property at the average price pays no stamp duty. This tax cut would be of no benefit to them whatsoever.
Gideon Amos
I would point my constituents to the comments made by Lucian Cook, the head of research at Savills, who has said that the proposed SDLT giveaway would simply pass straight into house prices. It would have very little, if any, effect on people’s ability to buy homes, whether they are downsizing or not.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I may have misheard, so will he clarify for the benefit of the House? At the beginning of his remarks, I thought that he said that this was a very bad tax and that it was harmful, but then, as only a Lib Dem could, he proceeded to argue strongly in its favour. Will he help me out, because I am not following the line of his argument?
Gideon Amos
The right hon. Member, for whom I usually have respect, was clearly not listening to what I said. It is possible for there to be several features to a change in tax policy. Our argument, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans pointed out, is that we need a comprehensive review of property taxes. The effect of the stamp duty holiday was to increase house prices. It may, none the less, be a valuable policy, because it may free up transactions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) argued. My observation is that these are not the policies that will help people who are struggling to afford a home to rent and to get on the housing ladder in the first place. They may be valuable for other reasons, but they will not address that problem. As I say, coupled with that we need a big investment in rent-to-own housing. Since 2015—this is the big point, which would be unaffected by the Conservative proposal— the multiple of income needed to get a mortgage, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has risen from four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half times their income.
Without more genuinely affordable homes in significant numbers and wider tax reform, this cut is unfunded. It will leave first-time buyers with nothing new and transfer funds to the wealthiest. That is simply not enough to help my constituents. We need a much more ambitious renaissance in the building of council and social rent homes, and we need new measures to help people to get on to the housing ladder.
Sir Ashley Fox
My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the first-time buyer, but the family moving into a larger home and the empty nesters—I am almost one—seeking to move into a smaller house.
Graham Stuart
May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about the dynamic market that we need? People in south-east England may be thinking of moving to, for instance, Beverley and Holderness to take up a job, but may be put off by the costs involved, and the risk that they are taking in moving to an area where there may be only that one job for them, and no other jobs to compete with it. So they do not make that move, and we do not benefit from their input into a business in Beverley and Holderness, purely because of the dampening effects of this tax. They stay in the south-east, although they, the country and Beverley and Holderness would be better off if only they were incentivised to move and take a chance.
Sir Ashley Fox
That is another valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the housing market but the jobs market, and therefore the whole economy. Our politics ought to empower people, not load them with additional burdens. This is an important measure for young people, because, as we acknowledge, they face higher costs and more competition for housing than their parents did.
To be credible, we must explain how we will pay for this measure. That is a valid question, and, unlike some parties in this place, we will not make promises without a plan for delivery. The measure is possible as part of a wider package of economic reform, spending discipline and growth creation. The Government were elected on a policy of “going for growth”, yet everything that they do seems designed to bring about the opposite. A jobs tax makes it more expensive to employ people; higher business rates make it more expensive to conduct business in a property; the changes in agricultural and business property relief—increasing inheritance tax—reduce investment by family businesses; and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to employ people. The Government have turned on the spending taps and levied record levels of tax, while at the same time implementing measures that increase unemployment and make Britain less competitive. Every Labour Government has led to higher unemployment, and it is deeply regrettable that in every month since the general election, unemployment has risen. I do not think that the Government are malevolent; they simply have no clue about how business works.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I especially thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) for his speech at the start, and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) for bringing forward this debate. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for concluding on behalf of the Opposition.
With those niceties over, I turn to the substance of the motion we are debating, which, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, is fundamentally flawed. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s seemingly steadfast commitment to having no policy at all, which has now been very much abandoned, Conservative Members have looked back at their shockingly bad economic record and taken the rather extraordinary view that they are well placed to offer input and advice on the upcoming Budget, which is entirely a matter for the Chancellor to decide once she has seen the OBR’s forecast and which she will share with the House at the end of next month.
The Conservatives have looked at all of this, thought for seemingly quite a long time about it, and decided that now is the right moment to offer some policy. The solution to all the hardship they inflicted on the country during their time in power is more of the same: more unfunded tax cuts, more instability, more austerity, more harm to our public services and, dare I say it, more of the approach that meant that their penultimate Prime Minister was outlasted by a lettuce.
Lucy Rigby
I will make some progress.
