Taxes

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

The ultimate point here is that an estimated £5.5 billion was lost to the Treasury in 2022-23 as a result of tax evasion, and an estimated £6.6 billion was lost in 2023-24. What impact does the Minister think the previous cuts to HMRC will have on the amount of revenue collected, based on the current taxation rules, which were also agreed to by the Conservative party? How different would the amount in the coffers be if those cuts to HMRC had not been made? Will he consider that fact in the Budget and look at how we can support HMRC to ensure that we collect the correct taxes? Let us talk about the tax that should be collected but is not being collected because of the starving of funding for HMRC. From personal experience, I know that my mum and her colleagues made money for the Government. I appreciate that I went a little bit off topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you understand the point I was trying to make.

To reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening remarks, the Budget will be set on 26 November, which is why we will vote down this motion.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Vince]

No, I have finished my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings me to my next point. The Opposition have come to the House today stating that all these difficult matters have been resolved and there is no need for tax increases at all. They say that they have a plan for cutting £47 billion of public expenditure. I have a copy of that plan with me, but it is not much of a boast, because it is a very sparse document. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) said, “Further detail will follow,” but a month has passed and we are still waiting. Perhaps the shadow Minister who winds up the debate can let us know whether the Opposition will be publishing a more detailed document.

[Gregory Stafford]

To bring the hon. Member back to the controlling of spending, may I ask him a question that other Members on his side have failed to answer? Would he be in favour of keeping or scrapping the two-child benefit cap?

[Laurence Turner]

I have said it a number of times on the record and in this House before, so it is no evasion to say that I am no fan of the cap at all. As an incrementalist, I would like to see at least some solid progress on lifting that cap, and I hope that we will be in a position to remove it completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Under Labour, Britain is living in a doom loop of high spend, historically high debt, and higher taxes. That is killing growth, fuelling inflation, reducing opportunities and absolutely weakening our economy.

I have spoken to numerous businesses across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and our surrounding villages, and they are all anxiously awaiting the undoubtedly business-crushing Budget in two weeks’ time. The Government’s lack of understanding of business should surprise no one; Government Front Benchers have more experience of the trade union movement than of business. Indeed, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was asked which companies supported her damaging Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £8.3 billion and cause around 326,000 job losses, she could not name a single one.

The avoidance of engagement runs goes right to the top of this Government. We have seen that in this debate. We have had what I would call a utopian socialist vision from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who mentioned that Labour came into power at the last general election to change. Given how much Labour has resiled from its manifesto, “change” is about the only word left that it is still sticking to. Speak to people and businesses in my constituency—and, I am sure, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—and they will say that things have not changed for the better.

I have to say that the Liberal Democrats’ lack of interest continues. Not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher has chosen to speak in this debate on the fundamentals of how we will grow and run our economy. Not a single one thought it important to talk in it. That is shameful. I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for whom I have a lot of respect, speaks to his colleagues about this.

Our motion asks the Government to stick to their promises; I am concerned to see that that wording would be removed by the Liberal Democrat amendment, which thankfully was not selected by Mr Speaker. It is an extraordinary situation.

[Sam Rushworth]

I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about my contribution. Perhaps because our constituencies are different, his constituents do not face the same challenges as mine. The sorts of changes I am talking about are things like getting NHS dentists back, reopening Sure Start centres, fixing the problems on our high street, improving our schools and getting the waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services down. These are the serious things that my constituents are looking to me to deliver. The hon. Gentleman and I know as much as each other does about what will be in the Budget, but I will be looking for a Budget that invests in the public services that we need, and in infrastructure, which has sadly been neglected for far too long.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman has aptly described the social utopia that I accused him of describing. The fundamental point is that if we do not have businesses contributing to the economy, we cannot fund public services. If 90,000 people in the hospitality sector are made unemployed, they are not paying income tax, and we cannot support public services. The idea that the Government can just raise money out of nowhere forever, inevitably, without consequence, is not sustainable, and we are seeing that in our economy.

[Charlie Maynard]

I have already said this, and will say it again: I absolutely—and I speak on behalf of my colleagues—expect the Chancellor to stand by her promises.

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Hopefully, that means that the Liberal Democrats will vote for our motion later.

[Charlie Maynard]

indicated dissent.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head—our motion probably does not fit the narrative that he is looking for.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland just said that neither he nor I know what is in the Budget. While that is technically correct, the Government have been flying many kites about what will be in this Budget, pretty much since the summer—more kites than Mary Poppins—and I think that gives us some indication of what will be in the Budget. As has been said, that has caused great uncertainty and worry. Businesses are either deciding not to invest because they are so worried about what will happen, or delaying investment decisions because of the Budget.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I would like to quote the chief executive of the CBI, who says:

“Scrapping the Climate Change Act would be a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”

The chief executive of Energy UK says:

“Treating the Climate Change Act as a political football is a surefire way to scare off investors.”

Does the hon. Gentleman support his party leader’s objective of scrapping the Climate Change Act 2008, given that these two respected authorities say that doing so would damage investment in our economy?

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not think I have mentioned the Climate Change Act, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I think what my constituents want—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he is barracking me before I have even had a chance to answer. My constituents tell me that they want green policies and sensible moves to reduce carbon and pollution, but they do not want them to hobble our economy and hit them in their pockets at a very difficult time when they are being taxed to death by the Government. The owners of Rutland London in my constituency spoke to me about the Government’s much-vaunted policy paper “Backing your business: our plan for small and medium-sized businesses”, which came out recently. They said that the plan “while promised to cut red tape, lacks delivery details, relies on third-party co-operation, and depends on enforcement rather than details, plans or even an outline, none of which have been set out to us.” Once again, we have another supposedly amazing thing that this Government have done, but businesses do not want it.

During the general election, Labour told the public that it would not raise taxes—it said that 41 times. Then, as we have heard, the Government raised taxes to raise £40 billion. At that point we could have had a sensible discussion about how we were going to reduce the size of the state, reduce inefficiencies and increase productivity, but we had none of those discussions. Essentially, we had a tiny change to welfare, which this Government, because of their Back Benchers, could not get through.

While I disagree with the Labour Back Benchers on that, I am asking them now to find the backbone that made them stand up to their Front Bench last time and to do so again. If the Chancellor comes to this House and raises taxes on working people, I ask them to find that backbone and vote against the tax rise. Their constituents will thank them, and the country will thank them.

In the minute or two I have left, I want to focus on local leadership. I think it is incumbent on us as local leaders to meet and listen to constituents and businesses. That is why I am running a business roundtable next week, and I am very grateful that the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), is coming to speak at it. I recommend speaking to businesses not just because we are local leaders, but because Members on the Labour Benches would learn something. They would learn that their constituents are not in favour of this.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made some reference to our constituencies not being the same, but I can tell him that in my constituency, as I am sure is the case in his, there are business owners suffering, families struggling, farmers worried about what they will do with their taxes and small businesses that will be broken up because of this Government’s tax. There are also thousands upon thousands of people who have either lost their job or will not get into employment because of what this Government have done.

It is time for this Government to act—stop tinkering, stop the gimmicks, and stop punishing hard-working families and small businesses. This country deserves more than promises. It deserves action, certainty, and a Government who are on the side of those who work, innovate and contribute every day. What we need from the Chancellor in two weeks’ time is a Budget that actually invests in growth, supports jobs, protects household incomes and cuts the red tape on businesses that I described earlier.

I urge the Minister to take this opportunity seriously and ensure that the Chancellor and the Government listen to their constituents and my constituents and produce a Budget that restores confidence, ambition and hope in this nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Let me make a bit more progress—I am only on page 2 of a six page speech—[Interruption.] I am taking many interventions, but I will take fewer.

The previous Government saddled us with much debt, as we have talked about, with £1 in every £10 of public money going towards debt interest payments, perpetuating a stop-start cycle of public investments that left us with roads full of potholes, train lines that cannot even make it between London and the north of England, and an unpredictable business environment, with business taxation going up and down all the time. All that gave us an incredibly narrow base for regional growth, with few parts of the country forging ahead, while too many in the rest of the country fell behind.

Levelling up was a Conservative slogan, not a solution. Instead, this Labour Government are growing the economy and lifting living standards in all parts of the country, investing in infrastructure to get Britain building again, and working with local leaders and Members of Parliament to build pride in place and revitalise communities. That is the change that we are bringing. The Conservatives had the opportunity to invest in our public services, to upgrade rail, roads and connectivity, and to protect our NHS, but instead they threw money around with little regard for its value.

