Finance (No. 2) Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is very charitable, because the Chancellor has said that she does not know. However, we also know that the documentation released in the Budget says that the Treasury did know. What has gone wrong?

As we have heard today in Committee, the rateable value of 5,100 pubs will double, but the Lib Dem spokesman missed the other point: one in eight pubs will see an increase of more than 100% in their rateable value. The Government have a question to answer. Did they wilfully ignore that and choose to impact hospitality, or were they mistaken and not competent in seeing that there was a problem?

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 would actually be helpful to Government Back Benchers? Given how frequently No. 10 is U-turning, including yet another U-turn on digital ID just today, having an assessment of the cumulative impacts will help them when they come to their next potential U-turn in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for this question and for all the campaigning work she has done on it. Removing the two-child limit, combined with the changes we are making around free school meals, the warm home discount, capping the cost of school uniform and rolling out more childcare to more families, will lift more families—more children—out of poverty. It is worth noting that around 70% of kids growing up in poverty are in a family where someone works.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility shows that welfare spending will be £32 billion a year more at the end of this Parliament, just as a result of decisions in the last Budget. Why was the Chancellor not more honest in the Labour party manifesto about the choices she wanted to make?

[Torsten Bell]

The welfare state that the Conservative party created is failing, and we are changing it. Welfare spending rose three times as fast under the Conservative Government than it has under this one, because they created a broken welfare system, and I repeat: we will change it.

Ely: Railway Upgrade

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree that Haughley junction is also very important to making the scheme deliver its full potential.

Fewer lorries will also help to protect the crumbling roads in my constituency, which struggle with the wear and tear placed by heavy goods vehicles travelling along them every day. That could save considerable expense in road maintenance and extend the life of those roads. The project is estimated to take 98,000 lorry journeys off the road every single year, and to cut car journeys by 376,000. When that is added to the capacity for more passenger rail services, it is estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over 60 years, and reduce congestion on our roads by 5.6 million hours every year. In the context of the urgent need to protect our environment and planet, that is a substantial impact.

England’s Economic Heartland and Transport East co-produced the “Keeping Trade on Track” document, estimating the upgrade would result in an extra six freight trains per day to and from the port of Felixstowe—the equivalent of over 450 lorries, stretching over six miles every single day. For people who know the area, that is the distance on the A14 from the Quy junction to the east of Cambridge to the M11 junction to the west of Cambridge. I have to say that some mornings it feels like all 450 of them are on that stretch of road in front of me.

On that basis alone, the scheme has strong grounds for approval, but the name of the scheme does not give the full context to show just how important it is not only to Ely, but to the whole UK. If approved, it allows for an additional 2,900 extra freight services operating to and from Felixstowe port every year. Those freight services do not stop in Cambridgeshire. Some 70% of containers go from Felixstowe to the midlands, the north of England and Scotland—and, of course, the other way, too. And that is not all. Expanding capacity through the Ely junction upgrade will free up much needed capacity elsewhere.

Currently, freight trains from Felixstowe use the great eastern main line and north London line to access routes to the north and midlands, using the growing Thames ports. If Ely junction is approved, the demand for Felixstowe freight trains to use the north London line would be reduced and those would then be available to the London ports. Ely is mentioned in the strategies of Transport for London, Transport for the North and Midlands Connect, showing the benefit the scheme can have for those areas. Transport for the North said that its region will benefit by having access to a rail freight terminal that could result in extra freight trains from the south-east to the north. Transport East has told me it is keen to see improvements, as the project would benefit Norfolk, Suffolk and Greater Essex. England’s Economic Heartland chairs the Ely taskforce, a group of local authorities, industry groups and rail operators, all of whom are desperate to have a clear pathway to the upgrade finally being progressed.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I very much support the case she is making. Given that the previous Government, in October 2023, did secure funding for this, it is deeply regrettable that the Labour Government have cut it. Does she agree that if we are to unlock the growth potential of Cambridgeshire as a whole and in particular Fenland, and to connect that to Cambridge’s growth potential, we need Manea, March and Whittlesea stations to be better able to connect to the economy in Cambridgeshire?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree. One of the big advantages of the scheme would be twice as many trains on that route. That would be a huge benefit to everyone along the route.