That is the Conservatives’ pitch to the British public—reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services and reckless with the future of this country. Conservative Members are competing to say how sad and angry they are about this tax. They will be furious when they find out which party gave us the highest tax burden since the second world war! [Interruption.] The motion is a seemingly straight-faced argument from Conservative Members that we should do the exact thing that brought their 14 years of government to an end. It is proof that they have learned—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Stuart, is it an actual point of order? I think the Minister was coming to a conclusion, so we are just preventing our business from progressing. Ministers, Front Benchers or Members not taking interventions is not necessarily a point of order. Do you want to proceed?
Graham Stuart
I would like to proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I wonder if there is anything the Chair can do to help the Minister. She appeared unaware that her own Government, for whom she is a Treasury Minister, have brought us to the highest ever level of tax in this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not my job to write yours or the Minister’s speech—if only. That was not a point of order.
Lucy Rigby
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The motion is proof that the Conservatives have learned none of the lessons of their catastrophic mini-Budget or of the years of the punishing austerity that was inflicted on the people and institutions of this country, with nothing whatsoever to show for it but soaring debt, low productivity and devastated household finances.
Let me be clear that stamp duty is not a beloved tax—far from it; it is no more beloved than any other taxes—but it is an effective tax that raises billions of pounds annually, with those buying the most expensive properties contributing the most. That contribution is vital to the upkeep of our public services, our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Abolishing it would take billions out of the public purse—£13.9 billion alone. It would be a multibillion-pound tax cut affecting the budgets of our most essential services.
It is the same horror show from the same old Conservatives, wildly swinging their scythe at public services without a care in the world for the consequences for our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Which services would Conservative Members want to cut down this time? Would it be fewer nurses, fewer soldiers or fewer police officers? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are asking me whether I am asking them. I am more than aware that in the debate they referenced their fantasy economics based on welfare cuts. The shadow Chancellor oversaw the biggest increase in benefit spending in decades when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If he truly believes that welfare spending needs cutting, why did he let it balloon? We have heard from various hon. Members about their objections to this tax and about all sorts of things they imagine might be in the Budget.
Graham Stuart
Just to be clear, does the Minister agree that this is a bad tax? Would she, in a perfect world, seek to find ways of controlling public expenditure so that the tax could be removed and people across the country—first-time buyers and the elderly in particular—could benefit from that?
Lucy Rigby
It is a tax, so obviously I do not love it, but what I find extraordinary is the Conservative party’s new-found hatred of taxation when they increased taxes 25 times in the last Parliament.
As I said, we heard from various hon. Members about their objections to this tax. I will not engage on the points made about the Budget, for obvious reasons, except to repeat that we are committed to a single major fiscal event per year where the Chancellor will set out any tax decisions in the usual way alongside the OBR’s forecast. That fiscal event will take place, as everyone knows, on 26 November, at which point there will be plenty of time to discuss and debate the decisions that the Chancellor takes in the Budget.
I want to speak to some of the points raised during the debate. We heard plenty from Conservative Members about why they want to abolish stamp duty. I think some points were made thoughtfully; I say that in a well-meant way. I am sorry to say, however, that we heard absolutely nothing from Conservative Members on their appalling economic record. We heard nothing from them on their appalling record on house building—save for the acknowledgment of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—nothing on the waste of public money from the fraud on their watch, and nothing whatsoever that could be described as fiscal responsibility.
We heard from some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches about the urgent need to build more houses in this country, given our appalling inheritance. That is the key way that we solve the housing crisis. I pay tribute to the thoughtful speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who spoke powerfully of the consequences of the Conservative party’s mismanagement of the economy, which include food banks, poverty and, of course, the housing crisis.
I welcome the commitment of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. He talked about the need to build more housing and, indeed, about beautiful housing. I assure him that that is exactly the type of housing that this Government will facilitate being built—although I note that his colleagues took him straight back to opposing development no sooner had he made that point. I also welcome his mini-insight into the infighting of the last Government.
Property Taxes
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that very kind intervention. I agree with every word that he said.
The subject of today’s debate is, of course, taxes and which taxes may or may not change in the future. Let me be clear: I will not be writing the Budget today or any day in this role. That is a job for the Chancellor. Just as she delivered a Budget that fixed the foundations for the country last year, I am confident that the Budget this year will showcase the right choices for the country for the long-term health of public and family finances.
Property taxes make a significant contribution to the public finances, raising more than £75 billion a year. That is crucial for funding our schools, our NHS, our emergency services and our armed forces and for filling in potholes too. They help to provide a broad tax base, which underpins good fiscal policy. I know that that is not something to which the previous Government gave much thought. They were happy, it seemed, to run our economy and public finances into the ground, leaving us with a £22 billion black hole, which we of course had to fill.