A key factor in our stalled productivity is that, time and again, the Conservatives had the option to choose economic responsibility, but they chose political convenience instead. The austerity that they pursued after the financial crisis, when interest rates were at record lows, was a sledgehammer to our economy, gutting public services and cutting the essential flows of investment that would have aided a faster recovery. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) said, and as Liberal Democrat Members are wont to mention, they then went ahead and implemented a rushed and ill-conceived Brexit deal that brought extra costs to businesses and extra disruption to trade. When the pandemic arrived, our country was not ready. Our public services and our economy have been severely weakened.

[Gregory Stafford]

As I told the hon. Member yesterday, he has the second worst job in Government, which I think he is feeling today. Even if what he has just said is true—I do not agree with him—after the Budget last year, the Chancellor said that the slate was wiped clean and that no more tax rises or borrowing would be needed. What has changed between then and now?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I was glad to attend the hon. Member’s Westminster Hall debate last night on wine producers across the UK. I am impressed by his close reading of all the words of members of the Cabinet; I hope one day to be as diligent as him in following the utterances of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all Ministers.

When it comes to the inheritance that this Government and the British people are dealing with, let me say that if wage growth since the financial crisis continued at the pace that it had before, it is not that families in my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and across the country would be £1,000 or £2,000 a year better off; they would be £12,000 a year better off. Imagine the difference that that would make to the businesses and communities across our country if we had not had that productivity stagnation.

In the end, we will see at the Budget that the OBR is implementing its review of productivity. I will not pre-empt that review, but it is right and proper that we ensure our fiscal forecasts are based on accurate understandings of what has happened in the past to our productivity, because the past is a guide to the future. I hope that this Government will continue to beat the outcomes that happened under the previous Government, when productivity almost flatlined, and that is exactly what this Budget will be about.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to colleagues for attending this evening’s debate. A bit of background and heritage: the United Kingdom has long been a global hub for beers, wines and spirits. Dating back to 1698, with the founding of Berry Bros. & Rudd, we are the largest exporter of spirits in the world and the second largest importer of wine by both volume and value. The sector represents some of the very best of British enterprise: from heritage distillers to pioneering new producers who continue to innovate and support our economy. Behind every bottle on the shelf is a small family business, a logistics worker or a hospitality employee whose livelihood depends on the trade.

Each year, the United Kingdom imports the equivalent of 1.7 billion bottles of wine, accounting for 99% of all wine consumed here. This vibrant culture of responsible enjoyment sustains our high streets, supports independent retailers and provides essential income for pubs and restaurants that continue to face difficult trading conditions. In 2024, more than £12 billion was paid to the Treasury in alcohol duty, with wines and spirits contributing £8.5 billion—around 70% of that total. The wider wine and spirits sector generated more than £76 billion in economic activity in 2022, supported £22 billion in gross value added and sustained more than 400,000 jobs.

However, when more than 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is tax, we must ask who is truly being squeezed—the consumer, the publican or the common sense of good economic policy? The reality is that the margins for producers and retailers are tightening. There is a limit to what the British public are willing to pay before they simply choose to stay at home. Changes in duty directly alter prices on the shelf and on restaurant wine lists. Every percentage point of duty may appear small in Whitehall, but for many businesses, it is the difference between survival and closure. Treasury Wine Estates, the producer of brands such as 19 Crimes and Penfolds, has warned that further tax increases will deepen pressure on hospitality. Its managing director of global premium brands, Angus Lilley, stated that higher costs mean tougher choices for local pubs, higher prices for consumers and less money circulating through the hospitality sector, which keeps our towns and cities vibrant.

A recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association found that one in four regular drinkers will buy less alcohol from shops if prices continue to rise, and two in five will reduce their consumption in pubs and restaurants. In my constituency, we have excellent local brewers such as Tilford and Kilnside, and craft distillers such as Hogmoor distillery; I had the pleasure of visiting the team recently and sampling their locally made spirits. Those are small creative producers that bring jobs, pride and flavour to their communities, but they will not survive if the alcohol industry continues to face relentless pressure from Government policy that fails to support its long-term sustainability. If we price people out of the pub, we do not just lose the sale; we lose the cornerstone of British community life.

Turning to the current picture, sales data illustrates the scale of the problem. In the 12 weeks to mid-June this year, volume sales for wine were down by 3% in the off-trade, rising to 5% for spirits. The picture in the on-trade is even more severe, with wine volumes down by 7% and spirits by 8%. Hospitality has been one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy since the Budget, accounting for nearly half of all job losses. We are now taxing our way to lower revenues. That is not sound economics; in fact, it is counterproductive. As one industry voice put it:

“Britain is becoming the most taxed place to raise a glass and the hardest place to sell one”.

Colleagues will recall that in 2023, the UK moved from the inherited EU duty framework to a strength-based system taxing wine by labelled alcohol by volume in 0.1% increments. Alongside that reform, the headline rate increased in August 2023, and it increased by a further 3.65% in February of this year. For a 14.5% ABV wine, that represents a cumulative increase of around 44% in just 18 months.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the point about excessive tax inhibiting entrepreneurship, I visited Ned Awty and his family, who run the Oatley vineyard in Cannington in my constituency, and they pointed out that it is perverse that the United Kingdom has a duty relief scheme for small brewers and distillers but no similar scheme for small vineyards. Does my hon. Friend agree that a small duty relief scheme for small producers would help English wine producers—and that we could all raise a glass to that?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he pre-empts something I was going to say later about the inconsistencies and unfairness in the current system. Small producer relief is capped at 8.5% ABV, and the Government should look at what they can do for the smaller producers that he mentions.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted that the UK has the third highest wine duty in the world, now at £2.44 per bottle—an increase of 9p since 2023. By comparison, France charges the equivalent of just 2p per bottle and Romania 1p, and Spain applies no excise duty at all. In fact, half of the EU’s 27 member states do not charge duty on wine whatsoever. When neighbouring countries impose far lower rates, our competitiveness suffers. We pride ourselves on being a global trading nation, but we have priced ourselves out of the very markets we helped to create. Labour’s current approach is short-sighted and self-defeating: taxing ambition, throttling innovation and penalising productivity. The Treasury cannot build growth by breaking the back of the very industries that deliver it. As Winston Churchill put it in 1904, we cannot tax our way to prosperity any more than we can drink our way to sobriety.

I turn to the inconsistencies and unfairness in the system, which my hon. Friend just mentioned. Products with an ABV of between 8.5% and 22% are taxed at the same rate per litre of pure alcohol, and yet producers of beer with an ABV of between 3.5% and 8.4% pay more than twice as much duty as producers of cider of the same strength. Small producer relief, although it is welcome in principle, is capped at 8.5% ABV and therefore excludes virtually all winemakers and distillers. This policy fails to support small English wineries such as Chapel Down—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—Nyetimber or Camel Valley, which I am sure Members are all familiar with, and which contribute to rural employment and agricultural production.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech, and I agree with everything that he is saying. West Dorset is blessed with 11 fantastic small vineyards. For most of them, the primary route to market is through local shops and rural pubs. Does he agree that unless we raise the threshold to create equality in the marketplace and a fairer system alongside small producers of beer, those vineyards will never have a chance to grow beyond their local area?

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. It makes very little sense to design a system that punishes small wineries for doing precisely what we want, namely innovating, employing and exporting. We need a tax framework that supports the makers, not merely those who take.

There is a revenue reality to this as well. Between April and September this year, receipts from alcohol duty were £300 million lower than during the same period in 2024. If that trend continues, the Treasury will collect around £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We have reached the wrong side of the Laffer curve, where higher duties result in lower total receipts. The Treasury cannot continue to draw from the same barrel and expect it to refill itself. That should give the Chancellor, the Minister and Treasury officials pause for serious reflection.

With the autumn Budget approaching, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas of concern. First, have the Government undertaken, or will they undertake, a full assessment of the impact of successive duty increases on consumer prices, business sustainability and overall tax receipts? Secondly, will the forthcoming three-year review of the duty system consider whether the current tax by ABV model is appropriate for wine, a product whose alcohol content varies naturally with climatic conditions? Thirdly, will the Government revisit the structure of small producer relief so that it more fairly supports genuinely small-scale producers, including English winemakers and craft distillers, in line with the original policy intent?

