Winter Fuel Payment

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

This is a serious topic and we know from the debate earlier this afternoon that it is one on which Members across this House and people across this country have strong feelings. We understand that. This is a difficult decision to have to take. By means-testing winter fuel payments, we know that we will be ending future payments to most pensioners while maintaining our steadfast commitment to protecting those in greatest need. But although they do not like to be reminded of it, Conservative Members know exactly why we need to take this step. Because it was Conservative Members—and, indeed, former Members of this House who have now been voted out by the British public—who did such damage to our country’s economy and the public finances. The legacy of the last—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the second Government Minister we have heard from the Dispatch Box today, yet only moments ago we saw the Chancellor sitting on the Front Bench. It was the Chancellor who chose to spend billions on setting up Great British Energy. It was the Chancellor who chose to spend billions giving pay rises to their union paymasters. It was the Chancellor—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I thank the hon. Lady, but she will be aware that that is not a point of order; it is more of a speech that she is seeking to make. Perhaps she will find an opportunity to contribute in the debate.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member who just intervened, and indeed everyone on that side of the House, might like to reflect on what the legacy of the last Government truly was. It was one of irresponsible overspending, of uncosted commitment after uncosted commitment, and of Ministers running away from taking difficult decisions. As a direct consequence, when we came to power we were faced with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances for this year alone.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a Minister at the Treasury, so I am hoping he will be able to outline some of the facts and answer my question. He will outline today that the saving made by cutting the winter fuel payment is £1.1 billion. If everybody accepted the means-testing that he is proposing, it would cost £3.3 billion, so can he outline to the House, despite the bluster that he has just made about saving money for the great British people, how it will save money when it will cost more under his proposals?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The announced savings include an assumption of an increased take-up of pension credit, which is in line with the highest levels ever achieved. Frankly, if more people are taking up pension credit when they are eligible for it, we should welcome it because it means that support is being targeted at those in greatest need.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

The Opposition did not like to be reminded of their legacy when they were in government, but let us have a look, shall we? What do they have to show for their years of reckless overspending? A failed asylum system, prisons at breaking point, more than 1 million people waiting for council homes, 4 million children growing up in poverty, and more than 7.5 million people on NHS waiting lists. This Government and every Member of this House who stood on my party’s manifesto were elected to turn things around.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Yesterday, in the other place, the Transport Minister cast doubt on the continuation of travel concessions for pensioners, which has caused significant alarm in my constituency and others. Notwithstanding the discussion we are having today, could the Minister reassure us that travel concessions for pensioners will continue under a Labour Government?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Chancellor will take all decisions in the Budget on 30 October—[Interruption.] Let me make one important point to him as we approach the Budget on 30 October: we know there are going to be difficult decisions that we have to take in the Budget and, frankly, that is a direct consequence of the decisions taken by him and his colleagues when they were in government.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As he is a Treasury Minister, I wonder whether he could help me with this question. How many of the pensioners who will lose the winter fuel allowance today receive less than the average train driver the Government have just given a pay rise to?

[James Murray]

I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. But let me be clear. If she is talking about pensioners, the foundation of state support for pensioners is the state pension, which is why the Government have committed to maintaining the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

The triple lock means that pensioners are receiving £900 more this year. Figures released this morning indicate that they may get well over £400 more next year. Over the course of this Parliament, they will get £1,700 more under the state pension. That is the foundation of state support for pensioners.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

We have seen clearly how Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of their legacy in government, of the mess in which they left the economy, our public services and the rest of our country after their 14 years in office. This Government and every Labour Member were elected to turn things around.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

We are under no illusions. We know it will be a slow and difficult process when the damage goes so deep, but we are determined to fix the foundations of our country so that, on the bedrock of financial stability and fiscal responsibility, we can get our economy growing after 14 years under the Conservatives.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way on the point about fiscal responsibility. I am not sure of the morality of trying to balance this country’s fiscal books on the backs of pensioners. He referenced the manifesto on which the Labour party stood at the election. “No austerity under Labour” was said in Scotland, so what should the 37 Scottish Labour MPs do in this vote? Should they bow down to the Chancellor, or should they stand up for their Scottish constituents?

[James Murray]

Every Labour Member was elected on a promise to restore economic stability and fiscal responsibility to our country, and it is on that basis that we will get the economy growing to make people across the country better off and to put our public services on a sustainable footing. I remind the hon. Gentleman that winter heating assistance is a devolved matter in Scotland. The Scottish Government intend to legislate to introduce a means-tested payment this winter which is equivalent to the winter fuel payment in England and Wales.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I have taken several interventions, so I will make some progress.

The point of this debate is to focus on why we have to take difficult economic decisions, even if they risk us being unpopular. We know that the universal application of winter fuel payments was already recognised as unfair. In the face of our dire economic inheritance, it is simply unsustainable.

We should be clear that, when the winter fuel payment was introduced in 1997, a higher percentage of pensioners than people of working age were in poverty. That is no longer the case. Put simply, there are now pensioners receiving winter fuel payments who do not need them and that is a reality we cannot afford.

Let me put it in financial terms. Over a quarter of pensioners have wealth of more than £1 million, half have wealth of over £500,000 and a fifth of pensioner households have gross incomes equivalent to £41,600 a year. That is why it is right to means-test winter fuel payment.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Pensioners in my constituency will be saddened by the way the Minister is caricaturing pensioners as wealthy and not in need of this winter fuel support. Age UK has said that, in the Gosport constituency alone, 15,000 pensioners stand to lose their winter fuel payment. These are not wealthy people; they are people who, in many cases, are just outside the pension credit limit and are hanging on by their fingertips. Does he agree that caricaturing them as wealthy and not in need is unbelievably insulting?

[James Murray]

I think the hon. Lady unintentionally misunderstood my point. I will put the question back to her. Does she feel that pensioners who have wealth of over £1 million or who earn more than £41,600 a year should get the winter fuel payment in the context of the financial circumstances? The argument we are making is that, given the dire economic situation we face and given our dire inheritance, we should means-test the winter fuel payment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I will make some progress, because it is important to explain why we are choosing to means-test the winter fuel payment. Means testing will allow us to make sure that those in the greatest need still receive the help they need. We will make sure that all pensioners continue to benefit from the triple lock, and we will start to deal with the shocking state of the public finances that we have inherited.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress, as I have taken many interventions already.

Under our approach, those eligible for pension credit will continue to receive winter fuel payments. We want to target winter fuel payments to those on the lowest incomes, which is why we are linking the payment to eligibility for pension credit and other qualifying income-related benefits and tax credits. That is the right approach to help those on the lowest incomes. We are determined to make it as effective as possible by making sure that people who are eligible for pension credit make a claim.

[Jamie Stone]

The point I made to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), is a fair one. Distance and remoteness militate against take-up. People living in very remote hamlets in the highlands do not necessarily perceive the Department that they should. Can I have an undertaking from the Minister that the Government will look at this issue?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and I know that my colleagues are aware of this issue. In fact, it is one reason why the automatic payment of pension credit and other benefits is so important. For instance, the merging of housing benefit and pension credit would help to overcome some of the problems. It would help some of the people in the situation he describes. That merger of housing benefit and pension credit was first mooted in 2012, and was delayed several times by the previous Government—I think they intended to leave it until 2028. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking at that as a matter of great priority, to ensure that people get the help that they deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

The important point to focus on in this debate is making sure that everyone eligible for pension credit takes up that offer, not only so they receive the benefit of pension credit, but so that we can better target the winter fuel payments, given the financial inheritance that we have. We estimate that 880,000 pensioners are missing out on pension credit to which they are entitled, and frankly the Conservatives failed to act on that for years. That is why it is so important that we are now conducting a campaign to make sure that as many people as possible make a claim.

Our approach is already showing signs of success. The Government have received around 38,500 pension credit claims in the five weeks since the announcement on 29 July. That is more than double the number in the previous five weeks, and we will continue to do all we can to encourage pensioners who are eligible to apply for pension credit. We have used a wide range of media to reach pensioners and key stakeholders, and have been working with voluntary organisations such as Age UK and Citizens Advice, local authorities and the devolved Governments to raise awareness through their networks and channels. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is taking the further unprecedented step of writing to 120,000 pensioner households who are in receipt of housing benefit but who are not yet claiming the pension credit that they are likely to be entitled to.

Our national pension credit campaign will run right through until the application deadline on 21 December.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

On 11 February 2021, the temperature in Braemar in my constituency sank to minus 23°. Some 17,000 pensioners there will lose their winter fuel allowance through a decision taken by this Labour Government. Can the Minister explain to those pensioners in one of the coldest constituencies in the country why they have to surrender that important support at the same time as the Government have found £11 billion to give pay rises to their union paymasters?

[James Murray]

I would be interested to understand why the hon. Gentleman is backing a candidate to lead his party who supports the means-testing of the winter fuel payment. He might want to have a conversation with that candidate before he starts criticising our approach of targeting support at those in greatest need. The critical point is that the combination of the state pension rising under the triple lock with those in greatest need getting winter fuel payments alongside pension credit, not to mention the extension of the household support fund, means that the right measures are in place to give all pensioners the support they need.

Opposition Members want to know why the legislation is being progressed urgently. I will be really clear: it is urgent because we need to deal urgently with the £22 billion black hole—the huge in-year spending pressure—that we inherited from the Government that they ran. It is crucial that we act quickly to restore responsibility to our public finances and stability to our economy. On top of that, it was important that we made sure that regulations were in place at the start of the qualifying week for winter fuel payments, while wasting no time in doing all we can to raise pension credit take-up.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We have heard that the Transport Minister yesterday could give no assurance to pensioners about their transport concessions. Last week, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about the single person council tax discount. There is a very real prospect that pensioners could lose even more than £300—another £300 or £400. Will the Exchequer Secretary take this opportunity to reassure pensioners that there is no way that the Government will remove the single person discount from the council tax? It would be politically good for him and the Labour party, and it would be enormously important for people who need to hear some reassurance at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that the Chancellor will take all decisions in the Budget. However, he might like to reflect on the record of his party in office on encouraging take-up of pension credit. We have been painfully aware since taking office how little the Conservatives did to increase take-up of pension credit during their 14 years in office. That is why it is so urgent for us to make progress in getting those eligible to sign up for pension credit. By doing so, they will get pension credit, which they may have been missing out on for years under the Conservatives, and they will continue to receive the winter fuel payment.

Pensioners may well be angry at the Conservatives for how little they did to get people to sign up for pension credit while they were in office. Pensioners may well be angry at the Conservatives for leaving the country with a legacy of a £22 billion black hole in the public finances.

We on the Government Benches are committed to protecting the triple lock. That will mean that pensioners on the full new state pension, who have received an extra £900 this year, will, pending the uprating review by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this autumn, receive a boost that could be worth well more than £400, so by the end of this Parliament they could be receiving around £1,700 more than they do today.