We believe in a tax system that is fair and sustainable and that supports economic growth. At the autumn Budget in 2024, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took a number of decisions to raise taxes on the wealthy to help fix our public finances and support public services such as the NHS and education. These tax changes included: abolishing the non-domicile tax status; raising the rates of capital gains tax; limiting inheritance tax reliefs; and increasing air passenger duty for private jets. Thanks to the work of my predecessor and the great work of HMRC officials, whom I am looking forward to working with, we are also increasing work to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share of the tax that they owe. These changes and others that we have made demonstrate the fundamental truth of politics in 2025.
Graham Stuart
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. In the Labour manifesto on which he will remember he stood along with his colleagues, it was suggested that there would be tax rises under a Labour Government. I think the figure was £7 billion. In the event, £40 billion-worth of rises came forward in the autumn. Will he commit the Government to being more transparent in future in preparing the markets for tax rises, and, indeed, the people who have to pay them?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I would ask him if I could whether he could identify £40 billion of spending cuts, if he wants to have £40 billion of tax cuts. I do not want to see NHS waiting lists grow in my constituency, in his constituency, or in any of the constituencies that we all have the privilege of representing.
The tax changes that have been introduced demonstrate the fundamental truth of politics in 2025. The bedrock of this Labour Government is fiscal responsibility, while the cornerstone of the Conservatives’ economic plans is fiscal fantasy. It is simply incredible that they have opposed every single one of the tax increases that we have put forward. Willing the ends without having any of the means is coming to define the economic policy of the Conservatives. Frankly, it should concern us all how unserious they have become. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said, it is clear that the Conservatives are enjoying the comfort and ease of opposition. Long may that continue.
I must say, it is surprising that the Conservatives would wish to raise the subject of property, given their abysmal record in that area. There can be no doubt that a big part of the mandate that this Government were given was to build more homes. The public had grown weary of years of sluggish growth, and over-budget projects that were first stalled, and then delayed. The public needed change; they needed us to build for this country’s future, and that is what we are setting about doing.
From infrastructure to planning reforms, which I have been championing for the last year, and our mission to build 1.5 million new homes. The Government have put housing at the heart of our approach, which will create jobs and opportunities for those who build the homes, and give families and individuals the opportunity to call somewhere home. As I said when I gave my maiden speech from a few rows back, housing is central to my politics. The aspiration of everyday families up and down this country is to have a home to call their own, maybe with a garden and a spot to park their car, in a community supported by public services that work. People do not want the world delivered to them on a plate by Government. They just want a good life for themselves and those they love. Building more housing and improving public services are essential ingredients of meeting their aspirations.
I have made many notes on all the fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, but I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker thinks that it is almost time for me to conclude, and I am sure that the Opposition Whip thinks so. [Interruption.] Ah, it turns out that there is more time, so I shall begin with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who made a powerful intervention about the success of Milton Keynes city council, and the importance of this Government investing in public services.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) gave a powerful example of house prices in his constituency, showing how prices have surged in this city—I know that, as I represent a north London seat—but that is why we must build more homes. I hope that he will support all the planning reforms going through this House, and the reforms that will come soon, because we need them to bring down house prices and improve the living standards of people in this country.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) made an interesting and thoughtful intervention about support for pensioners, but he should talk to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who has said that the triple lock is unsustainable—a view with which the Government do not agree. I would like to give a pleasant mention to my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I congratulate them on their marriage over the summer. It is fantastic to see them both contribute to the debate, and they both bring so much to the Labour Benches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) had a very good line on Liz Truss. He said that her dreams became our constituents’ nightmares, which is very true. We know it, and I think the Conservatives do, too. I will certainly be stealing that line for future contributions in this House.
To conclude, as the new Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, I look forward to returning to this Chamber and to Committee corridor on many occasions to discuss tax policy. The people of this country work hard for everything that they earn. They deserve an efficient and fair tax system, whether that tax relates to property or other areas, and for Governments to spend every penny of public money wisely. That is why everything we do is underpinned by fiscal stability, our sticking to our rules, and our managing the public finances well in this uncertain world. We do not turn to more borrowing, as Liz Truss did or the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) would, but put economic stability at the heart of all we do. That is the foundation for what really matters: higher growth for higher living standards in every part of the country. That is what this Government are working every day to deliver.
We are working to lift the crushing burden of the cost of living crisis, to back those who want to invest in the future of this country, and to give as many people as possible a home that they can call their own. That is the future that I fought for on the Back Benches, and that is the future that this Government can and will deliver.
Question put.
