Budget Resolutions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Families and businesses across the country will have heard yesterday’s Budget and been disappointed that the Government missed their second opportunity to seriously address some of the key issues we are facing. Energy bills remain sky high, the cost of employment continues to rise, and, with no substantial reference to Brexit, the Chancellor is ignoring the single biggest measure which could boost economic growth.

Increasing the minimum wage is of course welcome news for millions of low-paid workers, but unless businesses are able to grow there is a danger that it will result in fewer jobs being available overall. Businesses from all sectors across the UK continue to struggle with high energy bills, compounded by the burden of last year’s NICs rise and concerns about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill on their monthly employment costs. The cost of employment has risen significantly over the past year, with nearly 70,000 job losses in hospitality alone since just last October. This has obvious challenges for businesses, many of whom will find it difficult to absorb further costs. However, these businesses provide vital social value and essential entry-level jobs, offering many young people their first job.

Adding national insurance to salary sacrifice pension contributions also pushes up the cost of employment. Last week, I asked the Chancellor what information her Department holds on the number of people who use salary sacrifice schemes. To my astonishment, the Treasury responded by stating that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not hold that data on the number of employers offering, and employees using, salary sacrifice schemes. I am also concerned about the impact on investment if pension contributions are squeezed, because we know that pension funds have a significant role to play in ensuring that UK companies get the scale-up investment they need. We know that parties across the House are committed to boosting UK investment.

The Chancellor reinforced her commitment to fund the lower Thames crossing project, of which £900 million will be publicly financed. In the spring spending review, the Government announced a £1 billion structure fund as part of their 10-year infrastructure strategy. Does that mean that the Government have now only budgeted £100 million to be spent on critical transport improvements over the next nine and a half years? Does that mean I should give up all hope of ever getting funding for Hammersmith bridge in my constituency to be reopened? And the reason I am asking that question here in the Chamber is because on five occasions this year I have asked for a meeting with the Department for Transport to discuss its plans, and whether the structure fund will be allocated for the bridge’s repairs, and every single time that request has been denied. If the Chancellor is asking London residents to pay ever-increasing bills, local residents in my constituency will expect to see a fair proportion reinvested into their community. London is the UK’s financial hub. The failure to even talk to me about fixing Hammersmith bridge is indicative of the Government’s attitude towards London residents.

That question is particularly pressing for residents in my constituency, as they will be disproportionately impacted by the mansion tax. Not only is this an extremely limited revenue raiser, but it will also impact London residents more than in any other region in the UK. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own figures show there is less discretionary spending, after housing costs, in London than anywhere else. What is really needed here is wholesale reform to council tax and stamp duty, so we can look again at how property is taxed. I have heard people say that residents in Darlington pay more than those in Mayfair. Let me tell the House that a band A resident in my constituency pays more council tax than a band F resident in the borough next door. This is not about equalising council tax rates between poorer and richer houses. We already pay a considerably elevated amount of council tax in Richmond. [Interruption.] This is not equalising rates between boroughs; this is simply placing an additional expense—[Interruption.] I am sorry; would the Minister like to intervene? I can tell him that the poorest in my constituency are paying more council tax than extremely wealthy constituents in the borough next door, and this measure will do nothing to equalise that.

I will turn to the 2% increase in tax on landlords. I hear what the Government are saying about equalising sources of income, but they need to consider the impact that this will have on the availability of rental properties, particularly in London. We have already seen a big withdrawal of landlords from the property market in London, which is squeezing availability and affordability. Additional taxes will not do anything to address the housing shortage in London.

Briefly, the Valuation Office Agency has an 18-month backlog on business rate challenges. I want to hear what the Government are doing to boost the Valuation Office Agency and how much that will cost. They are only going to make £400 million from the mansion tax, and a lot of that will be spent on administration. I really want to hear from the Minister about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

What I know is that youth apprenticeships fell by 40% under the Conservative party. That is what failure looks like. I am coming on to some of those matters.

We do not want to grow this economy by simply borrowing more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) rightly pointed out before he turned, at some length, to snails. There is nothing progressive about arguing that we should spend more than £1 in every £10 of taxpayers’ money on debt interest —money that would be better spent on schools and hospitals—so Liz Truss and the leader of the Greens should stay exactly where they belong and where they both started out: in the youth wing of the Liberal Democrats, far away from Government.

We in the Labour party will cut borrowing in every single year—more than in any other G7 country—and more than double the headroom against our fiscal rules. We are cutting borrowing and giving businesses the confidence to invest, and cutting inflation too. We are taking £150 off energy bills, freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years—as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) set out—and extending the fuel duty freeze. All this knocks 0.4% off inflation next year, helping interest rates—which have already been cut five times since the election—to keep on falling, helping businesses to expand and getting mortgages down.