Conservative Members are keen to play politics with the tough decisions that this Government are taking. They are desperate to take attention away from the fact that, as people across this country know, it is the Conservatives who are to blame for the economic mess we have gained. They created a mess and now they want to criticise us for cleaning it up. If they had governed more responsibly, they might not have been sitting on the Opposition Benches, in opposition to a Government who are fixing the foundations they left to rot.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the only shameful thing in this debate is the legacy that the Government were left? It forced the new Government—[Interruption.] The reality that 800,000 pensioners are not receiving pension credit is a shameful legacy. If Conservative Members wanted to show humility and learn from their party’s record in government, they would acknowledge that they are the ones who crashed the economy, left the NHS in a way that pensioners cannot get to see a doctor, and broke NHS dentistry. Does the Minister agree that it is our job to fix the economy so that we can keep on helping pensioners?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Frankly, it is time for Conservative Members to recognise and accept what they have done to this country, and to show some contrition and accept responsibility. However, no matter what the Conservatives choose to do, we are getting on with the tough decisions that are necessary in government. By changing the winter fuel payment and making it means-tested, we are beginning to take the necessary steps to address the black hole they created, while protecting the most vulnerable in society.

The Prime Minister has said that we must be prepared to be unpopular if we are to govern responsibly, which means facing up to tough challenges and tackling them head-on. The motion laid by the Opposition sets out several “regrets”, but they have never once shown regret for all the reckless decisions they took and the damage they did to our public services, public finances and economy. Our task now in government is to fix the mess they made and to give our country the chance of the better future we deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trust Scheme: Extension

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

On 3 September 2024, the Treasury made the Finance Act 2024, Section 11 (Extension of Enterprise Investment Scheme Relief and Venture Capital Trusts Relief) (Appointed Day) Regulations 2024 (S.I., 2024, no. 897). These regulations bring into effect the extension of the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme sunset clause to 2035. When this extension was legislated for in the Finance Act 2024, a tax information and impact note was published. This set out that there is no additional Exchequer impact from this measure, as the costs were already accounted for in the forecast. The schemes will continue to support early-stage companies to raise the financing they need to grow and succeed.

The attachment can be viewed online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extension-of-the-enterprise-investment-scheme-and-venture-capital-trust-scheme.

[HCWS69]

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support households with energy bills.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I welcome the hon. Member to his place. Since taking office, the Government have set up the clean energy mission board to enable progress towards the 2030 target. That will accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels to clean, home-grown power, and it will boost Britain’s energy independence and security. The Government will also set up a new publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, which will save families money by ensuring that electricity bills are no longer exposed to gas price shocks, and a warm homes plan will improve energy efficiency in homes and cut bills.

[Dr Chambers]

Over the past few weeks, I have been inundated with questions from the people of Winchester about the cuts in the winter fuel allowance, and it seems as though people from all parts of the House are getting similar correspondence. Although I totally understand that there are many wealthy pensioners who do not rely on the winter fuel allowance to heat their homes, a large proportion of pensioners live on or near the poverty line and will be plunged into crisis this winter. Given the huge strength of feeling in all parts of the House, will the Chancellor reconsider her decision? If not, will she at least commit to a vote and a debate in the House about how we best protect our most vulnerable—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sorry, I have to get through the Order Paper. Put in for an Adjournment debate. Minister, I think you got the gist.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for his comment, but as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out, the state pension is £900 more this year than it was last year, thanks to the triple lock. We have committed to maintaining the triple lock as the foundation of state support for pensioners throughout the rest of this Parliament. Energy bills are lower this year. It is crucial that he and other Members across the House support our goal to increase the take-up of pension credit. If we make sure that all pensioners who are eligible for pension credit take it up, they will thereby receive the other benefits, including the winter fuel payment, to which they are entitled.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

During the general election, the Labour party committed to bring down energy bills by £300. Now that the election is over, energy bills are going up by some 10%. On behalf of the British electorate, especially the 10 million pensioners who are having their winter fuel payment taken away, I ask the Minister to confirm to the House that the £300 cut is still Labour policy. If it is, specifically how is the £300 calculated, and when will it be delivered?

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comment and welcome him to his new place. He referred to the cost of energy. As we know, the cost of energy is substantially lower than it was this time last year, but we are under no illusions about how much more we need to do to make sure that energy bills are truly affordable and that we tackle the cost of living crisis. That is why we have set to work straight away in establishing Great British Energy, alongside our national wealth fund, which will help to invest in the clean energy sources of the future and bring down energy bills for good.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

We know that the Government have inherited a mess, and that at the centre of that mess is a £22 billion hole left in the public finances by the previous Government, but that cannot be allowed as cover for measures that cause suffering for the most vulnerable in society. The Chancellor will have heard Lib Dem colleagues talk about the hardship that the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance will mean for their constituents, so can she assure us that she will give her full support to measures to boost the uptake of pension credit? Most crucially, will she give the House the opportunity to have a proper debate and a vote on this cut, which will have such an impact on so many?

[James Murray]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her comments and for recognising the state of the finances that we inherited—the £22 billion in-year black hole that we need urgently to address to put our finances on a firm footing. It is essential to boost the uptake of pension credit, as the Chancellor set out. Some 800,000 pensioners who are eligible for pension credit are not taking it up. We saw a lack of action under the previous Government to drive up that uptake, and we are overseeing a campaign across Government to increase the number of pensioners who access pension credit and thereby the winter fuel payment.

[Sarah Olney]

I welcome that response, but if the Government are asking us all to make difficult sacrifices, people need to know that the Government are making the vital investments that will protect the vulnerable and help to deliver economic growth. Does the Chancellor agree that now is the time to work across Government to launch an emergency home energy upgrade programme to provide free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households?

[James Murray]

A crucial part of the manifesto commitments that we brought into Government is to increase the insulation of up to 5 million homes across the country. We will set out further details of our plans for insulation in due course, but we know that that is the kind of investment that brings down energy bills for good.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

7. What steps she plans to take to help improve living standards.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

17. What steps she plans to take to help improve living standards.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

The Government are focused on improving living standards across the country, which is why growth is a key priority. If real household disposable income per capita had grown from 2010 to 2023 at the same rate as it did between 1997 and 2010, it would have been £4,000 higher last year. This Government’s approach will centre on fostering good work. The Government will reform employment support to offer more people dignity and purpose in meaningful employment. The plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for the modern economy and to empower working people and deliver economic growth. We have launched a ministerial taskforce on child poverty and updated the Low Pay Commission’s remit to consider the cost of living when making recommendations on the national living wage.

[Chris Webb]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Many of my Blackpool South constituents have contacted me regarding the means-testing of winter fuel allowance and the link to pension credit. There are probably thousands in my constituency who do not receive pension credit and are potentially missing out on £3,900 a year. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all pensioners in my constituency and across the country receive what they are entitled to?

[James Murray]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He is absolutely right to highlight how important it is to make sure that all those who are eligible for pension credit but are not claiming it sign up and thereby receive the benefits to which they are entitled, which now include the winter fuel payment. The Government are undertaking a new campaign to drive take-up, and the Department for Work and Pensions is holding a pension credit week of action in the first week of September, when promotional activities will be supported by organisations including Age UK and local authorities. There will be further action in the coming months, including on TV, in the press and on radio, and we will be writing directly to up to 120,000 pensioners who receive housing benefit but are not claiming pension credit to encourage a claim where they may be eligible.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The economic chaos of previous Conservative Governments pushed up interest rates, causing mortgage costs to rise by £500 a month for families in Barnet. What steps is the Chancellor taking to bring down those rates so that families who have worked hard and saved hard can get the living standards boost that they so desperately need?

[James Murray]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. As he rightly points out, the recklessness of the previous Government has had a direct impact on his constituents’ living standards. As a new Government, we recognise that many households right across the country have faced higher mortgage costs in recent years, and we are already taking action to fix Britain’s economic foundations with a new approach to growth, with the three pillars of stability, investment and reform. Sustainable public finances are necessary for economic stability and long-term growth. The Government will therefore set out the difficult decisions needed to secure the public finances in the Budget on 30 October.

[Rachel Taylor]

In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, like in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), monthly mortgage costs rose by an average of 22% in the year following the previous Government’s disastrous mini-Budget. That made life really difficult for hard-working families in my constituency. What steps is the Chancellor taking to ensure that such a devastating situation can never happen again to families in my constituency and across the country?

[James Murray]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. She is absolutely right to highlight just how much damage the Conservatives’ recklessness in 2022 caused to families in North Warwickshire and beyond. The decisions of Conservative Ministers unleashed economic turbulence that pushed up people’s mortgages and made people across Britain worse off. Our new Government will hardwire Budget responsibility into Government with our new fiscal lock in the Budget Responsibility Bill, which will make sure that the disaster we saw nearly two years ago can never happen again.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The living standards of nearly 50,000 pensioners in Malvern Hills district and Wychavon district are going to deteriorate very sharply this winter in the face of a 10% increase in their energy bills and no winter fuel allowance. Many of those pensioners have incomes just above the pension credit threshold, and many are too frail and too old to work. Yet within the first few days of coming into office, the Chancellor managed to spend over £22 billion very quickly by setting up Great British Energy and a national wealth fund, and by giving in to the pay demands of her party’s union paymasters. Is it not the case that this Chancellor has made the chilling political choice to balance the books of this country on the very frailest shoulders?

[James Murray]

I am disappointed that the hon. Member is talking down essential investments that we have made in our country’s future. She also seems to be confused: there is a £22 billion black hole because of the unfunded spending commitments made by the Conservative party when it was in government. But she makes an important point about protecting pensioners, which is why it is so important to ensure that all those pensioners who are eligible for pension credit take it up, and I look forward to her support in making sure that they do so.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Statistics from the Trussell Trust published today show that half of people on universal credit ran out of money and could not afford to buy food before the end of the month. What prospect do those people have of an increase in their living standards? The reintroduction of the household support fund is welcome, but what steps is the Treasury taking to make sure that people do not go hungry this winter?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Member rightly points out, the Government are providing £500 million to extend the household support fund in England for another six months, and that will include Barnett consequentials. That is an important measure to help people in the months ahead, but the crucial way to increase people’s living standards and tackle the cost of living crisis in the longer term is to get the economy growing. We have spoken at length about the measures that we have already taken as a new Government—from planning reform and the national wealth fund to Great British Energy. All that is about getting the economy growing, because that is the sustainable way to make people better off and to invest in our public services.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Means-testing the winter fuel payment increases the burden on many vulnerable people and reduces their living standards. Unlike the Scottish Government, who have many statutory constraints on their budgets, the Chancellor’s fiscal rules are entirely self-imposed. Does the Minister think that sticking to the Chancellor’s fiscal rules is more important than the health and wellbeing of pensioners?