Property Taxes
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, interest rates are one of the key tools in monetary policy and are applied to bring down inflation. While she is right that there have been five reductions in the level of the base rate, there should have been many more. The reason is—the evidence is there—that this Government have stoked inflation. Inflation is still rising. It is at twice the level or thereabouts that it was on the day of the general election. When a Government stoke inflation, we pay the price through higher interest rates, and that is precisely what has been happening.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the massive impact of these tax rises on so many families and businesses up and down the country. Will he comment on how we can have a Deputy Prime Minister who has admitted avoiding paying the tax that she owed and who continues in office? And this, from a party that called for the resignation of people for far lower offences! Does that not expose the rank hypocrisy that seems to run right through this Government?
Sir Mel Stride
If the right hon. Lady wants to make the rules, she should live by them. That message will go out to businesses and families up and down the country. There is no way that they can avoid the juggernaut of taxes that are coming down the track.
Taxes
Graham Stuart Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
I think what the hon. Gentleman said was a gross impertinence, Madam Deputy Speaker. He also referred to you as an absolute “shower”, which is totally unreasonable. I have always been a great admirer of yours, as you know, and always will be. [Hon. Members: “ Name him!”] Name the hon. Gentleman—quite.
We have a Government who are grossly incompetent. As soon as they came into office, what did they do? They talked down the economy. It is no surprise that the British Chambers of Commerce is now saying that the No.1 concern of its members is high taxes, or that the latest survey by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales once again shows that business confidence is down—and that is for the fourth survey in a row.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Amid the shadow Chancellor’s quite correct exposition on the subject of where the Government have gone wrong, does he not have a little pity for the Ministers on the Government Front Bench? After last week, it is quite clear that they are no longer responsible for the running of the Government, as that has been handed to the hard left who have no interest whatsoever in balancing the books, and do not care about rising debt, rising gilt costs and the other irresponsible outcomes of this Government, who are now absolutely out of control.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I congratulate the shadow Chancellor on another theatrical performance—one that I know we all enjoyed across the House. I remember fondly his previous attempts to weave the story of “Alice in Wonderland” into his contributions. The only conclusion I can draw today is that he has not found his way out of the rabbit hole just yet.
The shadow Chancellor made a number of points where he seemed to rewrite history. It was all the fault of Russia invading Ukraine, with not one mention of Liz Truss—“Who’s that? We’ve never heard of her.” When asked why, if everything was so hunky-dory under the Conservatives, they suffered such an historic loss, the answer was, “Oh, I don’t know.” There was no answer to the question. We had hope when he said, “I will tell the House what I would do differently.” I sat and listened carefully, and the grand reveal: “I would focus on productivity.” Well, I think the Conservatives said that before, and how did that go? Not one policy, suggestion or apology for their record—not one thing.
In contrast, this Government were elected with an historic landslide and on a mandate of change. [Interruption.] Conservative Members question our historic landslide, but they should look at the number of seats we have on our side of the House, and how many they have on theirs. I encourage them to remember that the aim of the game is to get Members in this House. It was an historic landslide for the Labour party at the last election, elected on the promise of change—to put pounds in the pockets of working people and to deliver for the renewal of Britain.
At the Budget last year we fixed the foundations, stabilising the public finances and putting Britain back on the road to growth, after 14 years of Conservative waste and decline. [Interruption.] I know that the Conservatives do not want to hear it, but every time one of them gets up to speak—we have heard it already—it is as if they have forgotten about the £22 billion black hole they left in the public finances. Rather than act to fix it, they called an election, ran away and left it for us to clear up their mess. This Labour Government will never repeat the mistakes of the Conservative party.
Graham Stuart
The Chief Secretary said the name of the game is to get the maximum number of seats. I gently suggest to him that that is not the name of the game; the name of the game is to serve the British people and honour the promises we make to them. [Interruption.] He thinks that is amusing. If he wants to know where his vast majority came from, it came with a series of promises that, one by one, he is breaking.
Darren Jones
I roll my eyes because, evidently, all my hon. Friends put themselves forward and stood to serve the country. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made very clear, he changed the Labour party to make sure that we put the country first. The right hon. Gentleman makes the case that the name of the game is not to get Members elected to this House; if that is the case, he obviously played the game very well, because the Conservatives failed to do that miserably.
At the Budget, we took the decisions necessary to stabilise the public finances and give our public services a vital injection of cash to start to turn around the years of decline that members of the public across the country know: NHS waiting lists growing, schools crumbling, the prisons crisis, and project after project being cancelled or delayed. That investment was underpinned by changes to the tax system to make it fairer and more sustainable, while protecting working people against higher taxes in their payslips.