Finally, will the Treasury review the cumulative impact of wider regulatory costs, such as the extended producer responsibility packaging levy, business rate changes and other compliance burdens, to ensure that they do not disproportionately harm low-margin businesses within the sector? I thank the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and Treasury Wine Estates, whose compelling evidence shows a sector under extreme pressure, a tax system that is internationally uncompetitive and an approach that risks delivering diminished returns to the Exchequer. When consumers are price sensitive, hospitality is struggling, and revenues are falling despite higher rates, it is right to ask whether the system remains fit for purpose. The objective must be a framework that is fair between product categories, proportionate in its impact, and effective in raising the revenue on which our public services depend.

The UK’s wine and spirits sector is one of our quiet economic strengths. It deserves a regulatory environment that allows it to thrive, invest and continue contributing to communities and the Treasury alike. The Government should remember that a thriving economy fills the Exchequer, and a suffocated one drains it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and in particular how the Government intend to support the stability, competitiveness and long-term sustainability of this vital industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Having eight minutes to wind up, when usually one gets about eight seconds in this place, is a luxury that I will indulge, at least to a limited extent—I do not want to keep hon. Members from their wine.

This has been a fascinating debate and a wide range of issues have been raised. It was wonderful to hear about the wine producers and hospitality industries in people’s constituencies, as exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who is a doughty advocate not just for her constituency as a whole but, from what I can see from social media, for her vineyards and the producers in her constituency.

Every day is a school day: I did not realise that Scotland produced wine, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising that—and for talking about his crisp-eating habits. He rightly mentioned the health implications, and I hope that nothing I said in my speech detracted from that. I would like to see more education, and more targeted services and treatment services. I think that would achieve more than taxing the Shiraz that we have with our Sunday lunch, although he may beg to differ with me on that.

We have not just talked about wine; the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) rightly mentioned the Scotch whisky industry, which is vital.

The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), outlined comprehensively how complicated the system is. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for mentioning Blur. I think that dates him and me, but he was right to outline that the last Conservative Government froze duties. That is something that the Government should consider at the Budget.

I feel sorry for the Minister, because—behind the Chancellor, perhaps—he probably has the worst job in Government, but it does not have to be that way. He could make everyone very happy at the Budget by being one of the first Ministers responsible for taxation in a Labour Government to reduce tax. We shall wait and see. I was pleased to hear that, in the three-year review, the Government will look at the wider implications and the design of the system—and, I think he said, at small producer relief.

However, I was slightly disappointed by the way the Minister dismissed the impact of tax rises on the hospitality industry. That 90,000 jobs have disappeared since the last Budget is a scandal. If the same number of jobs had been lost from a car plant or an oil refinery, we would be debating that in the House and the Government would be stepping in to bail the industry out. Although the impact is dispersed across the country, those 90,000 jobs are equally important, and I hope the Government reconsider in particular their national insurance increase, which has hit the industry so hard.

I urge the Minister again to review the cumulative burdens that have been placed on the industry through both tax and regulation, and I hope that when he has his conversations with representatives of the industry tomorrow—I am glad that my debate has spurred him to have that meeting—he listens seriously to their concerns and gives them the relief and response that they seek.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Today the state of our economy is laid bare: growth has flatlined at just 0.1% in August; inflation remains at almost twice the Bank of England’s target; and long-term borrowing costs are at their highest since 1998. When we left office back in July 2024, we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. A year later, unemployment is up, debt is at its highest since the 1960s, and the UK is sliding backwards. It is hardly surprising from a Government with more experience in the trade union movement than in business. Only the Conservatives are serious about the economy.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I have literally only been speaking for 30 seconds, so I think the hon. Member can bear with me for a minute or two.

The Government’s inexperience shows in the policies that they pursue—policies that make it harder for businesses, homeowners and first-time buyers to thrive. Now, just weeks before the Chancellor’s Budget, comes the most destructive raid on homeowners in living memory, if we are to believe the leaked reports coming out of the Treasury.

[Charlie Maynard]

Under the Conservatives’ watch, the national debt grew by nearly £1 trillion. They drove our economy through a hard Brexit into the ground, and yet they masquerade as the party of good sense in the economy. I do not understand how that makes sense. Will the hon. Member explain?

[Gregory Stafford]

There have been a lot of comments about when people were born and what they remember. I hope the hon. Member does not take offence, but I am sure he was born before covid and the war in Ukraine and so he knows why we had to increase the national debt as a result. He is being entirely disingenuous if he believes those things did not have an impact on the economy. If he had been in power, what would he have done? Would he have not supported those small businesses, employers and hard-working people?

[Charlie Maynard]

rose—

[Gregory Stafford]

No, I have already heard enough from the hon. Member, so I will not give way for the moment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Just to be clear, good language is appropriate, and I am not sure “disingenuous” is the best language to use. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find an alternative word.

Is the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) finished wandering around the Chamber? Are you comfortable now? Fabulous.

[Gregory Stafford]

I misspoke, and I withdraw the comment. But I find it strange that Liberal Democrat Members seem to have a collective amnesia on what happened over the past few years.

Returning to the substance of the debate, families across my constituency are bracing for new taxes on homes, capital gains tax on family houses and even potentially a land value tax. This is not reform; it is a sledgehammer aimed at aspiration, mobility and stability. As I have said before, in Farnham, where the average home now costs £660,000, families could face bills of £5,000 a year on top of their mortgage and energy costs. In Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon, already stretched households will be hit again, and pensioners in Grayshott or Tilford face the grotesque prospect of capital gains on the homes they have worked a lifetime to own. Everyone—pensioners, farmers, small business owners—is treated by this Government as a cash cow. A tax on the family home is a tax on aspiration. It traps people in their properties, dries up supply and breaks housing chains. The very people Labour claims to champion—first-time buyers—will be frozen out altogether. The Government claim this is about fairness—we have heard that from a number of Government Members—but there is nothing fair about a pensioner in Greatham being forced to sell their home to pay the taxman, or a young family in Lindford choosing between childcare and a new annual levy. That is not fairness; it is a regional punishment for those of us who just happen to live in the south and south-east.

That is why I back our clear Conservative plan to abolish stamp duty on primary residences. Owning a home gives people a real stake in their community and their country. Our policy would make the economy stronger and help families achieve the dream of home ownership once again.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

The hon. Member says that owning a home gives people a stake in their community, and I agree with him. Why then does his party oppose this Government’s moves to help build 1.5 million homes and reform the planning system?

[Gregory Stafford]

The simple answer is we do not—I cannot add more than that. As the hon. Member has drawn me on this, our problem is that we do not think that is deliverable because the Government have not met any of their targets thus far. From a parochial point of view, in Waverley and East Hampshire my constituents face the doubling of housing targets, whereas in London, where the infrastructure is already in place, the targets are being reduced. That is not joined-up thinking; that is a Government who are spraying their house targets all over the country without thinking about how they will actually deliver them.

As I said, the average price of a family home in Farnham is £660,000, which would meaning paying £23,000 in stamp duty. If we can get our proposal through, that would be an enormous cut. Most important, it is fully funded—part of that £47 billion savings plan—and consistent with our golden rule that every pound saved is split between reducing the deficit and growing the economy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calls stamp duty the

“most economically damaging tax in the UK”.

The London School of Economics found that it “cuts mobility and investment”. The Centre for Policy Studies calls it a “tax on… aspiration”. They are all right. Our plan would save first-time buyers up to £18,000 in London and £4,000 in the south-east. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said, combined with our first jobs bonus, a couple could save £28,000—enough to get on the ladder and build a future.

We have heard a number of hon. Members across the House claiming that they support the principle of removing the stamp duty land tax, with the notable exceptions of the hon. Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). What those three Members forget is that people buying a house are almost always part of a chain. Just because someone at the top of the market might be buying a £2 million house—I think they are overreaching a little with £2 million, but even if that were the case—everybody else down that chain would benefit. As soon as we can get the market moving, we will allow people to buy and sell and will give the youngest people, those buying their first home or those trying to upsize because they are starting a family the ability to actually buy. It is not just the people who are technically covered by the tax—it is everybody within the whole chain.

In contrast, Labour froze the thresholds, dragging more families into higher bands. The Housing Secretary even tried to block 237 homes in his constituency. “Build, baby, build”—I think not, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I said, a number of Members across the House, especially on the Labour Benches, have expressed sympathy for the principle of the policy, but they seem entirely unwilling to make the tough decisions necessary to get there. We saw that with Labour’s total inability to cut the welfare bill by a tiny amount earlier this year. Even if they were not willing to take those decisions, though, as every Member of this House knows, this motion is not binding on the Government, so Labour Members could happily support it to show that they would, in principle, like to see this tax cut. I suspect, though, that their principles will be overridden by the decisions of the Whips Office. The Liberal Democrats were characteristically fence-sitting—so much so that I think the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) must have left the Chamber to remove the splinters.

