Clause 1

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. What is this for? People know that they have to pay tax. We may disagree on who pays tax and how much, but ultimately, where is the money going? It is going to the surrender of the Chagos islands. It is used to pay public sector workers eyewatering sums, only for them go on strike again. The hard bit for the general public is understanding where on earth all the money that is being raised by record tax hikes is actually going. That is what the Minister needs to be held to account for today. No explanation has been made. We are not in covid times; we are not in times of great crisis. This money is being raised because Labour is in trouble and in the pocket of the unions. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

New clause 10 includes further assessments specifically on domestic equity markets and institutional investors. This will have a negative drag effect on the international climate as it relates to getting more investment in UK equities from institutional investors.

Finally, clauses 6 to 8 and schedules 1 and 2 introduce new rates of income tax altogether, this time on property income. Again, those rates are to be set for the tax year 2027-28 at two percentage points higher than the main rate of income tax. Government Members may take great satisfaction in what could be described as a war on landlords, but we should pause and remind ourselves who many landlords are. They are not barons or vast landowners; they are ordinary people doing what we have encouraged them to do for decades: taking responsibility for their future. They are the couple—one parent works long hours in a steady job, and the other juggles work and family life—who save carefully and invest in a small property because they know that the state pension alone might not be enough when they retire. They are the retired couple who inherit a modest flat from their parents—a flat that is not a windfall, but a source of security in later life—and who rent it out to supplement a fixed income. These are not people gaming the system, as many Labour Members have tried to suggest in the past, but people responding to it. They are good people. Forty-four of them are Labour MPs.

This new tax does not just hit landlords, though; it hits renters, too. The British Property Federation and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility have both warned that this measure could restrict the supply of private rental properties, adding pressure to an already strained market. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Residential Landlords Association both say that rents will rise faster as a direct result of the Bill. New clause 12 in my name seeks to force the Government not to rely on their stereotypes about landlords, but to assess the impact of their new renters’ tax on both the supply and cost of private rental properties.

In summary, these clauses represent a new front in Labour’s war on the middle class and aspirational households in Grantham and Bourne, Chipping Barnet and across the country. These clauses impose not one, not two but three income tax rises on the British public, totalling more than £5.5 billion. This is not a plan for change; it is a savers’ tax onslaught, carefully phrased, politely worded and deeply felt—the same old Labour.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Before I speak, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to speak in this packed Chamber, and to the millions of people no doubt watching at home.

I will speak to clause 4, but first I wish to thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). I seem to recall making a slight mistake last year in a debate on the Finance Act 2025 by not speaking to a specific clause. He very graciously saved me, callow youth that I was, and I thank him very much. I certainly remember that today.

Britain faces an affordability crisis, with record numbers unable to afford a decent living standard. On top of that, we face a military crisis; we have to defend our nation as we have not had to for almost a century. As a nation, we are deeply divided between those who can afford decent lives and those who cannot; because of that, we are unable to stand united as one nation to meet this moment and those challenges. That is why today I speak in favour of clause 4. Yes, it is a tax that hits the wealthiest, but it also ensures that we can help grow the economy, and it is easily implementable. I will cover why that is.

People in this country are deeply frustrated and angry about where this nation is. Record numbers of people cannot afford a decent standard of living; just one third feel comfortable with how much they can afford. That is lower than in the financial crisis, and lower than during austerity—it is the lowest rate in our lifetime. That is why we see such anger on our streets and screens. We constituency MPs feel it viscerally.

Meanwhile, we have also seen the wealth in this nation grow dramatically. We have seen wealth as a proportion of GDP double since the 1980s, the amount of dividends paid out more than doubling since 2010, and owner-managers able to reduce their tax liability by not drawing their income from earnings. That is why it is right that we rebalance the tax burden between earnings and income earned from elsewhere, and especially income earned from dividends.

Our taxation system has not kept up with how our economy has changed; wealth has become far more important in this nation, but it has not been taxed commensurately. While income tax and national insurance have increased as a share of GDP, the same has not happened for taxes on profits. While the amount of wealth as a proportion of GDP has doubled, the income tax from that wealth has increased by only 30%. The income taxes in this nation are being levied on earners, not those who get their income from wealth. That is why it is entirely right that, through this Budget and this clause, we tax dividends at a greater rate. I will set out how this measure will improve growth and ensure that we hit the richest, and will show that it is easily implementable. We know that it improves growth because, as we have seen in France, dividend taxation stops payments going out of companies, instead ensuring that money stays in and is invested. We know that it hits the wealthiest, because one fifth of those who gain dividends are in the top 1%. We know that it is an easily implementable tax, because we are seeing it implemented in this Bill.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that increasing taxation on dividends will result in more entrepreneurs taking risks, employing people and growing the economy, or fewer?

[Dr Sandher]

I believe it will lead to more investment in this country. I will say this as well: the reason why people across the world invest in this nation and create great companies is because they want the return after tax. If an economy is growing and has more investment, that means more sales and more money in people’s pockets. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that raising this taxation rate somehow means less entrepreneurship and less investment in our economy.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

rose—

[Dr Sandher]

I believe the hon. Gentleman wants to get in again.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is he seriously saying that increasing the rate of tax on dividends will result in more investment in this country?