John Grady
I am very happy to reflect that the covid pandemic happened, but I also reflect that Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s mismanagement happened. The Conservatives lost the last election because they made a mess of the economy. They have lost their reputation for economic competence, which is why they have lost so many MPs and suffered an extinction event. I read in today’s Times that it was thought that the common crane had been extinct for more than 500 years in Scotland, but it is now reported that there are six or seven nesting pairs in Scotland—more than we have Conservative MPs, and there may be a reason for that.
The Opposition motion implies a reversal of more than £20 billion in taxes. The Opposition need to explain how they would fund that. What cuts would they make, and what effect would that have on the businesses they claim to support? They need to explain whether they would reverse the investment in the NHS, which is essential to businesses. Many businesses have said to me that they want to see investment in the NHS in order to get the waiting lists down and reform the service. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is doing. The disruption caused to businesses by NHS waiting lists is significant, but they are now coming down—if only the same could be said for Scotland.
The Opposition must explain whether they would reverse the investment in education, because businesses say to me every week that they want to see investment in skills. They need skilled workers to grow their businesses. It is essential for economic growth.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
As a Scottish MP, does the hon. Gentleman wish to differ slightly with those on his Front Bench, who have said there should be no new licences for North sea oil and gas? That policy does not mean that we will consume a drop less oil and gas; it simply means that we will import it from abroad with higher emissions and with tens of billions of pounds of tax and tens of thousands of jobs lost. Surely, as a Scottish MP, he should speak up for his constituents and say to those on the Front Bench, “Come on—let’s get those licences going again.”
John Grady
All I will say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the plain fact is that North sea oil and gas will be produced for many years to come, and the Government support that. The Government are also supporting investment in the industries of the future, such as offshore renewables. Under the Conservative Government, there was a contracts for difference auction with no successful bids, setting back our access to fixed-price, cheap electricity. That is the Tory economic policy on energy: turning up their noses at cheap, fixed-price energy. It is little wonder we are in such a mess.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The first line of the Tories’ motion gets to the word “manifesto”, and I accept their premise that that is what this is about—it is about the commitment
“not to increase taxes on working people, and not to increase National Insurance or the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax”.
I do not think that is a tall order. The next item on the list, however, is VAT. Never mind the headline rate, the concern now, from comments inside the Government, is about what will be dragged into VAT or have its reduced rate increased. There is no clarity on that from the Government, much less any reference to it in their manifesto from which Parliament, and taxpayers across these islands, can take any comfort or otherwise.
The motion
“calls on the Government to reaffirm the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer…that…personal tax thresholds will be uprated”
in the manner that they said. That is a fair point. Fiscal drag is an iniquitous thing to inflict on people. It eats into pay rises and erodes people’s incentives to get on and progress, and there is a real concern, given the fiscal misadventure—it seems to be one farce after another with this Government, and one U-turn after another. They talk about introducing stability into the fiscal dynamic. Well I am holding my breath waiting for that to happen, but I think I am making a mistake in that pursuit.
Worst of all—well, it is not worst of all, but it is really bad—are the changes to agricultural property relief, which were also not in the Government’s manifesto, and I sincerely urge the Minister to pause and review those changes. As others have articulated, that measure was clearly something that Treasury officials put in front of every new Chancellor, and every new Chancellor to date has had the wit to say, “Well, I’m not doing that,”—expect for this Chancellor, who is lacking in wit and much else to recommend her. She said, “Ooh, I’ll just go ahead and do that,” completely failing to understand the agricultural economy as it exists in these islands.
My constituency of Angus and Perthshire Glens is the garden of Scotland and the highest productive agricultural land in Scotland. An ecosystem exists around that farm enterprise, of recruitment, training, plant sales, feed stock, markets, fuel sales—it all exists, and it revolves like satellites around the farm business. Those farmers are now saying, “Why would I invest? What on earth would I invest for? Why am I investing my hard-earned capital into increasing technology and lowering the cost of production, so that I can get more competitive food on to the shelves of supermarkets and help with the cost of living, which this Government are incapable of doing anything about, meaning that my asset values go up, and so that when I die and my assets transfer, my tax bill goes up?”
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on this subject. I was at the Great Yorkshire Show last week, and there we had not only livestock and farmers, but the whole supply chain around that. The only conversation there was exactly as the hon. Gentleman describes, of a whole industry brought low because of this misconceived measure. He talked about Chancellors being presented with things. The caravan tax was presented to the Chancellor in 2012, and it took Government Back Benchers to persuade those on the Front Bench to change path. I hope Labour Members might do the same with the farm tax.