The reality is that this Conservative Opposition is the only party with serious thinking about how to get the housing market moving again. Our alternative is clear: we will abolish stamp duty on main homes, scrap business rates for hospitality, leisure and retail and give high streets the breathing space to grow again. That is the difference—we listen to people who build, hire, own and aspire.

The choice before the House is stark: a Labour party that punishes aspiration, or a Conservative party that rewards it. Do we want a Government who trap people where they are, or one who set them free to move, work and grow? Only the Conservatives have a serious plan to get Britain working, grow the economy and give every person a real stake in their community through the security of home ownership.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Here we go again, Madam Deputy Speaker—always the promise of tax cuts to come, never the proper plans to ensure it is affordable. This motion tells us everything we need to know about the modern Conservative party; once again, its first recourse is to reach for the austerity button instead of making a serious plan to invest, grow the economy and strengthen our public services. Reckless with the public finances and reckless with our public services, the Conservatives are not a serious party.

I was going to make this point specifically for the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), but I see that he is not in his place, so everyone else can enjoy it instead. Yes, it is time for the greatest hits of austerity—the 14 years in which the Conservatives talked and did this country down, when day-to-day spending on public services fell by nearly 17%, stripping away nearly £46 billion every year from the services our residents rely on. Members should remember that figure as I talk about austerity, because the Conservatives would fund the tax cut we are talking about today with £47 billion—a larger number than that figure from the austerity years. Look at the back-of-a-fag-packet plans that they have to make it add up.

Let us remember what austerity did to our country. It left our NHS with a £10 billion repairs backlog. It left nine in 10 of our schools in urgent need of repair, with more than 230 schools with Swiss cheese for roofs, including reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in the roof of Wood Green school in my constituency. Those pupils deserve so much better; they deserve a decent place to learn. We will make that happen—the Conservatives did not.

When the pandemic struck, our public services were critically understaffed and had received critical under-investment. The result, thanks to the Conservatives’ austerity and cuts, was more than 170,000 excess deaths, putting the UK among the worst in the developed world.

In that period, our precious public sector workers who give their all—nurses, teachers, carers—had their pay frozen or capped for years, leaving the average nurse more than £4,000 worse off than in 2010. The Conservatives left one in 10 workers in insecure employment, including the better part of a million on zero-hours contracts.

The Conservatives’ cuts to social security pushed more families into poverty, which has resulted in 50% of children in my constituency living below the poverty line. That is every second kid—every second door when I walk around the estates that I have the honour to represent. Some 117,000 people are now living in temporary accommodation because of the money the Conservatives took out of the affordable housing building fund that today they seem so very pleased to speak in favour of.

[Gregory Stafford]

I just wondered if the hon. Lady had any views on stamp duty land tax.

[Antonia Bance]

I am speaking today about the other part of the motion before us—the part about the unspecified cuts that would pay for the tax cut—and the implications of that. As the hon. Gentleman would expect of a responsible member of my party, I am not going to speculate with plans about how we fund things for which there is no plan.

Going back to the record of austerity—remembering that austerity cost and took out of our economy less than the Conservatives propose taking out in their motion today—it left the bottom fifth of households £517 poorer, while the top fifth gained £174. Austerity did not just deepen inequality; it entrenched it. It led to the longest pay squeeze in 200 years, with growth anaemic, productivity absolutely flatlined and public investment slashed.

My friends at the TUC have worked out—[Interruption.] Yes, they are my friends. I was proud to represent millions of working people. Conservative Members speak about those working people with disdain, but it was an honour to represent them in their workplace and negotiate for better wages on their behalf. Good Conservatives in the past used to understand social partnership and the importance of responsibility and working with workers and bosses to get the best outcome; it is a shame those lessons have been forgotten, with the baying calls of the mob at the mention of trade unions. My friends at the TUC have worked out that if wages had risen in the past decade by the amount by which they rose between 1997 and 2010, the average worker in my constituency would be £93 a week better off—that is nearly five grand a year more in people’s pockets. Instead, we got the longest pay squeeze in 200 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which speaks for itself.

There is a stark contrast with what the Labour Government are doing, and their meaningful interventions in the housing market. The Renters Rights Act 2025, which has received Royal Assent, is stabilising life for renters, making sure that they no longer live in fear of no-fault evictions. We have also defeated a judicial review against vested interests and freeholders, so that we can move forward with our leasehold proposals. Those are both significant interventions that the Opposition failed to deliver after 14 years, five of which they spent trying to deliver reform for renters and leaseholders that would have meaningfully stabilised the housing market. We have not heard anything about all the people stuck in their homes because of the last Government’s complete failure to tackle the cladding crisis or leasehold. We have just had political dressing-up of an unfunded proposed tax cut.

The other thing that the Labour Government have done is made sure that we are stabilising the economy. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) told us, people who want to save up to join the housing market need a stable economy. We have seen interest rates come down five times, which we think is saving mortgage payers about £100 a month. They are better off because of the stability that our Chancellor and this Labour Government are beginning to deliver.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Lady is being generous with interventions; I thank her for that. To bring her back to stamp duty land tax, the average house price in her constituency is over £1 million. [Interruption.] I have not quite finished. Her constituents are the precise people who would benefit from this saving. Does she not think that they would welcome the abolition of this tax?

[Rachel Blake]

I am interested in how much the hon. Member knows about my constituency. He may know that nearly half of my constituents are private renters, and only about 15% can afford to own their own home in my constituency because of the record failures of the previous Government to do something about the cladding crisis, the supply of new genuinely affordable homes and the delivery of low-cost home ownership, which would have really made a difference. Rather than the Conservatives’ ill-thought-through proposals, Westminster city council under its Labour leadership is able to deliver more genuinely affordable homes, and this Labour Government are taking the challenge seriously.

We have seen His Majesty’s Opposition make a valiant attempt to dress up a politically motivated tax cut as a meaningful housing intervention. Serious thinking, this is not. I am pleased that the House will vote against their ill-thought-through proposal and that we will carry on with delivering meaningful intervention in the housing market and making sure that our publicly funded services are stable into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

The hon. Member raises an important point. We have this situation where a lot of young people are forced to go elsewhere; indeed, the area where I live is very expensive and I am worried that my children will be forced to look elsewhere. That is why it is so important that we now focus on the future.

[Gregory Stafford]

Is that not the fundamental point, and why the comments made earlier about downsizing are so important? This tax stops people downsizing, which means that people are not moving out and not freeing up the houses that young people could and should be moving into.

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Going back to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), we need to take this seriously. We can either look back the whole time, or we can look forward and think about what policies are right for the people of this country and deliver for the people of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bedford]

I thank my right hon. Friend for putting that on record.

I am not confident that this Labour Government understand aspiration, because they simply cannot comprehend the politics of people wanting to better themselves, their families and their communities. Sadly, they actually fear aspiration, and that is why this Labour Government are the most anti-aspirational Government in living memory. They have strangled the jobs market and they have sent unemployment rates soaring. That is the direct result of their punishing employer national insurance hikes, and their reckless unemployment rights Bill is striking fear into businesses up and down the country as they question whether to take a punt on recruiting new people, particularly young people.

The Government have caved in to the hard left on much-needed reforms to the welfare system—a system that should reward hard work and not entrench state dependency. As is always the case with a Labour Government, they invariably side with the shirkers and not with the strivers. Sadly, they have driven our economy into a full-blown doom loop: a cycle of ever-increasing taxes, rising inflation and net zero growth. Every hard-working family in Mid Leicestershire is paying the price for this Government’s failure, but what is most damaging of all is not the economic damage; it is the lack of a can-do attitude that they are instilling in our young people.

[Gregory Stafford]

What has surprised me about this debate is that several Labour Members have seemed to agree that this stamp duty proposal would be a good thing to do, and, as far as I can tell, every commentator on the property market and economics has said the same thing, and yet the Government just do not seem to want to do it.

[Mr Bedford]

My hon. Friend puts the case very clearly, and he is absolutely right. Labour Members talk about intergenerational unfairness, but they do nothing about it. We Conservatives believe in encouraging young people to determine their own futures.