This is a truly national project, with national benefits. Since coming to office, the Government have been very keen to stress their growth credentials and they continue to search for a silver bullet to grow the economy quickly. Ely junction is not a magic bullet, but it can certainly help the Government on their quest. As I said, the scheme has a £4.89 cost to benefit ratio, returning £4.89 in benefits for every £1 invested. But that does not even reflect the full picture and the growth opportunities centred on Cambridge, Peterborough and, as we have heard, the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, so the real economic impact is likely to be significantly higher.

Let me give some examples. The Rail Freight Group says that the rail route through Ely is underperforming due to its capacity limitations, and that the upgrade would be an essential first step to achieving a positive outcome for the UK economy. Freightliner says that the junction is one of the principal bottlenecks restricting growth of rail freight volumes from Felixstowe, and that the wider economic benefits will be felt as far as Scotland, the midlands, Wales and the north of England. As I said, this is a truly national project, with national benefits.

England’s Economic Heartland has spoken to the freight industry, which has said that there is significant unmet demand for increased levels of rail freight. Maritime Transport said that it has identified a strong demand from both importers and exporters, which see the environmental benefits in their supply chains using rail over road. The Eastern Powerhouse, chambers of commerce and the east of England all-party parliamentary group have all backed the scheme too. The rail industry, rail operators, the maritime sector, the freight sector, local government and elected parliamentarians are all backing the scheme—a remarkably strong show of support. We also have hundreds of commuters waiting at stations for trains delayed by faults around Ely junction.

At a time when the Government need to do more to encourage people to use public transport, approving the Ely junction upgrade would stimulate an extra 277,000 rail passenger journeys per year. Network Rail estimates that the proposals would see the doubling of passenger services on the Ely-to-King’s Lynn and Ipswich-to-Peterborough routes. The logic is simple: if we deliver more rail services, passengers will have not only more choice, but more opportunities to travel by rail. A higher-quality, higher-frequency passenger rail service can only encourage more passengers to choose public transport over car journeys, which benefits commuters and the environment.

In previous written questions, I have asked the Department to name a specific sum that it would cost to provide Network Rail with the funding needed to undertake detailed planning for the Ely junction upgrade, but I have not yet received an answer. Can the Minister provide the sum today? Stakeholders are very frustrated that we have to wait until the next spending review in the eternal hope that the scheme will finally be progressed. My constituents have been waiting for 25 years for this project. They, and businesses, have gone through reviews, reports, summaries and investigations, and countless proposals have been produced.

The business case has been made. We know the arguments and the benefits. We also know the financial situation that the Government find themselves in. What my constituents, businesses, and the rail, freight and maritime sectors need is clarity and a clear route forward. Will the Minister commit to asking the Rail Minister for a meeting with Network Rail and me to agree how we can deliver the Ely junction upgrade? At least then we could all be on the same platform, going in the same direction.

I am sure that, deep down, the Government support the scheme; I am confident that they understand its merits. But the Minister needs to understand that the scheme has been in varying states of limbo for 25 years now. The Minister has heard in this debate the support for the scheme from across the House, which shows how important the scheme is to our region. It is time to set Ely junction on track to fulfil the potential we all know it has, and to deliver economic growth for Ely and East Cambridgeshire—and for all the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for growth in his constituency and his region. I can assure him that this scheme is in the pipeline of future rail enhancements and will be reconsidered as further funding becomes available.

[Steve Barclay]

The Minister seems to be citing a lack of funding as the reason for the scheme not being funded, but when I spoke to the Rail Minister in his previous role as chair of Network Rail, it was a priority for Network Rail. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that schemes with a worse benefit-cost ratio were funded in the spending review? In other words, did the Government choose to fund transport schemes with a lower BCR over funding the Ely junction?