[James Murray]

Let me be clear: if we do not have fiscal responsibility—if we do not stick to fiscal rules—we will lack the economic stability that is so crucial to getting the economy growing and ensuring that people across Britain are better off. We must return stability and fiscal responsibility to our country following the Conservative Government’s record. We saw what happened when they lost control of the public finances and made unfunded spending commitments. We need to ensure that that never happens again, which is why we are hardwiring fiscal responsibility into the future of government through our new Budget Responsibility Bill.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

9. What progress she has made on increasing economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

As Ministers, we greatly value and respect trade unions and the work of trade union representatives in supporting their members. While it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, I will look into this matter further and respond to my hon. Friend in due course.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Chancellor’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment is forecast to save £1.5 billion. Can she advise the House what other options she considered for making savings in the Department for Work and Pensions budget before deciding to make this cut?

Budget Responsibility Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I welcome your election to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to close this debate on the Budget Responsibility Bill on behalf of the Government. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions; in a moment I will address many of the points that they have raised.

Let me start by reminding the House why the Bill is so important and what it is designed to achieve. At the general election earlier this month, the British people voted for change. They voted to turn the page on 14 years of economic failure. People across Britain voted to remove the Conservatives from power. They voted to remove the party that crashed the economy, and whose Ministers we now know were reckless with the public finances right till the very end. People voted to give Labour the chance to serve. With that honour afforded to us, we have got to work straightaway in fixing the mess the previous Government left and getting our economy growing.

That economic growth is at the heart of our national mission as a Government. That growth underpins our plans in government to make people in every part of the UK better off and to get public services back on their feet in a sustainable way. We know that a crucial foundation for sustained growth is economic stability and fiscal responsibility. We have brought that stability and fiscal responsibility back into the heart of government. Our fiscal rules are non-negotiable. As the Chancellor set out yesterday, meeting them is a principle on which this new, Labour Government were elected, and that will guide her at October’s Budget.

But we want to go further in restoring the trust that was so badly damaged by the Conservatives during their time in office, by embedding fiscal responsibility not just into our country’s government but also into its laws. That is why one of the first Bills to be presented to the House of Commons by our new Government was the Budget Responsibility Bill whose Second Reading we are debating today. The Bill will hardwire fiscal responsibility into significant financial decisions of any future Government, and it will prevent any party ever again being able to play fast and loose with the public finances.

We saw under the previous Government what happens when politicians fail to show respect for taxpayers’ money. People across Britain are still feeling the impact of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s recklessness nearly two years on from the economic disaster they created. The Conservatives’ recklessness in 2022 showed just how much damage unfunded spending commitments can cause. Ministers at the time unleashed economic turbulence that pushed up people’s mortgages and rents and made people across Britain worse off, though it hit the least well-off the hardest. We must never let that happen again.

Budget responsibility must never be optional. That is why Labour will hardwire this responsibility into Government through our fiscal lock, which will mean that all significant fiscal announcements in future will be guaranteed independent scrutiny from the Office for Budget Responsibility. This Bill empowers the OBR to independently produce an assessment of a Government’s fiscal plans if it judges that the fiscal lock has been triggered. That will make sure that there is always proper scrutiny of a Government’s fiscal plans, and guard against large-scale unfunded commitments and disasters such as the Conservatives’ so-called mini-Budget ever happening again. This Bill is a crucial step in fixing the foundations of what we have inherited.

I will take a pause from focusing on the substance of the Bill to thank so many hon. Members for their truly excellent maiden speeches. We had a real tour around Britain, and I feel I have got to know places in all corners of our country through their passionate speeches about the places and people they are all so proud to represent.

We began with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who spoke about Kelvingrove park, which I went to when I visited Glasgow. He spoke about the serious work of Government, and the importance of delivery and rebuilding trust in politics.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) said that the hard decisions we make today are what create a better tomorrow. There is no better summary of the position we find ourselves in today. He spoke passionately about the history of his constituency and the importance of a better future for the next generation.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) spoke movingly about his upbringing and how it has influenced his politics. He also spoke about his anger at the previous Government’s recklessness. I have to say that while I enjoy going to the pub when there are big games on, I do not know that much about football, so I actually understood the fiscal bit of his speech more than the football analogy.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Shame!

[James Murray]

I am just being honest—honesty in politics!

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) made a very important point that we should all heed about civility in politics. He spoke about the diverse community spirit in his area, but I am not going to even begin to compete with him on how impressive the coastline is in my landlocked suburban constituency.

The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) spoke about how special and sunny her constituency is. She began a new competition; now it is not only who has the most beautiful constituency, but the sunniest. I was very touched by her recognition of the importance of family for both inspiration and practical support in politics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) spoke about his Co-operative and trade union values, which I think many of us Labour Members share. I did not know until he spoke about the connection between Peterborough and mustard, so that is something I have learned today. I thought that his focus on the promise of new towns really sums up our sense of optimism for the future. There is the idea of being proud of one’s heritage, and honest about the challenges that we face, but he is also ready to achieve more in the future with a Government who support him. I wish him great stability in his seat.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) gave a particularly rich history of his constituency, which went from bridges to “Carry On” movies, and he also mentioned the Spice Girls. I think a Spice Girls CD was the first I ever bought, but he may not know what a CD is. That sums up the different perspectives we come from.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) spoke about the Royal Docks, where I spent much time in a previous role working at City Hall; I saw the great potential that that area of the capital city has. He eloquently set out the combination of heritage and diversity, past and present, that makes his constituency such a lively and wonderful place to represent. I make him an offer: when he is jumping on the Elizabeth line to visit the hon. Member for Maidenhead, he can stop off at West Ealing to say hello to me.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) spoke honestly about the importance of keeping people in this place on their toes. That is right; the electorate do keep us on our toes, and one of the great benefits of our system is the way in which we are brought down to earth every time we go back to our constituencies on Thursdays or Fridays. However great and important the debates in this place are, when we knock on that door or sit down in our surgery, we are brought right back down to earth. It is a great feature of our political system, and she was right to draw attention to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) spoke about how proud she was of the history of the place that she now represents and where she grew up. I was very moved to hear her speak about her mum’s role as a local youth worker, and how that inspired her to do what she is doing in life. I wish her well as one of the youngest MPs in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) spoke about the natural beauty of his constituency—he was not the first Member to do so today—and the passion of the people there. His comments about politics being as much about listening as speaking were particularly thoughtful. We should all bear that in mind in this place. He made an important point about learning from those with whom we disagree, or maybe only appear to disagree, and about breaking down barriers through listening and having conversations.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke about businesses and voluntary projects in his constituency. He underscored how important it is that taxpayers’ money is treated with respect. I know that the residents of York Outer will be very well served by the excellent new MP we heard from today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), whom I enjoyed campaigning with during the general election, managed to inject some humour into economics, which is quite an achievement for a maiden speech. I am not even going to begin to try to replicate that in my comments just now, but she spoke passionately about the importance to those in her constituency of having access to nature and affordable housing. I know from what she said, particularly about her personal experience, that she will be a true champion for breaking down barriers to opportunity.

Finally, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), and it was worth the wait to hear his wonderful speech. He gave a fantastic whistle-stop tour of his constituency, and made many excellent recommendations of where to eat and drink next time we are in the area. What really came across is how connected he is to the community he represents, through his neighbours, his friends and his family. He used a phrase that sums up well what I and other Government Members want to do: unite and serve.

Those were all the maiden speeches we had today. It was a truly excellent tour of not just the country, but the talent we have in this place following the general election. I wish all hon. Members very well for however many years they spend in this place.

We heard from other Members about the substance of the Bill, including the shadow Ministers. They both seemed a bit confused about whether they support the OBR and the Bill. I am glad that they confirmed that they support the Bill and will not vote against it, but at one point the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) seemed to defend Liz Truss over her handling of the economy. He must be pretty much the last person in the country willing to do so; it was certainly brave of him. We Government Members are clear on why the OBR is so important and what its role should be. The Bill sets out to strengthen that.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the purpose of the fiscal lock might be. The fiscal lock will prevent the sidelining of the OBR by giving it the power to start an assessment if the Government announce fiscally significant policies without one. I remind him that the current shadow Chancellor said, at the time of the disastrous mini-Budget, that some of the difficulties were caused by the lack of a forecast, so this is something that the Opposition agree with.

The shadow Minister also asked about the definition of an emergency. We are very clear that in emergencies—for instance, during the pandemic—it may be necessary for the Government to take rapid action. In those cases, it would not be appropriate to hold back the response to the emergency until a forecast could be produced. Finally, he asked whether the OBR reports triggered by the fiscal lock will be published. I can answer him simply: they will. That is set out in section 8 of the original Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011.

I welcome the support from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for the Bill. She asked about the definition of “significant”, a point also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). The threshold set out in the draft charter for budget responsibility, which we have on the gov.uk website, is 1% of GDP in any single financial year. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent large irresponsible fiscal announcements that could undermine economic stability, and that requires a threshold targeted at fiscally significant announcements. That is why we have chosen that figure in the draft legislation and the draft text published on gov.uk.

Let me mention two other Members who spoke in the debate. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for the Bill. I think that his only criticism was one word in the terminology, and we can probably live with that. He said that he was nauseous from hearing us talk about being a Government of service, but he may have to get used to feeling nauseous, because we will proudly be a Government of service every day that we have the honour to serve.

Finally, I am glad that this is not an exceptional debate in which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does not make an intervention. I welcome his support for the Bill, and for the Government’s wider actions in resolving the junior doctors’ industrial dispute. I reassure him that, like my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I recognise the importance of working with political representatives from all nations in the UK.

As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of this debate, a crucial first step to achieving sustained economic growth is delivering economic stability. This Bill will help provide that stability and ensure that fiscal responsibility is not only embedded in our approach to government, but locked into how government works from this point on. It will make sure that there is always proper scrutiny of the Government’s fiscal plans, reinforcing credibility and trust, and making sure that no Government can ever again play fast and loose with the public finances. The Bill is a key step in fixing the foundations of our country as we set out to get the economy growing and to make families across Britain more secure and better off.

We now know that the Conservatives called the election to run away from the problems that they had covered up, rather than taking the tough decisions to fix them. While they may have run away from the problems that they created, they cannot run away from their record in office. People in Britain will not forget the last Government’s recklessness in 2022, which showed just how much damage unfunded spending commitments can cause. Budget responsibility will never be optional under Labour, as it was under the Conservatives. We have brought fiscal responsibility back into the heart of government, and we will hardwire it into law through our fiscal lock. That is what this Bill will achieve. This Bill will draw a line under the economic recklessness of recent years and make it clear that it must never be allowed to happen again. Budget responsibility underpins our national mission to make people across Britain more secure and better off. For that reason and others, I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Budget Responsibility Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Budget Responsibility Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Jeff Smith.)

Question agreed to.