Property Taxes

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The Treasury has been flying more kites than we saw at the end of “Mary Poppins” in the papers over the last few weeks, but if they are genuine, the Chancellor is preparing the most destructive raid on homeowners in living memory. Families across my constituency are bracing themselves for new taxes on homes worth more than £500,000, capital gains tax on family houses, a revaluation of council tax, and even a land value tax. This is not reform; this is a sledgehammer aimed squarely at aspiration, mobility and stability, and once again it is the south and the south-east that will be punished the most. In Farnham, where the average house price now exceeds £608,000 with the price of detached homes at nearly £900,000, families could face annual bills of nearly £5,000 on top of mortgages, council tax and energy costs. In Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon, households will not be spared; these levies will strip thousands from budgets already stretched to the limit. And what of pensioners and downsizers in Grayshott, Churt, Bramshott, Tilford, or Frensham? They will face the grotesque prospect of capital gains tax on their primary residences.

[Peter Fortune]

My hon. Friend talks of pensioners. Does he agree that this is an extra pressure on them, following all the concern that was caused to them by the cut in winter fuel payments?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Once again, the Government are showing that they do not understand and do not value pensioners and the sacrifice that they have made. Everyone—pensioners, farmers and business owners—is seen as a cash cow for this Government.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Conservative Government raised taxes 25 times in the last Parliament. How many of those tax rises did the hon. Gentleman oppose?

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not want to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I was not here to oppose or support any of them. I gently remind him—I use the word “gently” because I know that the Minister loves the word “gently”, so I have used it twice now—that there was a pandemic that had to be dealt with, and that had to be funded. There was a war in Ukraine, and dealing with that had to be funded. As we have gone back in history a bit, let me add that we also had to deal with the deficit that the last Labour Government left us. That is the reality of the situation.

[Tim Roca]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

No, I will not. I have already given way a couple of times.

This is a tax on the family home, and it will hit hardest those who have worked hard, saved responsibly, and played by the rules. Let us be clear: this is not simply a question of numbers on a balance sheet. It is about whether families can stay in the communities where they raised their children, whether pensioners can pass on their homes, and whether young people will ever see the ladder of opportunity come down again. A capital gains tax on main homes will trap people in their properties, create a locked-in market, and dry up the supply of homes. Transactions will slow, chains will break, and first-time buyers—the very people whom Labour claims to champion—will be shut out even further.

The Government have tried to defend this agenda by talking about “fairness”, but there is nothing fair about a pensioner in Greatham being forced to sell his or her family home to pay the taxman. There is nothing fair about young families in Lindford choosing between childcare and a new annual property levy, and there is nothing fair about placing the heaviest burden on one region of the country simply because the value of its housing stock is higher. In truth, this is a south and south-east tax dressed up as national fairness; and it is part of a pattern.

From scrapping the pensioner fuel allowance, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), to threatening VAT on private schools to punitive business tax rises, every single decision seems to be about sending a political signal rather than supporting families or growing the economy. The consequences are plain to see: falling business confidence, another year of negative hiring expectations, and growing unemployment. Wasn’t the Government’s White Paper meant to be called “Get Britain Working”? All we are seeing is Britain grinding to a halt. The Chancellor may talk of fairness, but she is stripping away the last sanctuary for working people—the roofs over their heads. Over-taxation, without clarity, will paralyse the housing market, punish my constituents, and undermine economic stability.

If you tax homes, you tax hope, and that is the surest way in which to drain ambition from our country. We should be protecting families, not forcing them to sell up. We should be supporting aspiration, not taxing it into extinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly]

No, I will not give way. The hon. Member had his chance.

This is the point: the Government love putting up taxes. We in the Conservative party put up taxes when we had to; this Government put up taxes at every chance they get. And the reason they put up taxes whenever they get the chance to do so is that they think taxes are not a necessary evil, but a good in and of itself. That is at the heart of the problem. The fact that gilt markets, bond markets, businesses and individuals know in their heart of hearts that taxes will go up under this Government has produced the stagnation and the stifling that Labour Members are criticising.

I was about to say that we have had a number of good contributions from both sides of the House, but that is being generous. The simple fact of the matter is that a key indicator of confidence in a Government is the cost of borrowing, and, currently, that is at a multi-decade high. As we have said, it has not been higher this century; it is trending in the wrong direction. The Bank of England, when setting interest rates, made it clear that it is concerned about the trajectory—specifically the trajectory on property taxes. Those on the Treasury Bench say that they do not want to speculate on what might be in the Budget later this year. They did not want this House to investigate what they claim to be speculation. They probably should not have spent so much time briefing the media over the summer. They cannot have it both ways. We are asking legitimate questions of the Government, because the markets and the country are worried about what is happening and we want to allay their fears.

[Gregory Stafford]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir James Cleverly]

No, I will not give way.

Let me just say this: if we are to address the slowing of the housing market, we should make sure—[Interruption.] I say “we”, but Labour is in government now and it should therefore make sure that it does nothing to stagnate the market further. Speculation is rife that there will be a £14,000 tax bill on average for UK households, a £23,000 tax bill for those in the south-east, and potentially an average tax bill of £33,000 for property transactions. That is the Government’s fault. They have the opportunity to put that speculation to bed and they choose not to do so. Despite the fact that they are now in government, they do not seem to have learned the lesson that when they speak—whether it be on or off the record—markets move. That is why speculation among those on the Government Benches is so damaging and so dangerous. They are causing economic problems because of their kite flying. We have given them an opportunity to put one of those pieces of speculation to bed and they have failed to do so. In that failure, the mask has slipped—they want to put up taxes. They love putting up taxes and they are going to put up taxes.

Taxes

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

This Labour Government have begun a full-scale assault on the British economy. In just one year they have presided over a shambles that has punished workers, hammered businesses and betrayed every promise they made on tax to my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages.

Let us look at the facts. National insurance is up, with a 1.2% rise that the IFS confirms will fall largely on working people. Agricultural property relief has been slashed, which the National Farmers Union warns threatens family farms and food security. In my constituency, farming is not just a way of life; it underpins our local economy and communities. When I visited Bob Milton of Kilnside farm, he told me that his business now faces laying off staff and selling land just to meet Labour’s new tax burden. That is not policy; it is economic sabotage. On the changes to business property relief, a small business owner now faces a tax penalty simply for owning their own premises and hoping to pass their business on. These changes punish success and threaten continuity for family firms across the country.

And what is the result of all this? Inflation is stuck at 3.4%, well above the Bank of England’s target of 2%; unemployment is up to 4.6%, the highest in four years; borrowing was at £17.7 billion in May; and public debt is forecast to hit 96.1% of GDP, with annual debt interests soaring to £130 billion, by 2029-30. The tax burden is heading to an historic high—the highest on record, in fact—yet Labour still refuses to rule out new taxes on homes, pensions or savings. Their Chancellor will not even say whether small business owners are working people, and the Prime Minister dodged the question altogether. In Farnham, shop vacancies have risen from 9% to 10.5% in just one quarter—that is, 16 more shuttered high street shops. In Haslemere and Bordon, employers tell me they are freezing and cutting hours. The Shooting Star children’s hospice that serves my constituency will have to spend £90,000 in new NIC costs—enough to hire three nurses. That is now going straight to the Treasury.

[John Slinger]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will not give way.

That is not just wrong; it is unconscionable. Meanwhile, Labour’s VAT raid on education has pushed more than 13,000 pupils out of the independent sector—10,000 more than the Government predicted. That means more pressure on already overstretched state schools, more crowded classrooms, more exhausted teachers and more children falling behind.

Labour promised competence. Instead, they have delivered confusion, contradictions and chaos. They have broken their promises on national insurance, council tax, farms and education, and now they are breaking Britain’s economic future. This is not stewardship; it is self-harm. This is not change; it is collapse. This is not what the British people voted for, and they deserve better.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate.

In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, the situation is stark. Although I welcome the fact that we have secured a temporary banking hub in The Shed, in Bordon, on the Hampshire side, it rapidly needs to have a permanent location. In Liphook, there is no banking hub, no agreed plan and no clear process for securing one. Across the border in Surrey, in Haslemere, we are fortunate to have one of the 100 national hubs up and running, but in nearby Farnham, Barclays has just gone and Santander goes next month. All this means that more than 100,000 people across my constituency have not a single bank and only one building society. Constituents are right to be concerned. Link, the UK’s main cash access body, has stated that Santander’s closure will have,

“no significant impact on the community”.