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of considerations that go into making decisions about which schemes go forward.

[Steve Barclay]

What about the BCR?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The BCR is, of course, one of the things that is considered, but wider strategic issues are always brought to bear. It is just one of the tests that is considered. I would not for a moment suggest that this scheme does not have a good BCR.

Improvements to East Anglia’s rail network will benefit not only local passengers, but communities and businesses across the midlands and the north. I commend the collaboration shown by local partners, councils, industry and residents who have come together to present a united voice behind the scheme.

However, it is important that we address the funding position directly. On 8 July, the Secretary of State updated Parliament on which road and rail infrastructure schemes will progress following the spending review; as the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire is aware, the EACE programme has unfortunately not been allocated funding at this stage.

As the hon. Lady rightly noted, the previous Government committed to a range of major schemes in their October 2023 Network North announcement, knowing full well, with a general election on the horizon, that there was no funding to deliver them. That, unfortunately, included the Ely area capacity enhancement. I recognise and share the frustration that has caused locally, and this Government are determined to ensure transparency regarding the future of this programme. We are committed to delivering infrastructure with the greatest benefit to passengers, freight and the wider economy as quickly as possible and within a fully funded and deliverable programme.

I appreciate that it is disappointing for the hon. Lady and the many supporters of this scheme, but it is not the end of the story—I want to be absolutely clear on that point. We fully recognise the strategic importance of the Ely area capacity enhancement programme, which is why, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), we remain committed to supporting its place in the pipeline of future rail enhancements, and the programme will be kept under active review and considered carefully as further funding becomes available.

As the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire pointed out, the scheme has a strong business case. Indeed, EACE would increase freight capacity from 36 to 42 daily trains to and from the port of Felixstowe, which would deliver huge benefits including supporting the economy, cutting emissions, reducing HGV congestion on roads like the A14 and strengthening our supply chains; the passenger benefits would also be substantial, delivering more reliable journeys and supporting growth across the region from Norwich and Ipswich to Cambridge and beyond.

I want to recognise, as the hon. Lady set out, the powerful and united voice of local and regional stakeholders, including Transport East, England’s Economic Heartland, local authorities, ports and freight operators, and indeed MPs from across the political spectrum. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) brings great knowledge and experience to this debate. The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire herself has been vocal in championing this investment, and of course that local support strengthens the case for future funding.

The Rail Minister recently met the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to discuss how the Ely programme could support housing and economic development in the east of England, and the potential for raising third-party funding to support the scheme. Given the strong local support for the scheme, and the real development and growth opportunities it could unlock across the region, it is important that all sources of funding are fully explored. But I am sure the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire will recognise that any private finance or alternative funding proposals would need to demonstrate value for money to the public sector.

As the hon. Lady may know, 44 level crossings would need to be upgraded or closed to deliver the increased capacity envisioned by EACE. I note that it has been suggested in the media that the cost of upgrading Ely North junction has ballooned from £25 million in 2012 to almost £500 million, but let me be clear that that is not the case. As one of my officials put it, this is like comparing apples with deck chairs, as the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme comprises a much wider series of interventions, including upgrades to bridges, signalling and Ely station itself, as well as additional track and the upgrading and closure of level crossings, alongside the Ely North upgrades that were announced in 2012.

That is likely to be one of the most challenging and costly aspects of the scheme, particularly the planning consent, and securing local agreement to ease the delivery of these works on level crossings could radically reduce the cost of the scheme. The Rail Minister has asked the mayor to work with local highways authorities to explore how the required works around level crossings could be simplified or rationalised.

As we have observed, the investment case for EACE is strong. However, no development work has taken place on the scheme since it was closed by the previous Government in 2022. Upgrading the business case, including revised cost estimates, demand forecasts and benefits assessments, would be a positive first step in bringing the programme forward.