Budget Responsibility Bill: Money

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Budget Responsibility Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Treasury in consequence of the Act.—(Jeff Smith.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That at today’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 122B, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak and Ed Davey relating to Select Committees not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on that Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.)

Tax Measures: Next Steps

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

The Government are committed to addressing unfairness in the tax system and raising revenue for public services by closing loopholes and tackling tax avoidance.

The Government are setting out next steps on their priority tax commitments to allow for technical consultation and provide taxpayers with certainty ahead of their final confirmation at Budget.

The Government are also publishing draft legislation on certain measures ahead of potential inclusion in the next Finance Bill to seek stakeholder views at this stage.

Tax announcements and associated documents

VAT and business rates on private schools: The Government are publishing a technical note setting out their plan to introduce 20% VAT on education and boarding services provided for a charge by private schools across the UK, from 1 January 2025. 20% VAT will also apply to prepayments of fees for terms starting on or after 1 January 2025, made on or after 29 July 2024. These changes will not impact pupils with the most acute special educational needs, where their needs can only be met in private schools.

In addition, the technical note confirms that the Government will remove private schools’ eligibility for charitable rates relief under business rates in England. However, the Government will consider how to address the potential impact of these changes in cases where private school provision has been specified for pupils through an education, health and care plan. The Government will engage with schools before setting out a final proposal in due course. This is intended to take effect from April 2025, subject to parliamentary passage.

The Government are also publishing draft VAT legislation. The legislation will be accompanied by an explanatory note (EN). A technical consultation on the legislation and technical note will run from 29 July 2024 until 15 September 2024.

Abolishing the tax regime for non-UK domiciled individuals: The Government are publishing a policy note setting out their plan to remove the concept of domicile status from the tax system, and to implement a new residence-based regime. This reform will end the use of offshore trusts to keep assets outside the scope of inheritance tax and scrap the 50% foreign income discount in the first year of the new regime. Full details of this reform will be provided at the Budget.

Taking action against the carried interest loophole: The Government are publishing a call for evidence confirming their intention to take action against the carried interest loophole, and to form the basis for detailed engagement with expert stakeholders.

Energy Profits Levy reform: The Government are publishing a policy document that confirms their intention to increase the rate of the energy profits levy (EPL) to 38% from 1 November 2024, and extend that levy from March 2029 to March 2030. The energy security investment mechanism will remain, helping to provide operators and their investors with confidence the levy will no longer apply if prices fall to, or below, historically normal levels for a sustained period.

The Government will also remove unjustifiably generous investment allowances from the EPL, including by abolishing the levy’s core investment allowance. Further details on the Government’s approach to all allowances in the EPL will be set out at the Budget.

The Government recognise the importance of providing the oil and gas industry with long-term certainty on taxation after a period of change. The Government will therefore set out a way of working with the industry and others to develop an approach for responding to price shocks after the EPL ceases.

Tackling the tax gap: The Government will take a comprehensive approach to tackling the tax gap and making sure more of the tax revenues that are owed are correctly paid.

The Government will invest in HMRC’s compliance work, hiring around 5,000 additional staff to recover more tax revenues. HMRC has already started the process of recruiting additional staff into compliance roles. The Government will also invest in HMRC’s technology infrastructure, helping to make HMRC more efficient and improve taxpayers’ experience of interacting with HMRC.

The Government will reform the tax system by making policy changes to simplify tax, close loopholes and reduce non-compliance, designing out non-compliance before it happens. At the Budget, the Government will provide an update on the implementation and development of measures that form their plan to close the tax gap.

Abolishing the Furnished Holiday Lettings tax regime: The Government are publishing draft legislation to abolish the furnished holiday lettings tax regime from April 2025. This will remove the tax advantages that landlords offering short-term holiday lets have over those providing standard residential properties. The legislation also contains information about the transitional arrangements that will apply.

OECD Pillar 2: The Government are publishing draft legislation to translate an internationally agreed anti-avoidance rule into UK legislation. The draft legislation stops attempts by multinational enterprises to avoid pillar 2 top-up tax by exploiting a temporary simplification in the rules. The legislation will apply from 14 March 2024 and will prevent multinational enterprises that enter into certain avoidance transactions from accessing the simplification.

In addition, to provide certainty for affected businesses, the Government are confirming that the UK will introduce the undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) of pillar 2 for accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2024, and will continue efforts to ensure the UK rules are effective and up to date.

The draft legislation on abolishing the furnished holiday lettings tax regime and OECD pillar 2 legislation is accompanied by a tax information and impact note (TIIN) and an explanatory note.

All publications can be found on the gov.uk website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/finance-bill-2024-25-draft-legislation-and-technical-tax-documents

[HCWS32]

Finance (No.2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by paying tribute to you for your years of service and thank you for your guidance? If I may, I will tell one brief anecdote, which is actually from a previous Finance Bill. I had not quite realised that it was my duty to move the Opposition’s amendments before the time of voting, as I was distracted by being in conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) at the time. The Chamber was full. I think that you cleared your throat three times at me until I finally moved the amendment. On the way out, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said to me, “You will never forget that, will you?” It is true—I will not. That was great advice and guidance that will stick with me throughout any future years that I may have in this place, depending on the election. Thank you very much.

We are here to consider the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which the Opposition hope will be the last in the line of 14 years’ worth of Conservative Finance Bills. The Bill comes after 14 years of Conservative failure on the economy and leaves a legacy of higher taxes, falling living standards and stagnant economic growth. The truth is that whatever the Conservatives say or try to do, whether in the Chamber today or on the campaign trail over the next six weeks, it is too late to repair the damage that they have done to the economy and to people’s standard of living.

I do not think that any of us were expecting to be completing the Bill’s remaining stages in the rushed end of this Parliament. Many of us had assumed that the Prime Minister would call the election later in the year, and I still have not heard why he ultimately decided to call it for July. I have one theory, which is that he realised that prolonging the general election would raise the prospect of there being another Finance Bill in which the Government may have had to legislate to end the non-dom tax status.

Let us face it: the Prime Minister really does not want to get rid of the non-dom tax status. Maybe he thought this was a way to avoid the Conservatives having to keep their promise to end it. I am afraid that he may still be disappointed as, if Labour wins the general election, we will end the non-dom tax status and the new loopholes planned by the Conservatives once and for all. Now that we are to have a general election, perhaps the Conservatives will finally tell us how they will pay for their £46 billion unfunded spending commitment to abolish national insurance altogether. Given their track record, I will not be holding my breath.

The Opposition have tried to amend the Bill during its passage to force the Government to come clean about the impact that their six-year freezing of the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold is having on taxpayers across the country. We have tried to force the Chancellor to set out what impact his and his predecessors’ policies are having on pensioners, and how more of them will pay tax and more of them will have higher tax bills as a result of decisions made by the Conservatives. Alongside the impact on individual taxpayers, we have tried to amend the Bill to encourage the Government to follow our plan to bring back certainty for businesses by capping the rate of corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament.

Finally, we sought to give certainty to the oil and gas industry by being clear that our strengthened windfall tax or energy profits levy would end no later than the end of the next Parliament. We were disappointed, though sadly not surprised, that none of our amendments became part of the Bill.

The Opposition will not oppose the Bill’s Third Reading, but let me close by saying two things. First, I pay thanks to the Clerks and the House of Commons staff for all their support throughout the Bill’s passage and to outside organisations, including the Chartered Institute of Taxation in particular, for all their help not just with this Finance Bill, but with all six Finance Bills for which I have been responsible as a shadow Minister. May I also put on record my appreciation for the way in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury have drawn a line between the tough and sometimes barbed exchanges we have in the Chamber and their courtesy and respectfulness outside the Chamber? That is not always the case in politics, but when it happens, I believe that it makes the House of Commons a better place while not for a second compromising on the sharpness of the political questions that we are here rightly to contest.

Ultimately, we are all here to do what is best for our country, and I do not believe that five more years of the Conservatives would serve that goal. Not only have they become defined by chaos and division, and put party before country at every turn, it is also clear that they have done too much damage to the economy. They have squeezed living standards too much, and they have stretched public services to breaking point. I hope that this is the last in a 14-year line of Conservative Finance Bills, because the country needs change. We finally have the chance to ask the British people what Government they want for the next five years. I hope that they will put their trust in our changed Labour party to change our country for the better.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham, and I thank all hon. Members for their participation in today’s debate. I also thank those who have submitted written evidence on a variety of the clauses we will discuss today, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group and others, and all those who have contributed to consultations as part of this Finance Bill process.

Clause 5 makes changes to the high income child benefit charge, or HICBC, as it is commonly called. It increases the threshold at which child benefit begins to be withdrawn, from £50,000 to £60,000. The Government are also increasing the threshold at which child benefit is fully withdrawn, from £60,000 to £80,000. That means that 1% is withdrawn for every £200 of income that exceeds £60,000; previously, the rate was 1% for every £100 of income that exceeded £50,000, and child benefit was fully removed once individuals earned £60,000 or above.

The HICBC is a tax charge and was introduced in January 2013 for recipients of child benefit payments, or their partners, on higher incomes. It applies where the highest earner has an adjusted net income—that is, their total taxable income, less certain reliefs, such as pension contributions—above the threshold, which is rising to £60,000. For individuals with incomes above the top of the taper, which is rising to £80,000, the tax charge is equal to the full amount of the child benefit payment.

The changes will ensure that the HICBC continues to withdraw child benefit from high-income families, as it was designed to, without unfairly penalising those on middle incomes. By halving the rate at which HICBC withdraws the child benefit gain, the Government are improving people’s incentives to continue working or to take up more hours. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, as a result of both changes, those already working will increase their hours by a total equivalent to those of around 10,000 full-time individuals by 2028-29.

The changes made by clause 5 will have a positive impact for around 485,000 families, who will gain an average of £1,260 in 2024-25, which they can put towards the cost of raising their children. That includes around 170,000 individuals who will no longer be liable for HICBC, and 135,000 individuals currently paying the HICBC who will have it reduced. The remaining 180,000 are the families currently not claiming child benefit or families opting out of getting child benefit payments who are now eligible to receive payments without incurring a tax charge.

The increase in the HICBC’s adjusted net income threshold reaffirms the Government’s commitment to rewarding working families, by allowing them to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible in a sustainable way. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition in the Public Bill Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 5 increases the adjusted net income threshold for the high income child benefit charge from £50,000 to £60,000, with effect from the 2024-25 tax year. The clause also amends the rate at which the high income child benefit charge applies to individuals with adjusted net incomes of between £60,000 to £80,000 in a tax year, and contains an administrative easement to prevent backdated child benefit payments from triggering a charge in 2023-24.