I strongly disagree; it absolutely will. This cannot continue to be a postcode lottery. Banks were once embedded in towns and communities but now they are being erased with little left behind. Banking hubs are a partial answer, but the system needs reforms. The process is slow, the criteria too narrow and the scope of services too limited. Hubs must be located centrally, open five or six days a week, accessible to those with limited mobility and reachable without a car. They should serve both individuals and small businesses and, crucially, offer face-to-face banking, not just cash points and machines.

[Bradley Thomas]

In a society where collective trust is depleting, does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of face-to-face banking services and banking customers being able to have a direct in-person relationship with real people is one step that we can all take to help rebuild collective trust in the institutions that underpin society?

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a very convincing point. When we are dealing with something as vital as personal finances, it should not be too much to demand to see a person face to face.

The legislation we rely on to manage access to banking, including the Financial Services and Markets Act, remains focused almost exclusively on access to cash, not access to banking services. That distinction matters. Depositing takings, seeking support with financial abuse and getting advice are all services that cannot be delivered by a machine.

Even when residents are confident and willing to bank online, they are often held back by something much simpler: their connection. In many parts of my constituency, mobile coverage and broadband access are so poor that digital banking is unreliable, if not impossible. The digital divide is no longer just a social challenge but a financial one too.

Older people, disabled people, rural residents and small businesses all deserve access to a banking system that works for them, not just for those who are already digitally fluent or living in better-connected areas. That means that physical services, in-person advice and real access to cash must remain part of the infrastructure of modern life.

Will the Minister work with Link, Cash Access UK and local authorities to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs? Will she expand the remit of the Financial Services and Markets Act to protect access to full banking services, not just to cash? Finally, will she meet me to discuss how we can support the roll-out of permanent, accessible banking hubs in Liphook and Farnham? No one should be excluded from essential financial services because of their postcode, their age, or the strength of their wi-fi signal.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I welcome the opportunity to consider the new Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. I start by repeating my thanks to Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill. Four new amendments have been made during consideration of the Bill in the other place, which we will seek to address today.

As I reminded hon. Members last week, when we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable, and we have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in the Bill represent some of the toughest of those decisions, but they, along with other measures in the Budget, have enabled us to restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place before us today put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise. Let me be clear again: to support the amendments is to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.

It is with that in mind that I turn to the first group of amendments: Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B. These amendments seek to create powers as part of the Bill to exempt certain groups from the changes to employer national insurance rates and threshold in the future, including exemptions for care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care and those providing hospice care. It also includes powers to exempt businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees from the changes to the employer national insurance threshold.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I just want to understand very clearly why the Government think that the NHS, under the banner of NHS England, should—rightly, in my opinion—be exempt from national insurance contributions, but that other parts of the NHS, such as GP surgeries, dentists and hospice care, should not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am just flummoxed by the Government’s approach to the Bill. Clause 1 raises employer national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. Almost more damagingly, clause 2 reduces the threshold at which they start paying it from £9,100 to just £5,000. The Government know how damaging this measure is for healthcare. We can see that because they have taken action to exempt the NHS from it. That will cost billions of pounds, because healthcare providers cannot just diversify as other sections of the economy might be able to. They cannot raise prices. A general practitioner’s customer is the state, and prices are fixed by the Treasury. As a result, the Government know exactly what the impact of this proposal will be on hospices. We have already heard that without an exemption, they will face an additional £30 million of costs every year as a result of these changes.

When the Bill was first announced, I assumed that there had been an oversight by the Treasury and that it would be addressed as the Bill progressed. But both last week and this week, the Lords have moved to fix what was originally considered to be perhaps an oversight. Today’s decision to seek to reverse Lords amendments 1B and 5B in particular demonstrates beyond doubt that it is not an oversight but a deliberate decision taken by Labour to penalise hospices for the care of the dying, and to do what with that money? We may be in the obscene position in a few weeks’ time of funding for state-assisted dying being raised by taxing palliative care. This is absolute madness. If Members wanted any other reason why they should not support the Government, that is an overwhelming one.

I make one last reference to the emptiness of the Government Benches. There are now two Labour Members sitting there who are not required to be—[Interruption.] I take it back, there is only one. That indicates to me that Labour Members do not want to be associated with the Bill. They will scurry through the Lobby later, but they are not brave enough to stand up and defend the decision of their Government.

[Gregory Stafford]

You do not need any convincing of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but were you to, the Lords amendments demonstrate why we need a House of Lords. They are the ones standing up and delivering the amendments that this Government are trying to wriggle out of this afternoon. Amendments 1B and 5B, which the Government are trying to derogate from, are essential for our care services. The financial strain that the Government’s national insurance contributions will put on the care sector is astronomical—some predictions are of around £2.4 billion on social care alone. Ultimately, that will lead to reductions in services and, unfortunately, closures, especially in the hospice sector.

The Minister has repeated what he and other Ministers have said on many occasions: they are giving a certain amount of money to the hospice sector, but as Opposition colleagues have stated, that is capital spending. What they desperately need is revenue spending to cover the cost of the rise in national insurance contributions.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Government patently do not understand whole-system cost, which is a key element of fiscal policy? When care providers—whether hospices, in-home care providers or social providers—fall over as a result of these measures, as they will, those costs will get picked up by the rest of the system, and that will have a net cost to the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has been made by Opposition Members on numerous occasions. It does not surprise me that Labour Members do not understand the economy. I did hope that they would understand the care sector, which has been telling them time and again that this national insurance increase will hit it disproportionately and cause it to reduce and, indeed, close services.

I think of Phyllis Tuckwell hospice in the centre of Farnham in my constituency, which is fortunately going through a multimillion pound rebuild as we speak, but when it reopens, it will be hit by these national insurance contributions and will have to make decisions about what services it can provide to my constituency and the surrounding areas of Surrey and northern Hampshire. Likewise, on Friday I will see Shooting Star children’s hospice, which is a fabulous children’s hospice that I have visited on a number of occasions. What is galling to me is that I see photographs of Labour Members turning up to Shooting Star and similar hospices, putting their arms around people and saying what a wonderful job they are doing, but later today they will walk through the Division Lobby to take money away from them. What hypocrisy.

We already know that there are workforce challenges in the care sector, and especially in the hospice sector, so why on earth are the Government targeting those sectors for raising national insurance contributions? As Opposition Members have mentioned, this is not an abstract cost that will hit some sort of nebulous business; this is a cost that will hit patients and, in the hospice sector, those who are dying, because care will be taken from them. It is a tax on community care. It is a tax on dying. The Labour Government should be ashamed that they are bringing this in.

[Sir Roger Gale]

We have rightly concentrated a great deal on children’s hospices, and I still hope that at the 11th hour the Government, as a socialist Government, may have some compassion and give some ground. But the other area, which we have not touched on enough, is the independent care providers who are providing services in people’s homes. They will not be able to employ the people that they need—they cannot do so now—even if they can get them. That inevitably means that those cared for will end up in hospital, at still greater cost to the health service.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, echoing one made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). That is correct: there will inevitably be a net cost to the Exchequer because of this policy. He is right that home care has not been touched on but will be affected. Home care companies in my constituency will not be able to expand their staff, which is vital to meeting people’s needs.

Pharmacies, which we have not touched on a lot, are in the same position. A few weeks back, I visited Badgerswood pharmacy in Headley in my constituency, and I was told that the measure will hit it hard and cause a real problem in service delivery for my constituents.

This measure will not only have a massive effect on those businesses—GPs, pharmacies, the hospice sector and the home care sector—on the economy, because there will be a net cost, and on patients, who will not receive the services in the wider NHS family that they deserve, but it runs entirely contrary to the Government’s stated policy of wanting to bring healthcare close to home and close to the community. Although they are exempting acute hospital care, which takes place away from the community, they are taxing the bit that they say they want to expand. It is totally illogical, even on the Government’s own policy. I hope that the Government have an 11th hour change of heart, either today or at the emergency Budget tomorrow, because it is vital that we support these sectors.

We see with Lords amendment 21B that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as it were. If the Government were so convinced that their policy was the right, just, fair and proper one, they would allow a review to go ahead so that we could see its impact. The fact that Government Members will be walking through the Division Lobby to hide this policy from the British people tells us all that we need to know: they know that this policy does not stand up to scrutiny, and they are running from it.

[James Murray]

With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by Opposition Members.