The Rail Minister has recently written to the mayor suggesting that he meets the chief executive of Network Rail to discuss how the EACE programme’s business case could be updated, and the mayor’s office would be well placed to co-ordinate other stakeholder engagement with Network Rail on that update. To that end, I encourage the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members to continue engaging with the mayor. It would also be important to time any business case updates to align with the potential release of funding at future spending reviews.

While we consider how best to progress EACE, I reassure the hon. Lady that Cambridgeshire is already benefiting from significant rail investment. The new Cambridge South station is forecast to open in June 2026, improving access to new housing and one of the most important life sciences campuses in the world. The Government have also reaffirmed their commitment to East West Rail serving Cambridge and allocated £2.5 billion of funding for the next stages of the project at the last spending review.

Investment in East West Rail demonstrates Government support for enhanced connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and that project can enable up to 100,000 new homes and is expected to boost the regional economy by £6.7 billion a year by 2050.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the Conservatives want to completely distance themselves from their record in government. We have seen their record in government laid bare in the OBR’s productivity downgrade. That investigation by the OBR resulted in a hit to the public finances to the tune of £16 billion. That was a real consequence for our economy, and we had to take real decisions to correct it.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, you described the chaos and leaks in the run-up to the Budget as a “hokey-cokey”. Just today, the House had to be suspended because the statement arrived so late, on a Budget that was delivered so early that the Chancellor had not actually given it. That was a few hours after the Prime Minister had had to do a second launch to try to explain the Budget, a day after the Chancellor had toured the studios trying to say that she did not mislead people over it. Would it not have been clearer for the Prime Minister just to say that he was hiking tax to put up welfare?

[James Murray]

What is clear is that we delivered a Budget to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

Budget: Press Briefings

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As the Minister will know, leaks of market sensitive data obviously carry a much higher premium than other leaks that may occur in Government. Again, could he address the shadow Chancellor’s question as to why the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary have not been asked to launch an inquiry into these leaks?

[James Murray]

As I said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, but what the markets know is that the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules is iron-clad. They have been met at every fiscal event since this Parliament began, and they will be met next Wednesday.

Defence Sector Financing

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charters]

Growth in the defence sector, and allied sectors such as space, will deliver prosperity across the UK. If we can get commercial lending working for defence, it will support growth in those allied sectors too.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is one of the most erudite Members, and understands the City of London better than anyone else, so I am sure she agrees with me that there is no better home for the bank than the Square Mile, not least because of our relationships across the Atlantic and our proximity to Europe. My simple ask today is that the Government invite officials from finance Departments around the world to meet in London to discuss and explore the concept of a multilateral defence bank.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I join colleagues in welcoming this debate. The hon. Member is making some constructive suggestions, but a simple thing that the Government could do, because they have sole control of it, is look at the British Business Bank, which is sector-agnostic. That would be persuasive to international partners and would fit with the arguments he makes. Why are Ministers not willing to give a steer to the British Business Bank?

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I will continue for a little while.

There is a deep uncertainty among farmers about what the changes will mean for them. Uncertainty is bad for business and it is bad for farmers’ mental health, so I encourage the Government to offer as much proactive engagement and clarity to farmers as possible, including in their response to this debate.

Another primary reason why farmers are so concerned is that they already face a challenge in keeping their businesses profitable. The CLA modelled a typical 350-acre arable farm. They told me that even if they spread the cost over 10 years, the farmer would be paying 100% of their annual profits for each of those 10 years to cover the proposed inheritance tax bill. That is a decade without profit. It should be acknowledged that all individuals across the UK are subject to rules that encourage gifting in advance of death. Farmers look likely to enter this world. It is true that farmers have held on to assets for longer than the average person because of APR, and the habit is unlikely to continue.

[Steve Barclay]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I am sorry but I have taken a lot of interventions and want to move on to the next part of my speech.

I will now touch on solutions. The petition is clear that it seeks the scrapping of the policy. I will leave it for the Minister to respond with the official position; suffice it to say that all Members in this debate can agree that land banking for inheritance tax purposes is wrong, and that land values are prohibitively expensive for many farms to be able to expand and, even more so, for new farmers looking to enter the industry. Many farmers would like to see those things change over the coming years.