Dave Doogan
That is a welcome and comprehensive round-up of some of the broader issues on this, but it speaks to the fiscal innumeracy that says, “There is no cost to any of this; we can just help ourselves to that and it won’t have any impact.” As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) pointed out, if we speak to any rural plant sales or dealership, and they will say that sales have gone off a cliff, along with the VAT, employment, income tax, and national insurance that went with them. That speaks to a Treasury and a Chancellor who have a passing understanding of the price of everything but could not identify value in a line-up.
The motion goes on to talk about pensions. This is difficult, because I do not believe for one minute that we should pull pensioners whose income is only the state pension into tax. Neither do I believe that by dint of being a pensioner someone should get tax relief on the same income that somebody who earns that income will not get tax relief on. The Government are in a difficult position on this, and that is of their own making. Unless and until they guarantee to uprate the rates and protect pensioners from fiscal drag, there is little point in making a great big song and dance about the triple lock, if what that does is pull pensioners into taxation.
Where I diverge from the movers of the motion—
Dave Doogan
Yes, it had to come, and I am relieved that there is a cleavage. Where I diverge with them is on a wealth tax. I see that we are in a state—the UK is not a country—where poverty levels among our children are rising in every country in the UK except Scotland. In Scotland, it costs us £150 million a year—it will be £200 million by the end of the decade—to mitigate Westminster’s mismanagement of child poverty.
We cannot say that it is somehow punitive for people with assets of more than £10 million to attract an annual, modest rate on those assets. That is reflective of the highest tax burden that ordinary people have paid since the second world war—incidentally, I say to Conservative colleagues that that was the case before the election. The Labour party has just knocked that into the stratosphere with its misadventure.
There has been no talk anywhere in this Chamber today about Brexit. I remember the Prime Minister—what was she called? Theresa May. She was asked repeatedly, “What does Brexit mean?” She said, “Brexit means Brexit,” which is as nebulous as it sounds. In 2025, we now know what Brexit means. It means enduring child poverty and flatlining growth, no matter who is in charge of the Treasury in the United Kingdom. It means a common purpose between Labour and the Conservatives to have a neurotic policy on immigration. It means pale imitations to substitute for EU programmes, such as substituting Erasmus with the pointless Turing scheme, or EU structural funding and other funding with “levelling up.” It means a permanent drag on business.
The further we get from covid, the more we see that the fundamentals that are wrong with this economy are due to Brexit. The Minister, in his summing up, will doubtless say—
Bradley Thomas
The Government have not seen a success. Where we have seen tariffs imposed on the economy, the Government have not reduced them. There is a competitive disadvantage as a result of what we are seeing in the global economic climate. When Labour governs, Britain suffers.
Graham Stuart
On the trade deals, it turned out that the deal with the US entirely excluded the British bioethanol industry, until the President of the United States phoned up the Prime Minister and he unilaterally gave away the entirety of the market, putting at risk hundreds of jobs at Vivergo and thousands of jobs in the supply chain and at Ensus.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my right hon. Friend—that is another failure by Labour.
Dr Sandher
The global financial crisis affected every single nation across the world. I do not deny, by the way, how difficult things were in 2010, but we also left the Conservatives an economy that was growing, record low waiting lists, and investment in our nation and a plan to insulate our homes. Because they did not follow through on our plans, we had the worst insulated homes in western Europe, and some of the highest energy bills to go with that. Yes, we left in a difficult moment, but we left the Conservatives with a strong foundation for going forward.
The Conservatives left us poorer, sicker and slower, thanks to their their record on tax. In the worst cost of living crisis in a century, they attempted to cut taxes for the wealthiest. Everybody on the Labour Benches thought Truss was mad; I really do not know what Opposition Members believe anymore.
Graham Stuart
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House, so he will recognise that in 2010, fewer than 12% of homes in this country were properly insulated with an energy performance certificate rated C or above; when we handed over power last year, that figure was over 60%. He can look up those numbers, and I ask him to never misrepresent that record in this House, because that is the reality.
Dr Sandher
We saw it in the insulation build-out; David Cameron, as he put it, cut the green crap. Insulation rates were rising when we left office, but they were cut throughout the 2010s; as a nation, we have not had that insulation. That is why we brought in the warm homes plan and are funding it with £13 billion. Millions more homes will be insulated under this Government, bringing down energy bills by hundreds of pounds. Those plans for insulation are funded by the tax rises that the Conservatives oppose. Time and again, we ask them what they would like less investment in, and time and again, no answer is given.