As we all know, due to high levels of inflation during the current Parliament, families across the country have felt the impact of threshold freezes, particularly in relation to income tax. Millions of people will be paying income tax for the first time or paying it at higher rates as a result of high inflation and the frozen thresholds. Similarly, the fixed nominal thresholds for the high income child benefit charge mean that more and more people will have been affected by the charge as a result of inflation. The adjustment to the thresholds in this clause will therefore be a welcome step for many families, and brings the number of individuals affected by the high income child benefit charge closer to what Parliament envisaged when the policy was introduced in the Finance Act 2012.

Although we support the measures in the clause and will not oppose them, we would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on one point. In particular, we understand that subsection (2) effectively halves the rate of clawback in the calculation of the charge, so the child benefit is fully withdrawn when the relevant adjusted net income reaches £20,000 above the initial threshold —that is, £80,000. I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for pointing out that, because the clawback happens across a wider range of incomes, some individuals will be caught out by higher marginal rates of tax and will therefore likely need to file a self-assessment return. Is the Minister concerned that that will introduce more complexity into the tax system, and if so, what is he doing to communicate these changes so that taxpayers are not caught out?

Finally, we understand that the Government will be moving the assessment of the charge to a household basis from April 2026. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed when the Government will announce further details about the consultation on that change. Will he also set out the details of what he is doing to consult industry and professional bodies about it?

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. We will not be opposing the clause, but I do want to make some comments about this paltry measure, which will help very few people in a cost of living crisis that the Conservative Government are trying to pretend is over and done with—in fact, they are saying that that is the case. That is not the reality for people in their homes across the nations of the UK.

The Minister said that the intention of this provision —I think I am quoting him correctly—was to allow people to “keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible.” That reflects incredibly badly on the way that this Government have conducted themselves by artificially boosting the cost of living through reckless actions such as Brexit and, of course, the mini-Budget. If they wanted to do something that was meaningful to help families, they could have copied the Scottish child payment in Scotland, which has lifted 100,000 children out of poverty. But no: they have decided to do this. They have also decided to keep the two-child limit on universal credit. That should be scrapped, and the Labour party should be joining in calls for that to be scrapped. The rape clause has no place in our society, and this measure will not go far enough to help families.

--- Later in debate ---

These clauses boost transactions in the property market while raising revenue. They remove the opportunity for abuse of multiple dwellings relief, and give public bodies certainty about their exemption from SDLT. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[James Murray]

Clause 6 applies to residential property gains by individuals, trustees and personal representatives. As the Minister set out, it reduces the higher rate of CGT that applies to such gains from 28% to 24%. The new rate will apply to disposals made on or after 6 April 2024. As we understand it, the lower rate is intended to remain at 18%, and the CGT rates that apply to carried interest gains remain unchanged.

The Government’s policy paper on this matter claims that the measure will be revenue positive for the Treasury and will generate more transactions in the property market, benefiting individuals who are looking to move home or get on to the property ladder. The Opposition will not oppose moves that reduce the rates of tax while also raising greater income. However, I would like to ask the Minister for more detail on the Exchequer impact of this measure. The Government’s policy paper reports expected spikes in revenue of an additional £310 million and £350 million in 2024-25 and 2025-26 respectively. That then falls significantly to an additional £45 million in 2026-27, and to just £5 million by the end of the forecast period in 2028-29. I would be grateful if the Minister set out his explanation for this pattern of expected income. Is he confident that there will be a permanently higher level of income as a result of this change after the end of the forecast period?

Clause 7 abolishes multiple dwellings relief—a relief from stamp duty land tax available on the purchase of two or more residential properties in a single transaction or linked transactions. The change will apply to purchasers of dwellings in England and Northern Ireland that have an effective date of transaction on or after 1 June 2024.

SDLT is a tax on the purchase of land or property, and ordinarily the amount of tax chargeable is calculated on the basis of the total amount paid for land or property. MDR, meanwhile, was introduced in 2011 with the intention of reducing a barrier to investment in residential property and to promote the private rented sector housing supply. We know that the Government evaluations have shown very little evidence that MDR achieved its original aims in a cost-effective way. We believe that clamping down on dubious claims and abusive tax reliefs is the right thing to do, so we will support the clause, but I have a few points of clarification to which I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.

First, I would like to ask the Minister about the reasoning behind the introduction of MDR in 2011. I understand that in September 2010, the coalition Government said in response to a consultation that

“the Government will not be taking these proposals forward at the present time”.

However, at the Budget of March 2011, a few months later, they announced that they would indeed introduce changes to the SDLT rules for bulk purchases of residential property. Does the Minister know why the Government at the time changed their mind?

Secondly, the Minister referred to abuse of the relief, so I would be grateful if he shared with us any figures or estimates of the cost of abuse of MDR since its introduction in 2011. Thirdly, we note that the Government said that they will engage with the agricultural industry to assess whether there are specific impacts of their changes to MDR that should be given further thought. Will the Minister let us know whether he is consulting with any other sectors?

Finally, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has indicated that for the domestic buyer in the build-to-rent sector, the divergence between the rates of SDLT applicable to residential property and those in the non-residential sector is large. There is a great deal of complexity in the system, so is the Minister aware of the potential for anomalies and for new behaviour to emerge around the acquisition and definition of property? I would welcome his assurance that he will work closely with relevant stakeholders to ensure there are no unintended consequences to the changes in the clause.

Clause 8 makes changes to the rules for claiming first-time buyer relief from stamp duty land tax in cases where the purchaser is buying a new lease via a trust or nominee. It applies to purchasers of dwellings in England and Northern Ireland, with an effective date on or after 6 March. We know there have been instances of first-time buyers using trusts or nominees to conceal their identities to protect themselves from behaviours such as domestic violence and stalking. The clause corrects issues arising over the eligibility of such claims. It provides an amendment to correct a defect in the relief in order to ensure that the underlying buyer, not the nominee, is eligible for SDLT, and we will not oppose it.

As we have heard, clause 9 amends out-of-date references and definitions used in legislation relating to the SDLT exemption for registered providers of social housing. As the explanatory notes make clear, that is to ensure that all registered providers of social housing that purchase property with the assistance of a public subsidy are not liable for SDLT. The measure seeks, first, to update outdated references following changes to social housing legislation; secondly, to extend the definition of public subsidy to include receipts from the disposal of social housing; and finally, to amend the definition of registered providers of social housing to confirm that certain entities such as English local authorities are eligible for the exemption, which removes an uncertainty.

The changes are set to apply to transactions on or after 6 March 2024, but we understand from stakeholder representations that there is some uncertainty relating to the “clarifications” set out in the measure. Can the Minister confirm whether purchases made before 6 March by local authorities will be treated as separate to this clause, or has any scope been given in the exemption for those purchases made before that date?

Clause 10 removes public bodies from the scope of the higher rate of SDLT of 15%. As the explanatory notes set out, that is consistent with the treatment of public bodies in relation to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which does not apply to public bodies. Given that this is a corrective measure, we will not oppose it, although the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out that with the measure not being retrospective, there are concerns among stakeholders. We understand, again, that the measure will apply from 6 March, the date of the Budget when the measure was announced. Can the Minister clarify what the situation will be for a public body such as a local authority that may have incurred a 15% SDLT liability in the weeks immediately before this change was announced?

As the Minister set out, clause 11 restricts the scope of agricultural property relief and woodlands relief to property located in the UK. As the Government’s policy paper states, the former measure was put in place to ensure compatibility with EU law; it expanded the scope of agricultural property relief and woodlands relief to property located in the European economic area. Now that the UK has left the EU, this measure reverses those changes, so that property located in the EEA will again be treated the same as property located in the rest of the world. This is a technical measure, and we will not oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With the leave of the Committee, I will put the Question on clauses 7 to 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 14 and 15 make changes to better support the UK independent film industry. That is in recognition of the sector’s cultural importance and its role in growing and supporting UK talent. The Government have heard from several representatives of the British film industry, including the British Film Institute, about the specific challenges that the independent film industry faces. The Government also recognise the vital role that independent film plays in incubating UK talent.

The changes made by clauses 14 and 15 substantially increase the level of audio-visual expenditure credit available to smaller budget films from 34% to 53%. This increased rate for qualifying films is referred to as the UK independent film tax credit. The 53% tax credit will be applied on up to 80% of a film’s production costs, up to a cap of about £15 million. That translates into £31.80 back for every £100 spent, after accounting for corporation tax at 25%.

Films will also need to meet the criteria of a new British Film Institute test, with the expectation that films will have either a UK writer, a UK director or be certified as an official co-production. Clauses 14 to 15 set out the bulk of the measure, but further detail, including on the additional test, will be provided in a statutory instrument in due course.

Productions that start principal photography from 1 April 2024 will be eligible, and companies will be able to make claims from 1 April 2025 on expenditure incurred from 1 April 2024. The UK independent film tax credit is a transformational, generous, enhanced tax credit, which will boost the production of UK independent films and incubate UK film talent.

[James Murray]

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 14 introduces a higher rate of expenditure credit for independent films, defined as films below a maximum budget that have either a UK director or writer, or are an official international co-production. As the Government’s policy paper on this measure makes clear, the basic rate of credit under the audio-visual expenditure credit scheme is 34%. Independent films will now receive a rate of 53%, with the amount of credit capped to relevant global expenditure of £15 million. The Opposition strongly support the UK’s creative sector as one of the areas of the global economy in which Britain is world leading. As such, we will not oppose any measures that provide certainty and greater opportunities for growth in that critical sector.

Clause 15 provides the administrative framework for the previous clause and sets out that the higher rate will be available only on expenditure incurred from 1 April for films that commenced principal photography on or after that date. We understand that claims can in turn be made from 1 April 2025, so I would like to ask the Minister about the role of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because we know that the new schemes will need to be properly explained through new guidance and may require new staff, as the Government’s policy paper makes clear. What is HMRC doing to ensure that the guidance remains timely and up to date for those wanting to make a claim? What will HMRC do to support those who want to apply for the credit so that they can understand how it operates? Similarly, what allocation of staff will be made to administer the measure?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Opposition for their support. I think there is agreement across the House on the vital role of the world-leading UK creative industries, and, in particular, our thriving film sector. In answer to the broad question put by the hon. Member for Ealing North, further information will provided by a statutory instrument that we will discuss in due course. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have a role in that, and the precise resource allocation is an operational decision for it. As the Minister who oversees HMRC, I will pay close attention to the issue and I will ensure that it is properly resourced. This is a very important policy area and we want to ensure that it is successful. Again, I am afraid that I will ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little patient and wait for the details in the statutory instrument, but we are consulting key stakeholders on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Increase in theatre tax credit

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As the Minister has set out, from 1 April 2025 the rates of theatre tax relief, orchestra tax relief, and museum and galleries exhibition tax relief will be set permanently at 40% for non-touring productions and 45% for touring productions and all orchestra productions. As we know, the so-called creative reliefs were previously set at 20% and 25% respectively. They were temporarily increased on 27 October 2021 to help the sector in its economic recovery from covid-19. As the Government’s policy paper notes, the rates were due to taper to 30% and 35% from April 2025. We welcome the fact that they will now be set permanently at 40% and 45% from next year.