[Dr Sandher]

To be clear, we have seen this happen in France, where that is exactly what happened. The incentive then was for payments to go back inside the company rather than being drawn out in dividends. In addition, owner-earners in this nation are currently able to reduce their tax liability by 13% by paying out in dividends. It is a form of income that is effectively earnings, but is not being reported as such. So yes, I would say that that is the case. Not only would I say that is the case, but I would say it is shown by international evidence. I take the theoretical point the hon. Gentleman raises, but in practice, we have seen that raising dividend taxes keeps the money in the company and leads to rising investment rates.

This is the most important Parliament in a century. Like those in this House a century before us, we face deep challenges: like those in this House almost a century ago, we are seeing the far right on our streets because people cannot afford a decent living; like those a century before us, we face a military dictator in Europe who wishes to redraw borders by force; like those a century before us, we in this continent must ensure that we defend ourselves. It was almost a century ago in this House that a Conservative Prime Minister increased taxes on the wealthiest to pay to defend our nation. It was almost a century ago that we taxed the wealthiest to ensure that every single person in this country had a good job. It was almost a century ago that we built a welfare state to ensure that every single person could have a decent living and a stake in this nation.

For our nation to meet this moment, we have to be united; to be united, every single person has to have a stake in this country; to have a stake in this country, people have to see and believe that democracy can deliver for them and that they can earn a decent living. That is why, by taxing the wealthiest on dividends—taxing those who gain their payments from wealth instead of earnings from pay-as-you-earn—clause 4 will help to ensure that we raise the revenue we need to get investment and growth going in a way that is easily implementable.

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

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that this was a tax on the rich because 20% of dividends are paid to the richest 1% of people in this country, but that means that 80% are not. Does he not accept that dividends are right at the heart of the savings culture in this country and that if we tax them, we will get less savings?

[Dr Sandher]

I am not sure I quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s point there, to be perfectly honest. It is true that most people’s main savings investment will be through the pension funds they own, which will be their biggest savings vehicle; that would not be subject to dividend taxation in the same way because people will buy out at the end and ensure that they have a payment for their products. I am not sure I quite follow, but, to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, it is possible that I misunderstood his point.

I can see there are lots of people trying to get in, Ms Nokes. [Laughter.] I will end my speech now to allow them to do so. It is a thrilling topic, as I am sure everyone across the Committee would agree.

This is the right thing to do to balance taxation between earnings and payments from wealth. It is a long-needed update to our taxation system. I am proud of a Government who do that, as I am sure we all are. With that, I will close.

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

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Maybe later.

I turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough. His speech—I had hoped it would be even longer; I am somewhat disappointed not to have heard more from him—provided a clear exposition of the benefits of the modest changes the Government are setting out in this group of clauses, which are being considered by the Committee of the whole House.

[Dr Sandher]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will happily give way.

[Dr Sandher]

Was my hon. Friend surprised that Opposition Members spoke about the complexity of implementing clause 4 when it is simply a measure changing the rates of dividend taxation and does not lead to any more burden when filing taxes?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which gives me a chance to repeat clearly that these changes are a 2 percentage point increase. The tax rates will increase from 20% to 22%, from 40% to 42% and from 45% to 47%. That does not add a significant—or any real—complication to the tax system. We are changing the rates in a way that is fair, closing the difference in taxation treatment between those who receive their income from employment and those who receive their income from assets.

My hon. Friend’s speech was really helpful in bringing comparative evidence to the debate. I hope he will send that my way for review. Opposition Members who asked about changes made in other countries may be interested in reading that evidence, too. He also provided a helpful exposition on the economic theory sitting behind some of these changes and the need to ensure that our taxation system incentivises people to make investments and good decisions for the long-term health of our economy. He touched on the crucial point—it is worth making this clearly—repeatedly pointed out by many tax experts and tax commentators that one challenge in the UK’s taxation system is that we treat income received from different sources very differently, which can lead to distortions. It is better to ensure that we do what we can to reduce the gaps between the tax treatment of different sorts of income. [Interruption.]

I am happy to refer to Opposition Members’ utterances —they have been shouting out the word “risk.” I make the point that there is still an incentive in the system as taxation levels have not closed completely. [Interruption.] Yes, it is smaller—hon. Members gesture as such, and they are correct that the gap has closed—but there are still significant incentives for people to set up their businesses and income streams in certain ways to increase their income.

Let me now turn to the contribution from the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who helpfully mentioned the performance of HMRC, the Department for which I am the Minister with responsibility. She is right to say that we need to have a laser focus on customer service. The performance in terms of missed calls—that is, calls that are not picked up because someone hangs up before they are answered—is improving under this Government. I think that is progress—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for St Albans specifically raised the performance of HMRC in her remarks, and it is only right and proper for me to mention that. The hon. Member also raised the impact of these changes on rents; of course the Government will continue to monitor the impact of taxation changes on the rental market. One crucial thing we can do to support private renters is to increase the supply of housing to push down the price of rents in the long term.