Farmers have told me that if the policy is not scrapped altogether, alternatives could be considered to give the sector more stability at the same time as helping the Government to achieve their ambition of a thriving rural economy. One such alternative is a shortened taper rate for older farmers. Under that proposal, a farmer aged 70, for example, would be given two to three years to hand over their property with a 33% or 50% taper rate after one year. Farmers in my constituency would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that proposal, as it was raised with me at a recent meeting I had with the NFU eastern team. There are, of course, various ways of tweaking such approach by age or taper time but, according to farmers, movement on that front would give those who have worked the longest under the existing APR rules the ability to arrange their affairs more quickly.

[Steve Barclay]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am confused by his argument. He is talking about the crux of the issue: what is the scope of this tax? He voted in favour of it. He was quoted in the Eastern Daily Press as saying that it would not hit “proper farming families”. Is it his position that this tax does not hit proper farming families, or should the scope of the tax be changed? That is the crux of the issue, and with respect to the argument he has set out, I do not know what his position is, other than that he voted not to change the scope.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

Opposition Members have had a lot of time to make their points. I am going to make mine. Would Conservative Members have been so interested during the last Parliament? I remember sitting on those Opposition Benches hour after hour on the rare occasions when there were rural debates. They had no interest then; suddenly now.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

No. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman came in late, and if you turn up late, you do not get to speak. [Interruption.] I recognise the frustration and anxiety being felt by farmers around the country. [Interruption.]

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Last week the Prime Minister announced a plan to tackle the NHS backlog, put the adult social care system on a sustainable long-term footing, and end the situation in which those who need help in their old age risk losing everything to pay for it. The Government’s plan will make an extraordinary difference to the lives of millions of people across the country, and it will be funded with a record £36 billion investment in the NHS and social care. In order to pay for a significant increase in spending in a responsible and fair way, the Bill introduces a new 1.25% health and social care levy based on national insurance contributions.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

We need to give credit where it is due, and the Government are absolutely right to try to grasp this nettle, but many of us are concerned about the haste with which it is being done. Does my right hon. Friend think it is a good idea to raise taxes on jobs ineffectively, and risk choking off an economic recovery before we have even got to know the details of the social care reforms?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend, and good friend, has raised two connected points. The first was dealt with earlier in points of order: it is the will of the House that decides the timings of debates, and the Chair addressed that point. As for the second, we discussed it at length during last week’s ways and means debate. We discussed the wider purpose in dealing with the consequences of covid and the backlog in care that needs to be tackled, but we also discussed grasping the nettle in relation to the long-term challenges surrounding social care—challenges that the House has debated repeatedly over many years.

The levy will apply UK-wide to taxpayers liable for class 1 employee and employer, class 1A, class 1B and class 4 self-employed national insurance contributions. However, it will not apply where taxpayers pay class 2 or class 3 NICs. It will be introduced in April 2022, and from April 2023 it will also apply to those working over the state pension age. As my right hon. and hon. Friends will understand, it takes time for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to prepare its systems for such a major shift. That is why, as set out in clause 5, in 2022-23 the levy will be delivered through a temporary increase in NICs rates of 1.25% for one year only.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that in principle hypothecation is to be avoided, and that what we should be doing is defining what spending is financially desirable and economically effective, and then asking a separate question: what is a socially equitable and effective tax regime? Those are two different issues, but we are smashing them together, and we do not even know what we are spending the money on. This is farcical, and it is being done in a mad rush.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

There is a precedent in the form of what the hon. Gentleman’s party did in 2002-03. I do not think it is fair for him to say it is farcical to do something which was done by the Government whom he supported. He has opened up a much wider question about hypothecation, on which many a former Treasury official has commented, and I think that that is a separate debate; but there is a precedent for the use of national insurance in the way that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out.