We also note that, by way of these clauses, the Government are removing the 2026 sunset clause on the museums and galleries exhibition tax relief so that it becomes a permanent relief with no expiry date. In previous debates on earlier Finance Bills, I have asked the Minister to give clarity and certainty to the creative sectors, so I am pleased to say that that has been given to the UK’s world-leading theatres through these clauses. As I have said, we in the Opposition stand wholeheartedly behind the UK’s creative industries, and we will of course not oppose the measures set out today.

[Drew Hendry]

I briefly want to endorse the comments about these sectors requiring support. It is good to see some support for the sectors here, but we would like to see more in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

We have moved forward very quickly today. I thank everybody for their participation: you, Mrs Latham, all the officials in the House, the Clerks, and all those who have been working on the Bill at HMRC, HMT and other Government Departments. I repeat my thanks to the external stakeholders for their comments and to all those who have been involved in consultations. In particular, I thank the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group for their contributions to this Committee, including in written form, and all those who have participated today.

I look forward to the Bill progressing smoothly through its final stages. I thank everybody involved.

[James Murray]

I add my thanks to my colleagues in the Opposition: my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn; the Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower; and, of course, the Back Benchers who have joined us for this lengthy Committee session. [Laughter.] I place on the record my thanks to all the House authorities and to third parties, particularly the Chartered Institute of Taxation, whose expertise is always greatly valued.

[Drew Hendry]

I, too, rise to pass on my thanks: to you, Mrs Latham, for chairing, and to all the staff and others who have been involved. Whether we agree or vehemently disagree—often, as we have seen today, there are big disagreements—we never forget those people who work hard to produce the documentation and supporting information in all the arms of Parliament, including the House of Commons Library. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Except clauses 1 to 4, 12 and 13, and 19)

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham, and I thank all hon. Members for their participation in today’s debate. I also thank those who have submitted written evidence on a variety of the clauses we will discuss today, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group and others, and all those who have contributed to consultations as part of this Finance Bill process.

Clause 5 makes changes to the high income child benefit charge, or HICBC, as it is commonly called. It increases the threshold at which child benefit begins to be withdrawn, from £50,000 to £60,000. The Government are also increasing the threshold at which child benefit is fully withdrawn, from £60,000 to £80,000. That means that 1% is withdrawn for every £200 of income that exceeds £60,000; previously, the rate was 1% for every £100 of income that exceeded £50,000, and child benefit was fully removed once individuals earned £60,000 or above.

The HICBC is a tax charge and was introduced in January 2013 for recipients of child benefit payments, or their partners, on higher incomes. It applies where the highest earner has an adjusted net income—that is, their total taxable income, less certain reliefs, such as pension contributions—above the threshold, which is rising to £60,000. For individuals with incomes above the top of the taper, which is rising to £80,000, the tax charge is equal to the full amount of the child benefit payment.

The changes will ensure that the HICBC continues to withdraw child benefit from high-income families, as it was designed to, without unfairly penalising those on middle incomes. By halving the rate at which HICBC withdraws the child benefit gain, the Government are improving people’s incentives to continue working or to take up more hours. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, as a result of both changes, those already working will increase their hours by a total equivalent to those of around 10,000 full-time individuals by 2028-29.

The changes made by clause 5 will have a positive impact for around 485,000 families, who will gain an average of £1,260 in 2024-25, which they can put towards the cost of raising their children. That includes around 170,000 individuals who will no longer be liable for HICBC, and 135,000 individuals currently paying the HICBC who will have it reduced. The remaining 180,000 are the families currently not claiming child benefit or families opting out of getting child benefit payments who are now eligible to receive payments without incurring a tax charge.

The increase in the HICBC’s adjusted net income threshold reaffirms the Government’s commitment to rewarding working families, by allowing them to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible in a sustainable way. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition in the Public Bill Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 5 increases the adjusted net income threshold for the high income child benefit charge from £50,000 to £60,000, with effect from the 2024-25 tax year. The clause also amends the rate at which the high income child benefit charge applies to individuals with adjusted net incomes of between £60,000 to £80,000 in a tax year, and contains an administrative easement to prevent backdated child benefit payments from triggering a charge in 2023-24.

As we all know, due to high levels of inflation during the current Parliament, families across the country have felt the impact of threshold freezes, particularly in relation to income tax. Millions of people will be paying income tax for the first time or paying it at higher rates as a result of high inflation and the frozen thresholds. Similarly, the fixed nominal thresholds for the high income child benefit charge mean that more and more people will have been affected by the charge as a result of inflation. The adjustment to the thresholds in this clause will therefore be a welcome step for many families, and brings the number of individuals affected by the high income child benefit charge closer to what Parliament envisaged when the policy was introduced in the Finance Act 2012.

Although we support the measures in the clause and will not oppose them, we would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on one point. In particular, we understand that subsection (2) effectively halves the rate of clawback in the calculation of the charge, so the child benefit is fully withdrawn when the relevant adjusted net income reaches £20,000 above the initial threshold —that is, £80,000. I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for pointing out that, because the clawback happens across a wider range of incomes, some individuals will be caught out by higher marginal rates of tax and will therefore likely need to file a self-assessment return. Is the Minister concerned that that will introduce more complexity into the tax system, and if so, what is he doing to communicate these changes so that taxpayers are not caught out?

Finally, we understand that the Government will be moving the assessment of the charge to a household basis from April 2026. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed when the Government will announce further details about the consultation on that change. Will he also set out the details of what he is doing to consult industry and professional bodies about it?

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. We will not be opposing the clause, but I do want to make some comments about this paltry measure, which will help very few people in a cost of living crisis that the Conservative Government are trying to pretend is over and done with—in fact, they are saying that that is the case. That is not the reality for people in their homes across the nations of the UK.

The Minister said that the intention of this provision —I think I am quoting him correctly—was to allow people to “keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible.” That reflects incredibly badly on the way that this Government have conducted themselves by artificially boosting the cost of living through reckless actions such as Brexit and, of course, the mini-Budget. If they wanted to do something that was meaningful to help families, they could have copied the Scottish child payment in Scotland, which has lifted 100,000 children out of poverty. But no: they have decided to do this. They have also decided to keep the two-child limit on universal credit. That should be scrapped, and the Labour party should be joining in calls for that to be scrapped. The rape clause has no place in our society, and this measure will not go far enough to help families.

--- Later in debate ---

These clauses boost transactions in the property market while raising revenue. They remove the opportunity for abuse of multiple dwellings relief, and give public bodies certainty about their exemption from SDLT. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[James Murray]

Clause 6 applies to residential property gains by individuals, trustees and personal representatives. As the Minister set out, it reduces the higher rate of CGT that applies to such gains from 28% to 24%. The new rate will apply to disposals made on or after 6 April 2024. As we understand it, the lower rate is intended to remain at 18%, and the CGT rates that apply to carried interest gains remain unchanged.

The Government’s policy paper on this matter claims that the measure will be revenue positive for the Treasury and will generate more transactions in the property market, benefiting individuals who are looking to move home or get on to the property ladder. The Opposition will not oppose moves that reduce the rates of tax while also raising greater income. However, I would like to ask the Minister for more detail on the Exchequer impact of this measure. The Government’s policy paper reports expected spikes in revenue of an additional £310 million and £350 million in 2024-25 and 2025-26 respectively. That then falls significantly to an additional £45 million in 2026-27, and to just £5 million by the end of the forecast period in 2028-29. I would be grateful if the Minister set out his explanation for this pattern of expected income. Is he confident that there will be a permanently higher level of income as a result of this change after the end of the forecast period?

Clause 7 abolishes multiple dwellings relief—a relief from stamp duty land tax available on the purchase of two or more residential properties in a single transaction or linked transactions. The change will apply to purchasers of dwellings in England and Northern Ireland that have an effective date of transaction on or after 1 June 2024.

SDLT is a tax on the purchase of land or property, and ordinarily the amount of tax chargeable is calculated on the basis of the total amount paid for land or property. MDR, meanwhile, was introduced in 2011 with the intention of reducing a barrier to investment in residential property and to promote the private rented sector housing supply. We know that the Government evaluations have shown very little evidence that MDR achieved its original aims in a cost-effective way. We believe that clamping down on dubious claims and abusive tax reliefs is the right thing to do, so we will support the clause, but I have a few points of clarification to which I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.

First, I would like to ask the Minister about the reasoning behind the introduction of MDR in 2011. I understand that in September 2010, the coalition Government said in response to a consultation that

“the Government will not be taking these proposals forward at the present time”.

However, at the Budget of March 2011, a few months later, they announced that they would indeed introduce changes to the SDLT rules for bulk purchases of residential property. Does the Minister know why the Government at the time changed their mind?

Secondly, the Minister referred to abuse of the relief, so I would be grateful if he shared with us any figures or estimates of the cost of abuse of MDR since its introduction in 2011. Thirdly, we note that the Government said that they will engage with the agricultural industry to assess whether there are specific impacts of their changes to MDR that should be given further thought. Will the Minister let us know whether he is consulting with any other sectors?

Finally, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has indicated that for the domestic buyer in the build-to-rent sector, the divergence between the rates of SDLT applicable to residential property and those in the non-residential sector is large. There is a great deal of complexity in the system, so is the Minister aware of the potential for anomalies and for new behaviour to emerge around the acquisition and definition of property? I would welcome his assurance that he will work closely with relevant stakeholders to ensure there are no unintended consequences to the changes in the clause.

Clause 8 makes changes to the rules for claiming first-time buyer relief from stamp duty land tax in cases where the purchaser is buying a new lease via a trust or nominee. It applies to purchasers of dwellings in England and Northern Ireland, with an effective date on or after 6 March. We know there have been instances of first-time buyers using trusts or nominees to conceal their identities to protect themselves from behaviours such as domestic violence and stalking. The clause corrects issues arising over the eligibility of such claims. It provides an amendment to correct a defect in the relief in order to ensure that the underlying buyer, not the nominee, is eligible for SDLT, and we will not oppose it.

As we have heard, clause 9 amends out-of-date references and definitions used in legislation relating to the SDLT exemption for registered providers of social housing. As the explanatory notes make clear, that is to ensure that all registered providers of social housing that purchase property with the assistance of a public subsidy are not liable for SDLT. The measure seeks, first, to update outdated references following changes to social housing legislation; secondly, to extend the definition of public subsidy to include receipts from the disposal of social housing; and finally, to amend the definition of registered providers of social housing to confirm that certain entities such as English local authorities are eligible for the exemption, which removes an uncertainty.

The changes are set to apply to transactions on or after 6 March 2024, but we understand from stakeholder representations that there is some uncertainty relating to the “clarifications” set out in the measure. Can the Minister confirm whether purchases made before 6 March by local authorities will be treated as separate to this clause, or has any scope been given in the exemption for those purchases made before that date?