To begin to conclude—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] To begin to conclude—[Interruption.] Did someone say they wanted to intervene? No? In that case, I hope I have been able to—

[Dr Sandher]

rose—

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Dr Sandher]

I have no doubt that Conservative Members would also like to intervene after I have made my intervention!

Does the Minister agree that we in this House prize the contribution of business people and that we are here to work productively to ensure that workers and businesses contribute to the prosperity of this nation? I am really proud of what business people do. I come from a family of business people who have invested, who have created a nation and who have created employment. On the other side, we must ensure that the benefits are paid both to them and to our wider economy.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for giving me the chance to reiterate this Government’s focus on economic growth and on providing economic stability. Last year, the OBR forecast that the economy would grow by 1% but it then revised that up to 1.5%. That is a 50% increase in our growth forecast. Of course, we need to continue to redouble our efforts as a Government, going further and faster when it comes to supporting economic growth, so that we can see rising living standards in every single part of the country. That is core to our plan. We do not want to see people continuing to suffer.

The last Parliament was the worst on record for living standards, and it is no surprise that the British people decided to boot out the Conservatives and replace them with a Government who are laser-focused on improving the cost of living and improving living standards, both through the changes we are making—including in the Finance Bill to support our public finances—and, as my hon. Friend mentions, through continuing to partner with business to unlock private sector investment and increase economic growth. The changes that we are making to planning do not just support more houses being built and more residential development, which of course we need for the reasons we have discussed; they should also make it easier for us to build large infrastructure projects to support economic growth—including new nuclear power stations, which the Conservatives continually did not invest in—and to get our long-term growth and productivity rates up.

By keeping the clauses in the Bill unchanged, we will raise additional revenue from those who are undertaxed relative to most employees. As I have said, the changes on dividend savings and property income will raise an additional £2.2 billion in the coming years, which will help us to repair and improve our public finances. The changes will also enable us to reduce the contribution that we are asking of working people through the threshold freezes. By making changes such as the introduction of the electric vehicle excise duty and the reduction in relief for those who are selling their businesses to employee ownership trusts, we are making it possible to reduce the ask of working people. That is in sharp contrast to the position set out by the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon, who said that if he was in Labour’s position, he would be increasing the rates of income tax. Rather than doing that, we will ensure that this Government stay true to their manifesto commitments on tax and the public finances, with borrowing falling in every year of the OBR’s forecast.

I therefore urge the Committee to reject new clause 2 and new clauses 10 to 12, and to support the inclusion in the Bill of clauses 1 to 6, schedule 1, clauses 7 and 8 and schedule 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

New Clause 12



“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 6, 7, and 8 of this Act on the private rental sector in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider -

(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 6, 7, and 8 on the cost of private rent in each region within England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland,

(b) the effects of the provisions of sections 6, 7, and 8 on the supply of private rental properties in each region within England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland,

(c) any other implications of the changes introduced by sections 6, 7, and 8 of this Act.”—(Gareth Davies.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of imposing new rates of income tax on property income.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. This is clearly a serious moment for our country—perhaps the most serious moment in a hundred years. We are threatened by existential crises: the affordability crisis, with the far right on the march; the climate crisis, with a planet that is burning; and a military crisis in Europe. Any one of those crises would pose a massive danger. On top of that, we are a nation that is deeply divided. The question for this House is whether the Budget will help us to meet those challenges. That is why I am surprised that the Opposition’s motion focuses so much on process, rather than on the things that actually matter to the country.

I have seen hard budgets before, in this country and elsewhere. When I lived and worked in Somaliland, it experienced the most serious drought in living memory. The choice in that budget was between feeding children and paying soldiers. I have seen hard budgets and Chancellors having to make difficult decisions. Now, as then, we are facing a difficult, existential and dramatic moment for our country.

The point about this Budget, and about this Government, is to help us to meet those moments. How do we make life affordable? How do we stop the planet burning? How do we prepare for war so that we can prevent it? Those are the questions before us, and those are the questions the Chancellor addressed in this Budget. That is why we are here: to take each of those challenges in turn.

The first challenge is affordability. Yes, that is about taking £150 off people’s energy bills, but it is also about creating good jobs across the country by building the homes that we need. It is about increasing social security payments for the poorest people in this country so that children do not go hungry.

The second challenge is the climate. Of course that is about the investment we are making publicly and reducing emissions, but it is also about leadership. That does not just mean political leadership, with us saying to other nations, “Yes, we are doing our part to reduce emissions”; we can also sell our innovations around the world and help other countries reduce their emissions as well.