Although I feel that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), will not support us on the Bill, I none the less recognise that she seems to support the extra funding that we put into public services in terms of GPs, dentists, hospices commissioned by the NHS and so on. Although she will not agree with the difficult decision that we have taken to raise that funding, I got the impression that she supports our spending on those public services.

I turn to the official Opposition. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), claimed that very small businesses will feel the greatest impact from the changes in the Bill. I can only conclude, therefore, that he has not read the Bill, because he would have seen that we are doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, with the result that the very smallest businesses will not pay any national insurance contributions at all when they are employing up to four people earning the national living wage.

More widely, the shadow Minister and many of his Opposition colleagues refuse to take any responsibility whatever for the state of the public finances or the public services after 14 years of the Conservative party being in control. They also resisted the opportunity to acknowledge that the approach we are taking in government to compensate the public sector for changes in employer national insurance contributions is the same one that the previous Government took with the health and social care levy. That came up time and again, and even when the shadow Minister was intervened on, he missed the opportunity to acknowledge that our approach is the same one that he and his colleagues took in government.

The amendments from the other place would require information that has already been provided. Either they do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place, or—most seriously—they would undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. Let me be clear: to support the amendments that create exemptions is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. I therefore ask the House to support the Government’s position by disagreeing to Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

Family Businesses

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Kilnside farm in my constituency, run by Bob Milton, is only 36 acres in total. It is a tiny farm, yet it will be subject to the new taxes. How can the Minister say that only 4% will be affected? Even the smallest farmers in my constituency will be hit.

[James Murray]

To correct the hon. Gentleman, I did not say that only 4% will be affected. We have set out that up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to be affected in 2026-27. That means that about three quarters of estates will be unaffected and will not pay any more inheritance tax. All the data on that has been set out in a letter from the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at that document, he will see some of the stats that I refer to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

The economy that this Labour Government inherited was a total mess. We had a Conservative Government who, for so long, ignored the problems that were building up. Instead of looking for the solutions, they obfuscated and kicked problems into the long grass. When they did make decisions—such as Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—they led to catastrophic outcomes for our economy, many of which our constituents are still paying off in their mortgages, today and for some time to come. Whether it was for a failed Rwanda scheme or for dodgy covid contracts, the Conservatives wasted money by making bad decisions, and the public paid the price.

Inevitably, inheriting an economy in such a perilous state meant that there were difficult decisions to make: decisions that could not have been anticipated until the true extent of the previous Government’s economic incompetence had been exposed in the summer of last year. What the Budget did last autumn was set out clearly our path to recovery, fixing the foundations, focusing on growth and ensuring that we are giving our economy the stability, the investment and the reform that are required to get us away from the doom loop of the Tories and back to growth.

Yes, there have been tough choices. We on the Labour Benches do not shy away from that. However, these choices mean that we can invest in our public services, including our NHS, driving down waiting lists.

[Gregory Stafford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Becky Gittins]

I will not.

The UK Government have prioritised investment in Wales’s future. The result of last year’s Budget is the largest funding boost that Wales has received since devolution—£21 billion of new money—and people in Wales will see the benefits through the Barnett formula, but also through direct spending. The Budget provides a record £1.7 billion spending boost for the Welsh Government to support public services such as our NHS. The investment in our public services means more neighbourhood policing, which again is something our constituents and our local business communities desperately want. More funding will be available to support the delivery of 13,000 more police officers, police community support officers and special constables in our communities, keeping our streets safe and protecting small retail businesses from the shoplifting that was allowed to run rife under the previous Government’s £200 rule.

This is what my constituents want, and they want a Government on their side. The Opposition are more than happy to take all the benefits that this additional investment will provide, but I politely suggest that, by not outlining how they will pay for it all, their position lacks real credibility. I note that the Shadow Cabinet has already racked up about £7 billion in unfunded spending commitments, which again is not serious enough.

I am heartened that the Government are taking concrete steps to protect the smallest businesses and charities. The employment allowance will double to £10,500, meaning that some 250,000 employers will gain, and an additional 820,000 will see no change at all. I know that organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses have welcomed these changes, as do the many small businesses in Clwyd East that gain from the uplift in the employment allowance.

In north Wales, we have already seen the benefits of two Governments working together, in Wales and at Westminster, with both being utterly focused on investment and growth. We have already seen investments in Airbus, Kellogg’s, Shotton Mill and more in our little corner of north Wales, with the same business confidence as was exemplified by the £63 billion raised at this Government’s investment summit. Green jobs will be critical in north Wales’s future. Last week, the port of Mostyn in my constituency paved the way for some 300 new jobs helping support the offshore wind industry.

When I go out to speak to businesses in my constituency—family businesses such as Jones Brothers and Clawdd Offa Farm—they simply do not make representations like those we have heard from the Opposition. They share the Government’s passion on the skills agenda and apprenticeships, reforming our restrictive planning regime and the need for investment in our NHS, which this Government are already prioritising. This Government are continuing to promote entrepreneurship, attracting billions of pounds of investment and providing the certainty that our businesses need, not least as part of the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone.

Businesses in Clwyd East deserve better than the faux outrage from the Conservatives, and this Government will not allow them to pretend to be the champions of British business, rather than the Conservative Government who sold our farmers down the river through detrimental trade deals, and the Conservative Government who ran down our economy with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, short-term thinking and decimated business confidence. It is the Labour Government who are committed to providing our economy with the stability and investment it needs to grow, laying the foundations for thriving businesses at the heart of prosperous communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Today’s debate on the disastrous impact of the Labour Government’s policies, including on my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, of which Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages are part, is timely. My inbox is filled with complaints and concerns from small family businesses about that impact.

Small and family businesses are not just places to shop or to buy things, but the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of our communities. Across the United Kingdom, they provide almost 14 million jobs and contribute an amazing £575 billion to our economy. Yet under this Labour Government, those businesses are under siege. Labour simply does not understand business and sees businesses as nothing more than a cash cow to fund its endless state expansion.

For nearly a century, my grandparents and my great-grandparents before them dedicated their lives to Stafford’s shop in Haslemere, and they would be horrified to see this Government’s full-scale assault on family businesses. The family business tax—Labour’s reckless cap on business property relief—will decimate family-run enterprises, breaking them apart when they should be passed down to the next generation.

In the Surrey side of my constituency, we are fortunate to have two thriving market towns, Farnham and Haslemere, which are hubs of entrepreneurialism and independent enterprise. Businesses such as Hamilton’s Tea Room, Borelli’s Wine Bar, Farnham Homes, Kilnside Farm shop and Elphicks, one of the last remaining British family-owned department stores, have been the cornerstones of our high streets for generations. Similarly, Haslemere is home to R. Miles & Son, Good Horse saddlery and Davids menswear. Together, these eight businesses have had a presence on our high streets for a total of 439 years. Given that Family Business UK has warned that these policies would cost 125,000 jobs, will the Government reconsider their stance before it is too late?

Meanwhile, on the East Hampshire side of my constituency, Liphook Travel Worldchoice has been a family-run travel agency since 1971 and Hogmoor Distillery, though newer, is an outstanding artisan gin and liqueur company based in the heart of the former military town of Bordon. Those businesses, like so many across the country, are already being squeezed by Labour’s misguided economic policies, with increased business rates and tax burdens making it harder to survive.

Although Labour misunderstands business, it actively despises the countryside. This Government are rurally illiterate. They do not care about rural jobs, rural businesses or our rural communities. The family farm tax—Labour’s assault on agricultural property relief—is a direct attack on farming families who have worked the land for generations. Bob and Ros Milton of Kilnside farm expanded their business with a farm shop under the support of the previous Government, but it now faces closure due to rising costs. Similarly, Mathias nursery had hoped to pass the business to the next generation, but now fears that that will be impossible.

My campaign for local pubs and heritage clubs has seen me do a pub crawl across the constituency. I have visited 17 of the 56 pubs—everything must be done in moderation. I have had invaluable conversations with landlords. Carl from the Nelson Arms pub in Farnham highlighted the importance of zero-hours contracts for his employees, including a staff member who also works as a paramedic and relies on the flexibility that these contracts offer. Yet Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which bans them, will impose a £150 cost on his business.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the hon. Member acknowledge that what the Bill actually says is that no one should be forced on to a zero-hours contract? It is not the case that someone who wants that flexibility will be denied it.