Clause 10 removes public bodies from the scope of the higher rate of SDLT of 15%. As the explanatory notes set out, that is consistent with the treatment of public bodies in relation to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which does not apply to public bodies. Given that this is a corrective measure, we will not oppose it, although the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out that with the measure not being retrospective, there are concerns among stakeholders. We understand, again, that the measure will apply from 6 March, the date of the Budget when the measure was announced. Can the Minister clarify what the situation will be for a public body such as a local authority that may have incurred a 15% SDLT liability in the weeks immediately before this change was announced?

As the Minister set out, clause 11 restricts the scope of agricultural property relief and woodlands relief to property located in the UK. As the Government’s policy paper states, the former measure was put in place to ensure compatibility with EU law; it expanded the scope of agricultural property relief and woodlands relief to property located in the European economic area. Now that the UK has left the EU, this measure reverses those changes, so that property located in the EEA will again be treated the same as property located in the rest of the world. This is a technical measure, and we will not oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With the leave of the Committee, I will put the Question on clauses 7 to 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 14 and 15 make changes to better support the UK independent film industry. That is in recognition of the sector’s cultural importance and its role in growing and supporting UK talent. The Government have heard from several representatives of the British film industry, including the British Film Institute, about the specific challenges that the independent film industry faces. The Government also recognise the vital role that independent film plays in incubating UK talent.

The changes made by clauses 14 and 15 substantially increase the level of audio-visual expenditure credit available to smaller budget films from 34% to 53%. This increased rate for qualifying films is referred to as the UK independent film tax credit. The 53% tax credit will be applied on up to 80% of a film’s production costs, up to a cap of about £15 million. That translates into £31.80 back for every £100 spent, after accounting for corporation tax at 25%.

Films will also need to meet the criteria of a new British Film Institute test, with the expectation that films will have either a UK writer, a UK director or be certified as an official co-production. Clauses 14 to 15 set out the bulk of the measure, but further detail, including on the additional test, will be provided in a statutory instrument in due course.

Productions that start principal photography from 1 April 2024 will be eligible, and companies will be able to make claims from 1 April 2025 on expenditure incurred from 1 April 2024. The UK independent film tax credit is a transformational, generous, enhanced tax credit, which will boost the production of UK independent films and incubate UK film talent.

[James Murray]

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 14 introduces a higher rate of expenditure credit for independent films, defined as films below a maximum budget that have either a UK director or writer, or are an official international co-production. As the Government’s policy paper on this measure makes clear, the basic rate of credit under the audio-visual expenditure credit scheme is 34%. Independent films will now receive a rate of 53%, with the amount of credit capped to relevant global expenditure of £15 million. The Opposition strongly support the UK’s creative sector as one of the areas of the global economy in which Britain is world leading. As such, we will not oppose any measures that provide certainty and greater opportunities for growth in that critical sector.

Clause 15 provides the administrative framework for the previous clause and sets out that the higher rate will be available only on expenditure incurred from 1 April for films that commenced principal photography on or after that date. We understand that claims can in turn be made from 1 April 2025, so I would like to ask the Minister about the role of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because we know that the new schemes will need to be properly explained through new guidance and may require new staff, as the Government’s policy paper makes clear. What is HMRC doing to ensure that the guidance remains timely and up to date for those wanting to make a claim? What will HMRC do to support those who want to apply for the credit so that they can understand how it operates? Similarly, what allocation of staff will be made to administer the measure?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Opposition for their support. I think there is agreement across the House on the vital role of the world-leading UK creative industries, and, in particular, our thriving film sector. In answer to the broad question put by the hon. Member for Ealing North, further information will provided by a statutory instrument that we will discuss in due course. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have a role in that, and the precise resource allocation is an operational decision for it. As the Minister who oversees HMRC, I will pay close attention to the issue and I will ensure that it is properly resourced. This is a very important policy area and we want to ensure that it is successful. Again, I am afraid that I will ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little patient and wait for the details in the statutory instrument, but we are consulting key stakeholders on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Increase in theatre tax credit

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As the Minister has set out, from 1 April 2025 the rates of theatre tax relief, orchestra tax relief, and museum and galleries exhibition tax relief will be set permanently at 40% for non-touring productions and 45% for touring productions and all orchestra productions. As we know, the so-called creative reliefs were previously set at 20% and 25% respectively. They were temporarily increased on 27 October 2021 to help the sector in its economic recovery from covid-19. As the Government’s policy paper notes, the rates were due to taper to 30% and 35% from April 2025. We welcome the fact that they will now be set permanently at 40% and 45% from next year.

We also note that, by way of these clauses, the Government are removing the 2026 sunset clause on the museums and galleries exhibition tax relief so that it becomes a permanent relief with no expiry date. In previous debates on earlier Finance Bills, I have asked the Minister to give clarity and certainty to the creative sectors, so I am pleased to say that that has been given to the UK’s world-leading theatres through these clauses. As I have said, we in the Opposition stand wholeheartedly behind the UK’s creative industries, and we will of course not oppose the measures set out today.

[Drew Hendry]

I briefly want to endorse the comments about these sectors requiring support. It is good to see some support for the sectors here, but we would like to see more in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

We have moved forward very quickly today. I thank everybody for their participation: you, Mrs Latham, all the officials in the House, the Clerks, and all those who have been working on the Bill at HMRC, HMT and other Government Departments. I repeat my thanks to the external stakeholders for their comments and to all those who have been involved in consultations. In particular, I thank the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group for their contributions to this Committee, including in written form, and all those who have participated today.

I look forward to the Bill progressing smoothly through its final stages. I thank everybody involved.

[James Murray]

I add my thanks to my colleagues in the Opposition: my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn; the Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower; and, of course, the Back Benchers who have joined us for this lengthy Committee session. [Laughter.] I place on the record my thanks to all the House authorities and to third parties, particularly the Chartered Institute of Taxation, whose expertise is always greatly valued.

[Drew Hendry]

I, too, rise to pass on my thanks: to you, Mrs Latham, for chairing, and to all the staff and others who have been involved. Whether we agree or vehemently disagree—often, as we have seen today, there are big disagreements—we never forget those people who work hard to produce the documentation and supporting information in all the arms of Parliament, including the House of Commons Library. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition to new clauses 1 and 4, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).

“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”

Those are not my words but those of Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, following the spring Budget from which this Finance Bill derives. However, the IFS was not alone in its view. In response to the Budget, the Institute for Government was clear as well, saying that taxes were set to rise

“to a post-war high as a result of decisions made by Conservative chancellors over the past 14 years.”

Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research described the Chancellor’s announcements in March as a

“low-key budget…unlikely to unlock the UK’s growth and productivity problems”.

The verdict is clear. People in Britain are facing higher taxes, squeezed living standards and weaker public services, and they have a Government who are unable to undo the damage that they have caused. No matter what the Conservatives now say or do, the truth is that the tax burden is set to rise to its highest level in 70 years. The decisions taken by Conservative Chancellors in this Parliament—and, let’s face it, there have been a few of them—mean that the average family will face a tax bill that is £870 a year higher by 2028-29. For pensioners, it is even worse: people over the state pension ago do not even benefit from any changes in national insurance, which means that pensioner taxpayers will pay an eye-watering £960 more a year by the end of the forecast period.

People across Britain are struggling to make ends meet as they find their wages squeezed and taxes rising relentlessly, yet the Conservatives have decided to tell the British public that they have never had it so good. I note that Ministers are trying to do that again today, telling us that their plan is working, although that is not the reality of life for people who, at the next general election, will be asking themselves whether they and their families feel better off than they did 14 years ago. It is that reality that new clauses 1 and 4 seek to expose: as the Conservatives gaslight the British people, our new clauses are there to call them out.

New clause 1 does that by requiring the Government to come clean over how many people will be liable to pay income tax at 20% and 40% in the current tax year, how the number has changed over the last three years, and how it will change in the three years ahead. We want the Government to admit the impact that their six-year freezing of the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold will have. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, 3.7 million more people will be paying tax by 2028-29, and 2.7 million more will be paying the higher rate, as a result of the Government’s threshold freezes. Will the Minister repeat those figures and admit that they are correct? We believe that the Chancellor should be honest about this too, and that is what new clause 1 seeks to achieve.

We know that the outcome of the Conservatives’ decisions during the current Parliament is hitting pensioners who pay tax especially hard: because taxpayers over the state pension age do not benefit from any of the changes in national insurance, they will feel the impact of the Conservatives’ tax rises even more. That is why we tabled new clause 4—again, requiring the Chancellor to come clean about the impact of his and his predecessors’ policies. The new clause requires the Chancellor to set out the number of pensioners who will be liable to pay income tax this year and in each of the next three years, and what the average pensioner’s tax bill will be. Pensioners deserve to know the truth about how the Government’s decisions will affect them, and they have good reason to be concerned about this Government.

While Labour has guaranteed that the pensions triple lock will be in our manifesto and protected for the duration of the next Parliament if we win, the Conservatives refuse to say what impact on pensioners their £46 billion unfunded pledge to abolish national insurance altogether would have. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said yesterday, it is a tax bombshell aimed squarely at Britain’s pensioners. The Conservatives are refusing to say how they would pay for this massive commitment, so it is hard not to suspect that they are concealing their plans to make pensioners pay the bill. Perhaps they will pay for the revenue lost through the abolition of national insurance by making changes to pension rates or to the state pension age, but if they are planning to keep pensions the same and make up the revenue by raising the basic and higher rates of income tax, that would mean an 8% increase in income tax rates.

My colleagues and I have asked Ministers time and again to come clean about how they would pay for their plans, but they resolutely refuse to do so. They could clear this up right here, right now, by either abandoning their unfunded commitment or explaining how they would pay for it. I would happily give way if the Minister would like to do that, but I suspect that he will not. We know that the Conservatives find the reality of their tax-raising record so hard to bear that they would rather hang on to a reckless, unfunded plan to abolish national insurance to make them feel better about themselves and to desperately try to keep their divided party together. It is crystal clear that for the Conservatives it is party first, country second.

We also know that the Conservatives’ high tax record goes hand in hand with their record of low growth in the economy. Indeed, one of the reasons taxes are so high is the fact that economic growth has been so weak over the past 14 years. Again, no matter what the current set of Ministers say, the idea that the economy is turning a corner is simply not reflected in reality. The truth is that our economy is smaller per person than it was when the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) became Prime Minister. Our country is forecast by the OECD to have economic growth of just 1% next year, weaker than that in every other G20 country except Russia. If, under the Conservatives, the UK economy had grown at the average OECD rate, it would now be £140 billion larger—and that growth would have provided an extra £50 billion in tax revenues to be invested in our public services. Instead, economic growth is on the floor, taxes are going up, and public services are falling over. That is the Conservative doom loop that we are in. We know that the only way out of the doom loop of ever-rising taxes with nothing to show in return is to get the economy growing with Labour’s plan.