Finally, and most importantly, given the news that we are hearing from across Europe, this nation must prepare for war in order to prevent it. I remind Conservative Members that it was a Prime Minister from their Benches—perhaps this nation’s greatest Prime Minister—who spoke of the dangers of not preparing for war, of the years that the locust hath eaten, and of the things that his generation did not do. He spoke of those dangers, yet the most dramatic and destructive war in the history of humankind followed. I say politely and with good will to Conservative Members that perhaps those are the things they could have focused on today; perhaps that is what is important at this moment for our country.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on stamp duty, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there is a lot of agreement on both sides of the House that, if we could just abolish stamp duty, we would. The question is not about abolishing stamp duty, but about how that would be paid for, and what we have seen from the Conservatives’ so-called costing is £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion that they could not deliver while they were in office. Those cuts would lead to rising destitution, and not just for those who are out of work or for children, but for those who are in work as we speak.

It is worth thinking about how the social security system has changed over time and what has happened in our economy, and indeed in high-income nations across the world. Technological change has resulted in a divide between high-paid and low-paid jobs, so that some jobs—mostly done by graduates—pay enough to live on, but a lot more do not. For a two-parent household with two kids to afford just the basics, each parent needs to earn £35,000 a year. Some 40% of full-time workers earn less than that.

So that people can afford to live, we have used the social security system to top up wages. That is what we did with working tax credits, and it is what the Conservatives did when they reformed that system to become universal credit. However, they built a huge amount of cuts into the system. What did those cuts mean? They meant food banks in our nation, which we had never known previously. They meant kids going hungry. They meant parents unable to afford the basics. They meant that people across this country who worked hard and did the right thing could not afford a decent life.

Today, the Conservative party are once again suggesting £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion out of the pockets of families, including working families. It is shocking; it should mean something to them—it should mean something to all of us. Our nation does better when every single one of us can afford a decent life. People who work hard should be able to have a decent life, yet those cuts would mean the opposite.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member is making a powerful argument. I just wonder whether he has reflected on the size of the welfare budget. Is he making the argument that welfare spending should not come down at all?

[Dr Sandher]

That is not at all the argument I am making. My argument is: how can we ensure that people live a decent life through £23 billion of social security cuts, given the huge amounts of destitution and increased unaffordability for families? I say this to the Conservatives as well: I worked in the Treasury under George Osborne, and even he would not have come up with something like this. When he tried something similar, he did not get it past this House.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that one in six people in this country on universal credit are not British citizens? How would he justify that to his constituents?

[Dr Sandher]

People in this country who have the right to remain and the right to work, and who have earned social security contributions, can make claims. The hon. Member will know that many people in this country have no recourse to public funds at all. That meant that during the pandemic, for example, despite paying into the system, they could not claim back out.

It is a shame to see where the Conservative party has got to on this stuff, to be honest. There was a time when the Conservatives condemned Enoch Powell, and a time when they joined us, across this House, in believing that every single person, regardless of the colour of their skin, when given the legal status to remain, has rights and responsibilities, like a British citizen. It is such a shame to see where the Conservative party has got to.

The truth is, I think the Conservatives feel ashamed. When they talk about things like cultural coherence, we can hear the dog whistle—across this country, we hear it. I will tell you why, Madam Deputy Speaker: it is because British citizenship is not just about the colour of our skin or the way we look; it is about our values, the way we act, and the way we cohere together—different communities across this nation who speak in different ways. It is a deep, deep shame—dog-whistle away.

[Bradley Thomas]

I call on the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that, regardless of our political differences, it is the Conservative party that has delivered three female Prime Ministers and the first Prime Minister from an ethnic minority background, while his has not managed to present any other leader than a white man.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before Dr Sandher responds, I ask Members to try to keep this debate in scope.

[Dr Sandher]

And look how much the Conservative party has changed since last July. That is where we are.

I will come back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the issue at hand. We have 4.5 million children in poverty and one in six children living in a household with food insecurity, struggling to make ends meet. Making £23 billion of welfare cuts would mean that families and children could not afford to eat. It would mean the most destitute becoming poorer, and working families—40% of those on universal credit are working families—seeing cuts as well. That is the outcome here: making our nation poorer. That is not what we should want; it is not what Labour wants, and I hope it is not what the Conservatives want either.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

On behalf of Mr Speaker, may I say that it is an absolute joy to see the wonderful Chelsea Pensioners in their glorious red uniforms observing proceedings? No doubt it will elevate the debate. I call Graham Stuart to do so.

Property Taxes

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against the motion on tax. I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), and his well-deserved promotion.

We all know that if we share in growth, we make the country more prosperous and we make it stronger. Tax, of course, helps to pay for the investment that makes us all more prosperous. Under the previous Government, we did not invest in our country and we saw a weaker nation as a result: the highest energy bills in the G7; the worst waiting lists ever seen in this nation; and the worst transport infrastructure in western Europe. That is what this Government are fixing and that is what we are doing with the taxes we have raised.

The Opposition motion speaks of property taxes—this from the party that dashed the dream of home ownership for my generation. Some 40% of those under 30 live with mum and dad. Young people living in big cities pay 40% of their income on rent, unable to save for a house because of the amount they are paying in housing costs. That is precisely the kind of thing we are fixing when we invest to build social housing—£40 billion-worth. But of course, all that needs to be paid for and that is exactly what we do with the taxes we raise. That is why we are proud of the country we are building, where every single one of us is better off.