Let me stress that all revenues generated by this increase will be ring-fenced and paid not just to the NHS in England, but to NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and the equivalent in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I have a great deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I think the Government deserve considerable credit for grasping this nettle at last, but may I ask for an assurance? When the charge has been introduced, will he ensure that every six months a Treasury Minister comes to the House and tells us what results are being achieved—what money has been raised through the levy and what results have been delivered; in other words, what additional treatment has been achieved—so that we can see and show our constituents why it was right to raise this levy and what they are getting for the money?

[Steve Barclay]

As a former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend knows better than most that it is for the House to decide which Ministers come to the House and provide updates. Obviously, in respect of regular fiscal events and others—[Interruption.] It is. The right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) chunters from a sedentary position, but through urgent questions and other such devices it is always for the House to decide which Ministers come here and, of course, there are regular events such as Treasury and other departmental questions. [Interruption.] He chunters but, as I have said, there are many procedures through which updates—[Interruption.] The procedures to which I referred.

Under clause 2, this revenue will be ring-fenced for health and for social care—

[Mr Mitchell]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I will make a little progress. I have taken a number of interventions, including one from my right hon. Friend.

Existing NICs reliefs and allowances will also apply to the levy. That will mean that 40% of all businesses will not be affected owing to the employment allowance. When it comes to individuals, those earning more will pay more. Indeed, the top 14 per cent. of taxpayers will pay about half the revenues. Conversely, at least 6.2 million people earning less than the NICs primary threshold will not pay the levy at all.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

rose—

[Steve Barclay]

I am sure that the hon. Lady rises to welcome the progressive nature of that measure.

[Catherine West]

Does the Secretary of State accept that, if 40% of businesses or employers are not affected, the other 60% therefore will be? What assessment has the Treasury made of the number of jobs that employers will not create because of, apart from anything else, the introduction of this measure at a time when the recovery from covid is fragile?

[Steve Barclay]

It is not just that the first 40% will not pay anything, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned. The next 40% will pay less than 1% of their wage bill, and indeed 70% of the employer contribution comes from just 1% of business. To some extent, the hon. Lady’s point was also picked up by the Monetary Policy Committee in its evidence to the Treasury Committee, when it said, “You should not ignore one half of the policy announcement.” Of course, one needs to look at the spending implications of the measures, not just—

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

In my experience of being a Minister at the Department of Health—with my right hon. Friend, indeed—Treasury Ministers do not like to spend billions of pounds without knowing exactly what they are getting for their money, and rightly so: it is our constituents’ money. We know that there is a very carefully worked out plan that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has agreed with the NHS for the catch-up programme. Will the Minister help us to see that published, so that we as representatives can hold the NHS to account for the money that this levy is raising and our constituents are therefore spending?

[Steve Barclay]

I could probably go slightly further—Chief Secretaries do not like to spend, not necessarily just on any particular area of Government policy—but my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of delivery and how the money is spent, particularly the £8 billion allocated to electives catch-up. Just yesterday I was at a meeting in No. 10 with the leadership of the NHS, discussing that issue with the chief executive of NHS England and other senior health leaders. I know that it is an issue of concern to a number of Members, but ultimately it is an issue of concern throughout the House, because through our constituency surgeries we see the consequence of the backlog in terms of electives. That is, I think, an area of common ground.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I will give way once more.

[Christine Jardine]

The Minister has made the point that we see the impact in our constituencies. Yes, we do, but we are also seeing the impact in our constituencies of the pandemic on business. What would the Minister say to the Federation of Small Businesses, which, notwithstanding what he has just said, believes that

“Business owners who have done all they can to retain and support their staff during the pandemic are now being punished”?

The FSB sees this as a jobs tax, and we will see that impact in our constituencies as well.