We on the Government Benches are trying to build a country according to our values—a country where each of us is doing well, is doing better, is better educated, is healthier and finds it easier to get around. Those are the building blocks of our nation’s wealth. To build that wealth takes investment, which must be funded, and those who benefit most from our nation’s productivity should be asked to contribute more. That is exactly what this Government are ensuring.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. It is worth reminding the House of the situation in July last year: we had the fastest growth in the G7; employment was 4 million higher than in 2010, with up to 33 million people in employment; inflation was on target, at around 2%; and the UK, between 2010 and 2024, had grown faster than Germany, France, Japan and Italy. That was the legacy of Conservative stewardship.
I have asked Labour Members to give a more rounded picture, but sadly they almost always refuse to do so. Debt to GDP had gone up significantly, partly because of the massive deficit that we inherited in 2010, at more than 10% of GDP—that was phenomenal and had to be brought down over time—and partly because of covid and Ukraine, when we intervened to pay half of everyone’s energy bills. That is a more rounded picture. Overall, we managed to come out with people helped through covid and through the energy crisis, and with remarkably high levels of employment. Yet just a year later, under this Chancellor’s watch, that strong foundation has crumbled.
The Labour party needed to recognise that the economy was recovering and to let it grow. Instead, by coming in and being held by the manifesto commitments not to put up the main taxes on the one hand, and on the other, thinking that they were being clever and somehow keeping to their pledges by imposing national insurance rises on business but not individuals, that had the most bizarre and perverse effect.
The £25 billion hit on the economy created by the jobs tax comes down to about £16 billion after behaviour change, according to the OBR. Then, after compensation for the public sector, it comes down to about £11 million. Then, people have had to scrabble around for hospices, GPs and so on, which means the net is probably about £10 million, and that is before the depressing impact on the overall economy, meaning it almost certainly comes to single-figure billions. But guess what the OBR also says: from next year, 76% of the impact of the £25 billion hit comes out of ordinary people’s wages. That is the situation.
The Government have imposed a tax of £19 billion on ordinary people’s earnings in order to generate less than £10 billion of tax revenue. That is utterly insane, and I ask Members on the Government Back Benches to have a look at that, follow it and come back. I would love to hear that those numbers are wrong, because I would love to hear that we are not doing something as suicidal, crazy and damaging as it appears to be.
I wish I could drink the Kool-Aid, like the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger). The funniest thing about him—a man for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection—is that, unlike some of his colleagues who spout this stuff, he gives every impression, which I believe, that he believes it himself. That is what is truly extraordinary.
John Slinger
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I am certainly not drinking Kool-Aid. I do believe what I say, and I believe it firmly. I respect the right hon. Gentleman as a colleague, even though he is from a different party, but there is no Kool-Aid for me.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
The economy has contracted for two consecutive months, shrinking by 0.3% in April and 0.1% in May, in a textbook sign that we are in, or could be headed into, recession. Employment is down too, with Office for National Statistics data showing that payroll jobs have fallen by more than 100,000 in a single month, with around 274,000 fewer jobs compared with last year and unemployment climbing to 4.6%.
Following the excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I would just say that we should look at the big picture. Again, I appeal to colleagues on the Labour Benches. There was a magnificent victory for Labour last year in the election, with 400-plus MPs elected, and it really is up to Labour Members to recognise just how scary a position we are in. We have debt to GDP at about 100% and we have a world in which the fastest growth is to be found in developing states, some of which are quite hostile to us and to our values.
The truth is that no rich, powerful country has a divine right to stay that way. Wealth does not just come down from the heavens. Even in the 14 years when we were in government, too often in this place we seemed to obsess only on how we would spend money. From the moment we got up in the morning to the time we went to bed at night, we would talk about how we would spend the money, but we have to generate it first. It does not matter whether our No. 1 concern is the alleviation of poverty, the defence of the nation, education or the health service—we have to have a strong economy.
That is why the Government were right. One of the reasons they got that majority may be because they said that their No. 1 mission was economic growth. Remember that? It does not come through in the speeches from Labour Members now. Their No. 1 mission was economic growth. We should be sweating in Select Committees, in all-party groups, on the Floor of this House and in Westminster Hall over how we deliver that economic growth, so that we are not going backwards but are actually growing the economy.