Crucially, the taxes we raise follow three principles: that they are progressive, raising more from those on higher incomes than from those on middle and low incomes; that they are growth enhancing, both in the way that they are applied and in the investment they pay for; and that we can implement them easily. Those are the three principles that our taxes faced in the autumn: closing a non-dom loophole for those at the top of society; asking the largest businesses to pay more, so we can reduce our waiting lists; and increasing the taxes on second homes, so we can build homes for every single person in this nation. The revenue raised from those who can most afford it makes each one of us better off—that is what this Government are about.

The Opposition want to leave us with a nation where we are weaker: where we do not invest in our collective prosperity, as they did not for the last 14 years; and where we see, instead of a nation that is united and sharing in our prosperity, one that is divided. A house that is divided against itself cannot stand and a nation that is as divided as ours will not stand. It is for us to invest in every corner of this country, so that every person can benefit. That is exactly what we are doing in our economic programme and that is exactly the kind of investment we are paying for through our taxes.

We build a stronger nation when each of us shares in our prosperity, and we help to achieve that through our tax system when we invest to get wages rising, waiting lists down and energy bills down—a stronger nation where each of us is doing better, raising living standards that for too long have been far too low, helping people to be able to afford a home, helping them to raise a family, helping them to pay their bills without having to worry about their overdraft, and sharing, each of us, in our nation’s prosperity. That is what this Government are doing, that is what we are building and that is what we are proud to be a part of.

Taxes

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

The motion before us shows the difference in values between the two sides of this House. The Conservatives’ motion speaks of wealth creators, but specifically says that only a few of us create wealth. On the Labour Benches, we believe that every single worker creates wealth in this country. We have seen the consequences of 14 years of their values in action: falling living standards, higher waiting lists, higher energy bills and a weaker nation. Our values, as we saw under the previous Labour Government, left us with a stronger, wealthier and prosperous nation, in which we taxed the wealthiest to invest in the services that we all rely on. We left a more prosperous and stronger nation last time, and that is what we are building this time.

We have seen the damage of the past 14 years, as expressed in the motion. We have seen what the Conservatives’ values mean in practice. They believed that if a few did well, and there were a few tax cuts for those at the top, our country would be wealthier. That started in 2013, and continued with Truss. In reality, at the end of that 14 years, no one did well. We had the longest squeeze on wages since Napoleon threatened our shores. We were the only high-income nation to see sickness rise after the pandemic, had the highest energy bills in Europe, and were the worst-connected country in western Europe. That is the Conservatives’ record. I believe the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make an intervention.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman says that the last Labour Government left the country in a fantastic state. As I have mentioned before, they left behind a massive deficit and unemployment higher than when they took office. Does he not understand that a deficit of over 10% of GDP was an horrific legacy to leave in peacetime? Also, unemployment being higher was a betrayal of the people the Labour party is meant to stand up for.

[Dr Sandher]

The global financial crisis affected every single nation across the world. I do not deny, by the way, how difficult things were in 2010, but we also left the Conservatives an economy that was growing, record low waiting lists, and investment in our nation and a plan to insulate our homes. Because they did not follow through on our plans, we had the worst insulated homes in western Europe, and some of the highest energy bills to go with that. Yes, we left in a difficult moment, but we left the Conservatives with a strong foundation for going forward.

The Conservatives left us poorer, sicker and slower, thanks to their their record on tax. In the worst cost of living crisis in a century, they attempted to cut taxes for the wealthiest. Everybody on the Labour Benches thought Truss was mad; I really do not know what Opposition Members believe anymore.

[Graham Stuart]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House, so he will recognise that in 2010, fewer than 12% of homes in this country were properly insulated with an energy performance certificate rated C or above; when we handed over power last year, that figure was over 60%. He can look up those numbers, and I ask him to never misrepresent that record in this House, because that is the reality.

[Dr Sandher]

We saw it in the insulation build-out; David Cameron, as he put it, cut the green crap. Insulation rates were rising when we left office, but they were cut throughout the 2010s; as a nation, we have not had that insulation. That is why we brought in the warm homes plan and are funding it with £13 billion. Millions more homes will be insulated under this Government, bringing down energy bills by hundreds of pounds. Those plans for insulation are funded by the tax rises that the Conservatives oppose. Time and again, we ask them what they would like less investment in, and time and again, no answer is given.

We on the Government Benches are trying to build a country according to our values—a country where each of us is doing well, is doing better, is better educated, is healthier and finds it easier to get around. Those are the building blocks of our nation’s wealth. To build that wealth takes investment, which must be funded, and those who benefit most from our nation’s productivity should be asked to contribute more. That is exactly what this Government are ensuring.

[Alison Griffiths]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if people are to contribute, the fundamental bedrock is having a job, and that the jobs tax is causing mass unemployment and business closures?