What will not be coming down is public investment, which the OBR says boosts our economy. The pro-growth choice is not to return to the austerity of the past, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) set out. Austerity saw Tory Chancellors slash public investment, and repeatedly scrap and delay projects—the worst kind of short-term political fixes, with the worst kind of long-term economic consequences. This Budget presses ahead with an extra £120 billion of capital investment.

It is exactly because this Government are confident about Britain’s future that we are going to invest in it. Sizewell C is going ahead, and we are building the UK’s first small modular reactor at Wylfa—the biggest industrial investment in north Wales for a generation. We are also building the lower Thames crossing. Infrastructure is being built in every corner of Britain. The blockers and the pessimists, and the gloomsters and the doomsters, are being taken on, confronted and defeated. The Opposition parties have never seen a housing development or energy project that they did not want to block, but those days are done. Britain is getting back in the building business.

The Budget also contains necessary and fair choices on tax, which hon. Members have raised repeatedly. We have not hidden from that fact, nor am I hiding from the fact that we are asking everybody to contribute by further freezing tax thresholds towards the end of this Parliament. I hear the chuntering and the howls from the Conservatives, but where did this year’s frozen thresholds come from? Them. Who put in place next year’s freeze? Them. They announced threshold freezes, they defended threshold freezes, they voted for threshold freezes, and they cannot howl with outrage about them now. In case all of that is not clear enough to them, let me spell it out: of the revenue raised from frozen thresholds, over three quarters comes from the choices made on their watch. The difference between us and them is that we are not ducking the long-needed reforms that our tax system needs—reforms that mean we can keep the contribution from workers as low as possible.

We have already abolished non-dom status, raised capital gains tax and ended tax breaks for private schools. The Budget brings an end to the disgrace of someone in a terraced house in Blackpool paying more in council tax than someone in a £10 million mansion in Westminster—or what the shadow Chancellor called an ordinary family home. If he had had more time, I am sure he would have gone on to worry about people with an ordinary family deer park, duck pond and stables.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will come to the hon. Lady in a second, because she and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) told us that the Liberal Democrats wanted wealth taxes, while continuing their record run of opposing every single wealth tax put in front of them, and conveniently forgetting that the Liberal Democrats tried and failed to introduce just such a wealth tax in government —a level of convenient amnesia matched only by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) when reminiscing about his school days.

[Sarah Olney]

Because the Minister was maintaining his own running commentary throughout my speech, he probably missed me making the point that, although he keeps saying that this is equalising council tax between poorer areas and richer areas, he must admit that it in fact does nothing of the sort. When people owning £2 million houses in Putney pay their £2,500 levy on top of their council tax, they will still only be paying the same amount of council tax as people living in the lowest band of properties in my constituency. There are arguments to be had about the mansion tax, but can he stop saying that it equalises council tax rates in different parts of the country, because it does nothing of the sort?

[Torsten Bell]

I did not say anything of the sort. I said that we are not going to have a £10 million mansion in Westminster paying less tax than a terraced house in Blackpool, and that has been brought to an end by this Budget.

I have heard the worries of some Opposition Members about the surcharge, and I want to assure the House that less than 1% of properties will be affected, and even for the £10 million mansion I have mentioned, it will not exceed £7,500 a year. To put that in perspective, it is not even enough to bribe a Russian-sympathising, Putin-praising Reform politician—or a traitor, as we should always call them.

Other reforms in the Budget will ensure that everyone who drives on our roads helps to maintain them. It will address the fact that tenants pay higher taxes than their landlords and tackle some of the tax breaks that have exploded in recent years, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. That is the fair thing to do, and it is the responsible thing to do.

I know that others want to take a different approach, and I heard representations from some to raise income tax. Who was particularly keen? The shadow Chancellor. He told eager listeners—[Interruption.] I think he should listen. He told eager listeners at the Conservative party conference that he would “go for income tax”. In fact, he was more enthusiastic than that, going on to label it the best “thing to do”. We have not taken his advice, and are instead delivering major reforms—reforms ducked by Tory Chancellor after Tory Chancellor.

We have heard a lot about welfare today, and I recognise why. It is because our welfare system is failing, and we are changing it. We are undoing the huge incentive to be labelled too sick to work that the Conservative party built into universal credit, and the OBR has confirmed that this will move tens of thousands more people into work. The shadow Chancellor claimed he had a plan to reform welfare, but he did not mention that it was quashed by the courts. What he actually did as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was to oversee the subsidised leasing of luxury cars, with the ordinary taxpayer bearing the cost of tax breaks for Mercedes and BMWs on the Motability scheme. Well, those days are done. The scheme has itself removed luxury cars, and it has committed to half of its cars being built in Britain. We are reforming its tax breaks to save over £1 billion in the coming year.