Labour’s plan for economic growth is driven by the need for stability, investment and reform. Stability, something so sorely lacking in the recent years of Conservative chaos, must be the basis of a secure and responsible approach to the economy, and with strong fiscal rules, a new fiscal lock and respect for independent institutions, we will put stability at the heart of our approach.

[Jonathan Edwards]

At the beginning of his speech the hon. Gentleman mentioned Paul Johnson, whom the press has quoted today as saying that the Government and the Opposition are tied to the same fiscal path. Is that an ideological decision or a general election tactic? I am genuinely interested in hearing the answer.

[James Murray]

We in the Labour party believe that having fiscal rules that are iron-clad is essential to being trusted to manage the economy in a responsible way that puts family security and family finances first. Having strong fiscal rules and stability underpinning every other decision that we make is absolutely essential to everything that a Government might hope to do. Indeed, that stability forms the foundation for getting the economy growing, because with stability we will be able to work in partnership with businesses to remove the barriers to investment, using catalytic public investment to unlock more than £20 billion from the private sector to invest in the industries of the future. To support that investment, we will reform the systems that our economy needs to thrive, from reform of our planning system and employment rights to devolving powers to elected Mayors on transport, skills, enterprise, energy and planning. That is how Labour will begin to grow the economy if we win the next general election.

We know that a new approach and a new Government are needed, because that is what people across the country are telling us. People want a new approach whereby they can feel better off, rather than struggling to make ends meet as their taxes rise relentlessly. The Conservatives are desperate to distract from the mess they have created. They go from the simply unbelievable, like the Chancellor claiming yesterday that they had abolished low pay, to the unbelievably reckless, like their £46 billion unfunded plan to abolish national insurance. But no matter what they say, or how hard they try to pretend that their plan is working and that people in Britain have never had it so good, people know the reality of life. People know that taxes are at record levels.

Today we want the Conservatives to at least come clean and admit how many more people are paying tax as a result of their decisions in this Parliament, and how hard they are hitting pensioners in particular. Frankly, however, no matter whether they come clean, come the general election, people across Britain will ask themselves whether they and their family feel better off today than they did 14 years ago. The answer to that question is the reality from which the Conservatives cannot hide.

[Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to speak in support of tax-cutting proposals. We are not discussing the national insurance reductions in this group of clauses, but both previous speakers have spent some of their time discussing them because they are relevant, as they are the other side of the issues related to the correct levels and thresholds for income tax, which are the proper matter of our current debate. I wanted any kind of tax cut in the Budget, because we are over-taxed and the right kinds of tax cuts can speed up growth, which all the major parties in this House want, although there are some disagreements about the exact mix of policies that might create it.

The first thing we need from the Treasury is for its official forecasts and those of the OBR to have greater belief in the fact that if we promote more growth by cutting some tax rates, we may end up with more tax revenue. The best generator of more revenue to pay for our public services is a growing economy. The best generator of more growth is productivity improvements, and there is particular scope for such improvements in the public sector. The public sector was badly damaged by the covid experience. We lost a lot of productivity through the hasty and unnecessary reorganisation of public services during the pandemic, but we are finding it hard work and slow going to get the lost productivity back.

I welcome the fact that, in the latest set of Budget numbers, the Government have put in future productivity recoveries over the next few years, but it is slow progress, even to get back to the levels of productivity in 2019. I put it to the Government that they do not need to spend extra money on new technology, such as artificial intelligence, to get back to the levels of 2019. They may wish to recommend schemes for AI investment to get above 2019 levels but, by definition, we were able to get to 2019 levels of productivity without AI, because it had not been invented at that stage.

There should be more common agreement about the urgency of productivity recovery in public services. We are missing out on at least £20 billion due to the productivity problems that have developed since 2020 and the lockdown experience. However, there is also a source of extra revenue from lower taxes, because if we cut tax rates in the right way, we will generate more cash, rather than less. I think everybody now agrees that cutting certain taxes has that effect, because it is quite obvious that if we impose certain kinds of turnover or activity taxes, they will lower turnover and activity. Indeed, many taxes are imposed with a moral wish to lower activity or usage rates. For example, alcohol and tobacco attract higher taxes because the wish is that people buy them less or, in the case of tobacco, do not buy them at all. We get the same effect with things that we should be promoting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Mr Evans, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Opposition to new clauses 2 and 3, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).

Earlier this afternoon, we pressed the Government on the impact of tax rises, particularly stealth tax rises, on families and pensioners. Of course, it is not only taxpayers and their families who are struggling to make ends meet under the Conservatives. Businesses in Britain are struggling too, and when I meet those from businesses across all sectors, of all sizes and in different parts of the country, they are clear that they want a Government who support them to succeed and grow. What the people I speak to from businesses want from Government, first and foremost and above all else, is stability, predictability and a plan for growth. Stability is greatly prized by businesses, which want to make decisions about investment and growth, which are critical to creating jobs and making people across Britain better off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. I wish to speak briefly on clause 12 stand part and the new clause to which he has just spoken.

Clause 12 is a simple clause. The title is “Charge and main rate for financial year 2025”, and it states:

“Corporation tax is charged for the financial year 2025…The main rate of corporation tax for that year is 25%.”

Just over four years ago, I was re-elected to this House on a Conservative party manifesto that said that we would keep corporation tax at 19% and would not increase it. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) just reminded us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that 19% was far too high, and he had a radical proposal to reduce it to 15%. At the time, I did not buy into that leadership bid of his, but it is clear now that it was an extraordinary gesture, completely at odds with what he must believe, because I presume that he supports clause 12, which sets corporation tax for the following year at 25%. That is far too high. I voted against the increase originally, and if clause 12 stand part was pressed to a Division today, I would certainly vote against it.

It was with some incredulity that I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing North. His new clause 2 talks about reviewing the impact of section 12. The incoherent subsection (1) says:

“The Chancellor must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.”

Obviously, section 12 will not come into effect until the 2025 financial year, while the Bill will be on the statute book within a couple of months. What would be the point of conducting, within three months of that date, a review into something that will not come about until next year? If the new clause mentioned reviewing the impact of the current high levels of corporation tax, I would be with him. [Interruption.] He is shouting at me from a sedentary position. I will happily give way to him, so that he can make his point. Let us have a debate. If he does not want to engage in debate, so be it.

All I am doing is reading out the terms of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 2. If he wishes to resile from that, let him say so. I am sure that, even at this late stage, Mr Evans, you would accept him withdrawing the new clause because its terms do not bear out what he is telling us.

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. The key point of the new clause, as I am sure he realises, is to make it clear that Labour would cap corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. Does he agree with that?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, I do not, because that would be capping corporation tax at far too high a level. I would like to see it reduced, ideally back to 19%, as soon as possible. I certainly would not support any notion that we should stick with a 25% rate for the duration of the next Parliament.

That intervention was interesting. If that is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I think we can say that it is rather opaque, because it does not say, for example, “Between 2025 and 2030, corporation tax shall be set at the rate of 25%”. It says that there should be

“a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.”

What would the review look at? One thing would be how the 25% rate of corporation tax provided for by section 12 had affected

“investment decisions taken by businesses”.

Surely we know—I think he said so in his remarks—that having corporation tax set at 25% adversely affects businesses making investment decisions, including decisions on whether to increase their investments, or whether to invest in the United Kingdom for the first time. It is because such adverse investment decisions have been taken by businesses that, as he accepts, we have low growth, coupled with rising taxes and a stagnant economy.

It surprises me that more of my colleagues do not wish to engage in this debate. I very much support those Government Members who believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s main objective should be to grow our economy, rather than stifle it through high taxes and more regulation, which seems to be what is happening.

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question—high rates of corporation tax adversely affect investment decisions taken by businesses—so why do we need a review to establish that? How can he both want a review because he does not know the answer to that question, and be so confident about its results that he can announce today that corporation tax will be at 25% for the next five years? It seems a pointless exercise. One is left with the feeling that the main parties have very similar policies on many aspects of taxation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

We agree. We want taxes to come down, but we are not going to announce tax decisions from this Dispatch Box outside fiscal events. It is clear for all to see that this Conservative Government believe in lower taxes. We have reduced national insurance contributions for 29 million people by some 30% in just the last six months, and the record is very clear on that.

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not in the habit of making policy commitments outside the normal fiscal process. Does that mean the £46-billion unfunded black hole created by the promise to abolish national insurance is no longer a policy of this Government?

[Gareth Davies]

It is neither unusual nor incorrect for a Government, or any party, to set out a long-term ambition to let the public know where we stand on taxation and what we want to see in the future. In 2010, for example, we said that we wanted to increase the personal allowance for income tax to £10,000, and we met that. Actually, we exceeded it. It is now over £12,500, so a person in this country can earn £1,000 every month without paying any tax at all. That is a long-term ambition that we have delivered.

[James Murray]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. I notice that he is keen to talk about a long-term ambition to abolish national insurance. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Treasury questions that

“our policy is to abolish employees’ national insurance”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 437.]

Was the Chancellor wrong?

[Gareth Davies]

As I said, it is a long-term ambition. It is right for a party that is serious about governing to set a direction for the country. I know it is an unusual idea for the hon. Gentleman that having a plan for government is the right thing to do, but we have made it very clear to the British people that, if they vote for a Conservative Government at the next general election, their taxes will come down.

The amendments before the Committee propose that we publish information that is already publicly available. They are not needed, so I urge the Committee to reject them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Review of impact of section 12

“(1) The Chancellor must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the impact of section 12 of this Act.

(2) The review must consider how the rate of corporation tax provided for by section 12 affects—

(a) investment decisions taken by businesses,

(b) the certainty of businesses about future fiscal and market conditions.

(3) For comparative purposes, the review must include an assessment of how the factors in subsection (2)(a) and (b) would be affected by maintaining corporation tax at a rate no higher than that set out in section 12 until the end of the next parliament.”—(James Murray.)

This new clause requires the Chancellor to conduct a review of how the rate of corporation tax set by the Bill set out in clause 12 affects business investment and certainty, including what the effect would be of capping it at its current level for the next Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Conservatives’ decisions in this Parliament mean that the average family will face a tax bill that is £870 a year higher, and pensioner taxpayers will pay £960 a year more. The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:

“This remains a Parliament of record tax rises.”

Higher taxes, squeezed living standards and weaker public services—that is the Conservatives’ legacy. Does the Minister understand why the country has lost confidence in them?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Many people in this country remember the abysmal economic performance of the last Labour Government. The tax-free allowance was £6,475; it is now £12,570. More than 1.5 million people have been taken out of paying income tax altogether. The Government have a focus: now that the economy is turning, we want to put more money into people’s pockets. That is exactly what we are doing with the national insurance cuts and other measures, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome that.