[Dr Sandher]

Employment is rising, and has risen since the general election. [Interruption.] The reason why unemployment is rising is that more people are seeking to enter the labour force; people are less inactive than before, because we are getting waiting lists down. I would rather people were looking for a job than stayed out of the labour force entirely, as the Opposition would have it. We want to build the kind of country where people are able to work.

We increased employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget while protecting the smallest businesses. We ended the non-dom tax break, to make sure that the ultra-rich could not escape taxes by using a loophole, and increased taxes on private jets. We are getting more of the energy giants’ unearned profits into the public purse to invest in the things that we all need.

We know the Conservatives will complain constantly about the things we are raising money for, but they will never say what they would cut. We saw what happened over the past 14 years; we saw the weaker nation they left in their wake. The Government are investing to change that for good. After the past 14 years, we were left a weaker and more divided nation—a nation in which each of us produces less, and looks inward as we have found it harder to pay the bills. That is exactly what the Government are fixing, and what we are investing in.

I am proud of this Government. I am proud of this country. Most of all, I am proud of the country we will build, in which each of us does well, and we recognise that our common strength is found in our common prosperity.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

A few months ago, I met a former civil servant. He told me that when he was working in government in the run-up to the ’97 election, Ed Balls would come into the Department and say, “Look, this is what our manifesto says, but here is the three-page memo on what we are actually going to do in government.” In fairness to that Government, they achieved quite a lot. In their first two years, of course, they stuck rigidly to the Conservative spending plans, and Tony Blair’s economic adviser, Derek Scott, said that they had a golden economic legacy.

I have listened very carefully this afternoon to the speeches made by Government Members. Of course, I can acknowledge where we were, in terms of the economy, and the fact that the country wanted change; I recognise that. Government Members, however, have failed completely to acknowledge the scale of the once-in-100-years covid experience, what that did to our public finances, and the challenges it gave us in the Treasury—the tough decisions we had to make, and the inevitable scarring to the economy.

[Dr Sandher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Glen]

I shall just finish my point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The typical refrain is then to say, “What about Liz Truss?” I was not a member of Liz Truss’s Government, but I am sure that my colleagues who were did the very best that they could. She was in office for seven weeks. I acknowledge that, politically, it was catastrophic for my party, and there are lots of lessons on which we will have time to reflect, but the failure to acknowledge properly the dominant reason for losing that last election, which was related to the scarring of what happened with covid and the fundamental challenges, does not do credit to this House. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he still wants to intervene, presumably on Liz Truss.

[Dr Sandher]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. We sit on the Treasury Committee together and I find him to be an incredibly kind and brilliant Member of Parliament. He has been very kind to me personally as well.

On the experience of coming out of covid, our contention is not just about Liz Truss, but about the fact that we had the highest inflation and the highest energy bills. Natural gas, which we depend on, sets the price 98% of the time. It is also 50% to 75% more expensive than wind and solar, so the lack of investment in clean energy left us with higher inflation and made us poorer.

[John Glen]

I will come on to address the fundamental dynamics of spending and that area in particular, but first I want to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention back to the subject.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I am not entirely sure what the question was, but I think the hon. Lady is exhibiting that she has learned some lessons from her party’s performance when she was last in government. Maybe she could share that with her Front-Bench colleagues in due course.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I am amazed that the Conservative party has brought an urgent question on fiscal rules. The Conservatives had seven sets of fiscal rules in 14 years; I mean, guys—and it is all guys—come on. The reason why they kept missing debt and deficit targets is because they kept cutting investment, meaning less growth and less tax revenue. Does the Chief Secretary agree that by investing to grow, we get our debt burden down?

[Darren Jones]

This Government recognise that it was because of cuts, especially to capital investment through the austerity years under the Conservative Government, that we had such poor productivity in our economy. We are still suffering the consequences of that, which is why, as the Chancellor said at the Budget, we are choosing investment over decline.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

When considering fiscal measures or financial changes, the figures that matter are those provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms that the Government have implemented will raise £33.8 billion in total revenue, and that figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime choosing to leave the UK.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Public investment makes us all more prosperous, but clearly that public investment, in our roads, rail and energy infrastructure, needs to be paid for. Will the Minister set out how we are funding that public investment by taxing the very richest people in this country?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that our changes to the non-dom reporting regime are essential to raise billions of pounds to support the public finances and get our public services back on their feet. I contrast that with some of the proposals set out by opposition parties. Indeed, Reform UK’s plans are for a tax cut for foreign billionaires.

Spending Review 2025

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady, but there are 500,000 more jobs in Britain since the last general election. Business confidence is going up.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

My constituency of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages is in the east midlands, a region that has been overlooked for too long. That ends today, first with the changes to the Green Book, which we all welcome. There will be more money outside London; I hope my colleagues do not mind too much. Secondly, we have more than £100 billion of investment. Can the Chancellor please set out how today’s investment will get bills down and wages rising in my constituency of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?