[Gregory Stafford]

I understand that the hon. Member has gone through the Bill line by line, but the businesses that are reporting to me, and apparently also speak to him, are seriously concerned. In our villages, including Churt, Tilford, Passfield and Headley Down, the village shop and the pub are the heart and soul of our tight-knit communities, but Labour is simply making it harder for them to survive.

Why are the Government, who are supposedly focused on growth, causing businesses in my constituency to downsize, sell up and move out? These policies are not just misguided; they are ideological. Labour’s hatred of business and contempt for the countryside are now enshrined in policy. Since their election, the Government have accepted £5.6 million in donations from trade unions. It is no wonder that their policies prioritise union interests over business interests. The Business Secretary apparently met trade unions every three days in his first three months in charge. Where is the same access for small businesses?

Conservatives believe that businesses are the engines of growth. To grow our economy, we must create jobs, drive innovation and foster prosperity. That is why we are calling for the reversal of Labour’s family farm tax, crippling jobs tax and the reduction in business rates relief. When will the Government acknowledge that their policies are driving up the cost of living, not reducing it?

While this Labour Government continue their war on businesses and the countryside, I shall finish by extending my deepest thanks to the incredible businesses across Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon that truly are at the heart of our community’s social and economic fabric. The Conservative party will always stand up for family businesses, farmers and our rural communities, to ensure that they can thrive, create jobs and, importantly, pass on their legacies to future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am proud to represent a constituency with so many fantastic small businesses, and employers in Broxbourne are more likely to be small businesses than under the national average. Entrepreneurs in the towns and villages I represent are working hard and taking risks day in, day out, growing our local economy and creating jobs.

Earlier this month, I was told by a Government Minister standing at the Dispatch Box that I was “sort of right” that private business creates growth. Let me gently tell the Government that it is not the Government who create economic growth in this country; it is the thousands of business owners outside of this place who work hard day in, day out, creating jobs right across the country, investing in their companies and investing in their supply chains.

We have heard good speeches in this debate from Members on my side of the Chamber explaining how it is business that creates economic growth, not Government. A Labour Member alluded to the £25 billion national insurance increase and £5 billion employment regulation not mattering to family businesses, because they are small and do not employ many people. That is no way to treat family businesses in this country. We should be telling them that the sky is the limit. We should be saying, “Invest in and grow your business, and we will help and support you. We will create the right environment for you to take those risks,” because it is a massive risk when people put their life savings and their blood, sweat and tears into a business that they want to grow, particularly when it is from their home. They are taking an incredibly risk in saying, “Do you know what? I’m going to take that jump. I’m going to make an offer to someone and employ my first employee.” We should be creating the environment for people to be able to do that. The more family businesses we have, and the more family businesses that upskill, create local jobs and invest in their business, the more money the Treasury gets to spend on our public services. We should not be hampering businesses. The Minister was making a ludicrous point.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Having listened to most of the debate, I make the allied point that while Labour Members have justified the need to raise taxes—which, like him, I entirely disagree with—we have heard not a single word from them about the impact of tax rises on family farms, family businesses and employers.

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I go out and speak to farmers and small business owners, as he does in his constituency, and I have met not one who thinks the Government are on the right path. I do not know who Labour Members speak to in their constituencies because—

Bank Closures: Rural Areas

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His constituency, and indeed a lot of our coastal communities, will have that profile of constituents that is older and more settled, and they will want to see things delivered in the way that they are used to. That does not mean that they shun change completely, but they do have a legitimate expectation.

Let me take the House briefly through the timeline narrative of justification, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, as part of that great Tory intake of 2015—those were the days; it is nearly 10 years—will remember being told that there would never be a town without a bank.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Simon Hoare]

Let me just finish this point.

That was the first promise, but it seemed to disappear quite quickly. Then the Post Office came in, and then there seemed to be an over-reliance on building societies. I notice that Nationwide—I think it is Nationwide; I could be wrong—is saying in its television advertisement that it pledges not to close a branch before 2028, but it is under exactly the same cost and other pressures as its high street competitors.

Then we were told that the answer to the maiden’s prayer was going to be the banking hub, but there has been quite a lot of disappointment surrounding that. I suggest to the Minister that that is in part to do with the erroneous conflation of access to cash and access to banking services. Link has assessed, perfectly properly, that in Blandford there are ATMs at the local Tesco, at the local Morrison’s and at Nationwide, but just try asking an ATM to amend or set up a standing order or direct debit. A small businessman or businesswoman who wants to extend their line of credit or has a question mark over something cannot ask an ATM those questions. Saying that there is access to cash, as important as that is, is far too blunt an instrument when trying to assess the impact of these closures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I would not like to claim that I am the Member of Parliament for the whole of Surrey. My Hampshire residents would not be pleased about that. Just last Friday, the Barclays bank in Farnham closed, leaving the whole of my constituency of 101,000 people with just one bank, Santander, and one building society, Nationwide. We are lucky enough to have a banking hub in Haslemere, and we are going to get another one in Whitehill and Bordon—Liphook does not have one—but given that there are only 100 banking hubs across the country and that the Government say they are going to put forward 350, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are going to have to turbocharge those banking hubs, not just for access to cash, but more especially, as he mentioned, for proper banking services for residents in rural constituencies?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend who represents Surrey and part of Hampshire.

I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on this point if it is easier, but it strikes me that there is scope for a little bit of wiggle room with regard to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. The Act did not give the Financial Conduct Authority powers to reflect on and assess wider banking services. The Minister’s party, when in opposition, was very keen that it should do so. When my party was in government, for some unknown reason we resisted amendments to that effect, and Labour, then in opposition, did not push them to a Division. I just think that there is too gaping a lacuna in all of this, in that it is only access to cash that is assessed, and not access to banking services.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Sadly, I have not yet tried the wares of Sheppy’s cider farm, but I would welcome the opportunity to visit, try those wares and support it as we all need to do in the face of these changes, which affect everyone.

The second organisation is one of my GP practices, which emailed me. It operates as a legal partnership, as it has done since the inception of the NHS, but as it is a GP practice it lacks flexibility to absorb the increased costs. It cannot raise prices and it cannot do more than it is already doing and drive up activity levels. As it is designated as a public authority but does not get an employment allowance exemption, it will bear the full cost of the impact. It tells me that the rise in national insurance and the lowering of the thresholds will force it into reductions in clinical staffing, adversely impact patient care and increase waiting times. That is exactly the opposite of what the Government say they want.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made that point powerfully. I have spoken to a GP surgery in my constituency that will have to cut seven members of staff, including a GP, a nurse, a social prescriber, a pharmacist and others providing ancillary services. These changes will affect not just her constituents and my constituents but every single constituency in the country, because every single GP practice will have the same problem.

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree with the hon. Member’s point. All Members across the House want to see our NHS thrive and to see the healthcare and social care that our constituents deserve. I urge the Government to think again about their plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that rather long intervention. I must say that the Conservatives do not understand the economy. If someone cannot get a train to work, they cannot work; if they cannot get a hospital appointment, they cannot work. Time and again, I hear from employers that they want investment, stability, and for their employees to be able to contribute in the workplace. To separate public services and the private sector into two diametrically opposed parts of the economy is what the Conservatives did for 14 years. They cut public services time and again, and we all face longer-term costs because of that fact.

The Labour Government understand that. Sadly, the Conservative party still does not. The choice we are still hearing is for continuing austerity. No one in this country voted for that and no one on the Labour Benches, at least, wants that. We want NHS waiting lists to fall. We want crumbling schools rebuilt, and investment in our vital public services and armed forces.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the Health Committee, so I ask him this with all seriousness and genuineness. Does he not see the risk of this tax rise for GP surgeries, the hospice sector and the voluntary sector, which supports a lot of what the NHS does?

[Danny Beales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What we have both heard on the Health Committee is that the NHS has been left on its knees after 14 years. All sectors of the health service are crying out for investment. I hear in my constituency from doctors and nurses who are thankful that, finally, they are being recognised with decent pay. Opposition Members declare them to be trade union barons. No. They are nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers.

As I said, we need to invest. Ministry of Defence homes in my constituency must be invested in. My old primary school, Deanesfield, with its crumbling classrooms needs to be invested in. The Labour party has a plan to make that happen and it is vital that we fund those measures—measures that any responsible Government would take. Therefore, we do have to make difficult but necessary decisions and ask the largest businesses to pay slightly more to help fund those vital public services. I understand the concerns that have been raised, but as the Minister put forward, half of businesses will not pay the extra contributions and some, the smallest, will pay even less.