We also have to accept something that is going to be tough for Labour Members, most of whom have not had any private sector experience and who tend to believe that the rich are just there to take money off and wealth creators can be endlessly offered haircuts and will just put up with it and if they do not, it shows some moral flaw on their part. We have to accept that the art of government is to recognise the realities, to align the incentives of actors—in this case in the economy—with the public goods we want to see. After a year, there are so many flashing red lights and warning signs that the Government are not getting that right, so they need to be prepared to think again.
I was involved after that omnishambles Budget of 2012, when I was part of helping the then Chancellor see his route to a better path forward, and my experience tells me that Labour Members must recognise that the country is potentially in a really serious, parlous position. We have no divine right to be a wealthy, powerful nation. The next four years are important. I hope and expect that there will be a Conservative Government after that, but whatever happens, the next four years are important and I hope that Labour Members will start to give rather more nuanced and thoughtful speeches in order to influence the Front Bench.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
It is important that, as this Government put more money into infrastructure, including transport, it benefits companies and jobs here in Britain. It is not right the Scottish Government spend more on buses made in China than on buses made in Scotland. There is nothing preventing the Scottish National party from investing in jobs and growth in Scotland.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
MPs and councils of all parties across east and north Yorkshire are united in wanting to enhance connectivity in the area, have greener options and optimise the economic output of the area, so will the Chancellor work with us on a cross-party basis to look at reopening a direct rail line from Hull to York, so that those great university cities can be united by effective transport infrastructure once again?
Rachel Reeves
I really welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman supports the investment that this Labour Government are making in transport and infrastructure after the 14 of years neglect by his party. We have increased transport spending by 1.9% per year in real terms in every year of this spending review period, benefiting all parts of the country, including Yorkshire, where both he and I have the honour and privilege of being Members of Parliament.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I discuss mortgages with lenders and, indeed, with the Financial Conduct Authority on a weekly basis, and I will ensure that I pass on his comments.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government considered all the policies in the autumn Budget carefully, in the context of the difficult fiscal inheritance that we had received from the Conservative party. The decisions to increase employers’ national insurance contributions and reduce the secondary threshold were taken to stabilise the public finances and ensure that money was available for our crucial public services, especially the national health service.
Graham Stuart
Johnson’s of Hedon, a DIY store, has traded successfully for 56 years, but its owner Mike Brooke, who has run it throughout that time, says that the national insurance hike introduced by the Chancellor has finally made the business unviable. Was the cruel destruction of Johnson’s of Hedon, and the jobs that it provides, deliberate or an accident?
Rachel Reeves
The money from national insurance—which, of course, only came in last month—is being used to fund investment in the national health service. Since the general election we have delivered 3 million additional NHS appointments, which benefits constituents in East Yorkshire and throughout the country. As for supporting business, the trade deal that we secured with the European Union was welcomed yesterday by the Confederation of British Industry, the Food & Drink Federation, the Institute of Directors and others, because it will add about £9 billion to the size of the UK economy.
Income Tax: Personal Allowance
Graham Stuart Excerpts(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lewis Atkinson
No, I will make progress. The public expect us to do better than that and they expect us to do more. They want wages and pensions to go up faster than inflation, as is now starting to happen. They want to the personal allowance to rise. I pay tribute to Mr Frost again for calling for those measures, and to all those who signed the petition. We should be hugely thankful to have citizens who are engaged in our parliamentary democracy, as the 250,000 people who signed the petition are. I look forward to an interesting, and I hope informed, debate.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Members will have noticed that the in-Chamber clock is not functioning, but the time can be seen on the annunciator—time is probably not of the essence in this debate. I remind Members that if they want to speak, they should bob, but I do not think that applies either.
Spring Statement
Graham Stuart Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I was pleased to note in my statement that Thanet has already come forward with plans to build affordable housing under the affordable housing plan, for which I set out more money. Opposition parties that abstain or vote against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are voting against homes for our constituents and jobs for our young people. On the Government side of the House, we back the builders, not the blockers. We back opportunities for young people and housing for our constituents. It is a shame that those parties do not do the same.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Chancellor claimed that growth was her top priority, yet she has taken the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and brought it to a shuddering halt. She promised that there would be no tax rises, but next week’s jobs tax will put tax rises on ordinary working people. Today, she has cut the housing numbers by 200,000 and put up borrowing by £18 billion in the next two years. Is it not time that the Prime Minister invited the Chancellor next door and said, “Rachel, you’re fired”?
Rachel Reeves
The plans that we inherited from the previous Government saw the OECD forecast that the UK would have the slowest growth in the G7 this year. It is now forecasting us to have the second-highest growth. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making, moving us up the league tables.