Spring Statement

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Lady says, “Where is the change?” Let me tell her: more money into our NHS, with 2 million additional appointments and waiting lists falling five months in a row; rolling out breakfast clubs in primary schools from April this year; increasing defence spending to protect us in a more uncertain world; additional support for carers, the living wage up, the Employment Rights Bill and so much more. That is the difference we have made in nine months, and we have only just got started.

The hon. Lady talks about trade. We believe in free trade. We are an open trading economy and we benefit from trade links around the world, including with our single biggest trading partner, the United States of America. It is right that we work with our allies in the United States to ensure that that free and open trade continues. That is in our national interest and this Government will always act in our national interest. At the same time, there will, as the hon. Lady knows, be a summit between the UK and the EU in May, where we will look to re-set our relationship, so we can see more free trade and the better flow of trade, especially for our smaller businesses to be able to export around Europe.

The hon. Lady talks about welfare. She has not admitted that there is a single problem in the welfare system as it exists today. I am not willing, and this party is not willing, to write off one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training. It is why, for example, we announced this week, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, an additional 60,000 training places to train people up in the construction industries of the future, and a £1 billion package of personalised targeted support because there are many disabled people—the hon. Lady knows this—who are desperate to work but are not getting the support and were denied support by the previous Government. That is why we have said there will be additional support for the most sick and disabled, and that personal support for getting people back into work. That is the right approach, so that we have protections for those who need it, work for those who can, and a sustainable system that is here for generations into the future.

I want to take on the hon. Lady’s main point. She wants all the money for public services, but she does not want to raise the taxes to pay for them. At the moment, we spend £105 billion a year in interest on Government debt. It seems that she would just like more of that debt. She says that people cannot see a GP or a dentist. How does she and the Opposition parties think that we pay for those things? They cannot object to the tax increases and support the money we have invested in our public services. To say otherwise, I am afraid, is fairytales and the magic money tree—it just does not add up. The difference on the Labour Benches is that we will put money into our public services, explain where it comes from, and ensure that the public finances are on a firm footing. That is the difference between our party and the Opposition parties.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Young people in my constituency, and indeed across the country, have had an incredibly difficult time growing up: austerity saw their further education budgets cut by 14%, then there was a pandemic and now war in Europe. Will the Chancellor please set out how her plans to get Britain building again will help my young constituents get the good, non-graduate jobs they need in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Loughborough. The 1.5 million additional homes the Government are building will ensure that families in Loughborough have a chance of getting on the housing ladder and that young people in Loughborough will have the opportunities to help build those homes. That is the difference we are making: more jobs, paying decent wages, and more homes for our families.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise on behalf of the official Opposition in support of Lords amendments 1 to 4, 8, 10, 14 and 21.

Before I dive into the detail, I want to get a little nostalgic. One year and six days ago, I opened Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024, which cut national insurance for some 29 million working people across the country. What a difference a year makes. At the end of my speech that day, I posed a simple question to the shadow Minister, now the Exchequer Secretary, which was really bugging me at the time: how will Labour pay for all its many spending commitments? I asked specifically what taxes Labour would put up, and called for Labour to just be straight with the British people. Alas, no straight answer was forthcoming, but now we know the answer, don’t we? It is just a shame that Labour gave it to us only after the general election.

Labour promised not to raise national insurance, and that it was on the side of British business. It said that it would deliver economic growth; how is that going? The fact is that the Chancellor is delivering a £25 billion tax rise on jobs across the country. That will stifle growth, hold back British business, and harm public services. This Labour national insurance Bill will, unbelievably, take the tax burden to its highest level in history on the backs of working people.

We are debating a series of amendments tabled and voted through in the other place with the aim of mitigating at least some of the damage to three vital parts of our economy and our communities: healthcare providers, charities and small businesses. Lords amendments 1, 3 and 4 seek to exempt from the measures care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, providers of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities and charitable providers of health and social care, such as hospices, as we have heard. That is because we have been warned that as a direct result of the national insurance tax hikes, we could see fewer GP appointments, reduced access to NHS dentistry, community pharmacies closing, adults and local authorities paying more for social care, and young working families being hit with even higher childcare costs. We have to avoid that.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Member reverse this national insurance tax change? What spending would he cut to do so?

[Gareth Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the record of proceedings on earlier stages of the Bill, he will see that we voted against it. If he looks at our record in government, he will see that we cut national insurance for 29 million people across the country. As I have said so many times in this place, why are we not debating the Government’s creation of an £8 billion quango in Great British Energy? Why are they spending £7 billion on a rebrand of the UK Infrastructure Bank? Why are they spending £9 billion on giving up our sovereignty to Mauritius? Let us start with those discussions; we can then have a real debate.

Lords amendment 2 recognises the role that the voluntary sector plays in the provision of essential services by seeking to exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the national insurance rate rise. Charities with an income of less than £1 million make up some 95% of registered charities and undertake vital work in all our communities, yet this Chancellor will force charity staff and volunteers across the sector to raise £1.4 billion more to cover this tax rise next year alone. Supporting this Lords amendment would prevent so many services provided by the third sector from being reduced, or even removed altogether.

Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 seek to exempt the smallest businesses—those with fewer than 25 full-time employees—from the proposed cut to the threshold at which an employer is required to pay secondary class 1 national insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Due to the length of Front-Bench contributions, Back Benchers are now limited to five minutes.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 to 19. I want to speak about what makes a good tax system and, in particular, optimal tax theory, which is a topic that is as thrilling to me as it is no doubt to the entire Chamber.

A good tax system is defined by neutrality, simplicity and stability, as set out in the Mirrlees review. A tax system designed along those three principles will raise the maximum revenue with the minimum economic impact. Each of the amendments in isolation might seem reasonable, but together they introduce individual exemptions that make our tax system less neutral, less simple and less stable. The amendments would make our tax system worse.

Today, we are discussing raising national insurance contributions from the largest employers to fix our broken public services and invest in our prosperity. Three quarters of that £23 billion of investment is from the richest 2% of businesses, while we are reducing contributions from the 250,000 smallest businesses.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member talks about simplicity. If that is the case, why is the Government splitting the NICs? They could have introduced an increase on employees at the same time as the increase on employers, but they have decided not to do that. That would have been a simple measure to raise taxes, without creating this complication. How does that tally with his theory?

[Dr Sandher]

It is a pretty well established introduction to the tax system to have both employee and employer NICs. The point about simplicity is about where the tax is levied. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member raises later in my speech and hopefully provide some illumination.

The revenue we are raising will be used to invest in our nation’s prosperity: insulating our homes, rebuilding our crumbling schools and hiring more nurses to care for our loved ones. It is about getting costs down and creating good jobs. It is about rebuilding this country after, frankly, more than a decade of despondency and despair.

The amendments before us represent bad policy that puts that at risk. As I may have mentioned in this House once or twice before, I used to be an economist. I can tell the House that a good tax is one that raises revenue and does not introduce perverse incentives. A good tax ensures that resources go to activity because there are higher levels of productivity. A good tax system introduces three principles. The first is neutrality: it treats similar activities in similar ways. The second is simplicity: it is straightforward and easy to implement. The third is stability: it is predictable.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The hon. Member is talking about productivity and growth. How does he square that with the additional tax on early years care? That care allows parents to work. If parents cannot work and employers cannot afford to bring young people through, how are we going to get the nation working? Nurseries are on their knees and they cannot take on more children, because there are strict rules about ratios and the amount of space each child takes.

[Dr Sandher]

First, there is more funding going into the early years, but I will deal with the tax side as I speak to the specific amendments.

Each amendment seeks to carve out an exemption for something, and I am sure that Members across the House identify with and, indeed, support some of those individual exemptions. However, if we were to pass the amendments, they would give specified sectors advantages not enjoyed by others.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It seems to me that the hon. Member’s issue is not with some of the amendments, but with all of them taken together. Why does not he not back some of the amendments?

[Dr Sandher]

I do not, because that would introduce exemptions and perverse incentives and make the tax system less clear. It would make the tax system as a whole less efficient. I will come to the specific ways shortly.

Let us start with non-neutrality. Lords amendments 7, 12 and 16 would create non-neutrality between small charities and non-charities. That would incentivise more social enterprises to be charities instead of businesses. Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 would create an additional NICs band for small businesses, thereby disincentivising them from growing. Under those amendments, if a business saw its revenue go over £1 million or it employed more than 25 people, all of a sudden it would incur a NICs charge. That is a cliff edge. It would introduce a perverse incentive and reduce productivity and economic growth.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member is talking about growth. He talks about perverse incentives. What possible kind of perverse incentive could he have in mind when removing a jobs tax from a children’s hospice, which cares for children and families going through the most unspeakable heartbreak? Where is the perverse incentive in that?

[Dr Sandher]

As I think I have set out, the question is not about carving out an exemption for this establishment or that establishment; it is about how we create a tax system overall that is simple and efficient. It is about ensuring that businesses and other organisations are operating more efficiently. I say this to the hon. Member: when the Conservatives were in government, they did not propose abolishing national insurance for all hospices. They should follow their arguments to the end of the line. I will move on, as I am conscious of the time.

The amendments would also reduce simplicity in the tax system. We are not exempting specific sectors or, indeed, specific establishments from this tax. Overall, Lords amendments 1 to 19 would complicate the tax system and reduce stability. Raising rates is accepted policy; introducing special rates for specific sectors or establishments is not. It would make for a less efficient tax system that is complicated to govern, expensive to enforce and more prone to fraud. This is not a predictable way of making tax policy. It is not neutral, it is not simple, and it is not stable. It is bad policy that all of us in the House should oppose.

All this may sound dry, but it matters to our constituents. Bad taxes do not just harm economic growth, but bring in less revenue. That means fewer appointments in the NHS, it means fewer new teachers, and it means less insulation in our homes. We are elected to this place as legislators. We have a duty to make policy that works, and that involves distinguishing the whole from its parts, ensuring we do not introduce loopholes and carve-outs that weaken our tax system, and governing responsibly.