[Steve Barclay]

First, in order to meet the quantum of spend, one needs a broad-based tax. That is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who is not in his place, raised in the debate last week. Secondly, I would point to the more than £400 billion—[Interruption.] I do not know why SNP Members are laughing at £400 billion of support. I do not think that this is a point of difference. I think we can all agree across the House that there has been huge fiscal support across the UK through the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom to support business, at a cost of £400 billion to businesses, public services and individuals, and that has a consequence. Most of the business leaders I speak to recognise that, and recognise that the backlog in the NHS needs to be dealt with. I would add the further point that those businesses benefit from the NHS clearing its backlog because it is members of staff in those businesses that are affected.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

What analysis has been undertaken of the long-term sustainability of this policy, which targets working-age people at a time of an ageing population? There will be 10 million extra pensioners within 20 years, which means that the pool of people who are paying in is shrinking in relative terms while demand is increasing.

[Steve Barclay]

Again, this is why, as is standard practice, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has published the tax information and impact note on the tax change. Of course, that will be dynamic because it will interact with the fiscal forecast that the Office for Budget Responsibility will set out alongside the Budget on 27 October. So that is dealt with in the normal way for measures such as this—

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Steve Barclay]

I want to make some progress, and I have already given way once to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

Let me remind the House why this levy is necessary. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said, the levy will enable the Government to provide additional funding to the NHS so that it can recover from the pandemic. Senior NHS leaders have made it clear that, without additional financial support, we will not properly be able to address the significant backlog in the national health service. However, it is going to take time to get everyone the care they need. In addition, our social care plan will create a dramatically expanded safety net for people in their later life. This means that, instead of individuals having to bear the financial risk of catastrophic care costs themselves, we as a country are deciding to share more of that risk collectively.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain to people up and down the country who are either in receipt of care now or will need to start care between now and October 2023 and are facing catastrophic care costs what they are meant to do? Does he accept that there will be a massive cliff edge? Lots of people will try to avoid coming forward for care in the months before October 2023, and there will then be a massive surge. How do the Government plan to deal with that?

[Steve Barclay]

In a number of ways. First, this fiscal support is not in isolation. There is £33.9 billion of additional support going into the core NHS budget over the five years of the long-term plan. That has had a significant impact. On top of that, significant covid support has gone into the NHS. One of the points that came out of the debate on the ways and means last Wednesday was the interrelated nature of the impact on the NHS and on social care. That is why it is right that we are gripping this issue, but it is alongside the wider financial support that the Treasury has offered.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Steve Barclay]

Given that we need to progress on to Committee, I shall just point out that this is a permanent new role for the Government and a structural increase in the size of the British state. We therefore need a permanent new way to pay for it. The only alternative would be to borrow indefinitely, but that would clearly be the wrong course of action when our national debt is already at the highest it has been in peacetime. Borrowing even more today would just mean higher taxes in the future.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

With money tight, did the Treasury support the appointment of, I think, 43 new executives on £270,000 a year to check where all this money is going?

[Steve Barclay]

I think one needs to see whether these are roles that are driving efficiency and creating savings elsewhere, or whether they are viewed in isolation. That is why one needs to understand the workforce as a whole, where there are overlaps within the NHS but, above all, how we deliver reform, which is something I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is passionately committed to doing. That relates to the point that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on the delivery of reform in order to maximise the value for money of the spend that the levy will unlock.

Finally, we need to fund our vision for the future of health and social care in this country over the longer term. As the Prime Minister said, with proper funding, we can not only tackle the NHS backlog and expand the social care safety net but afford the nurses’ pay rise, invest in the best equipment and prepare for the next pandemic. We can provide the largest investment ever to upskill social care workers and build the modern, more efficient health service the British public deserve.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It seems to me that we are spending this money twice, so can the Minister tell the House specifically how much will go into the NHS from this increase and how much will go into social care? What I am hearing from him is that we are going to deal with the backlog, which will take us back to pre-pandemic levels. That will leave us with a 2 million waiting list, so can he tell us specifically how much is going into the NHS and how much is going into social care?

[Steve Barclay]

Of the £36 billion, £5.4 billion is going to adult social care, with the rest going into the NHS or through Barnett. That is over three years.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government could consider different bands for frontline staff in the NHS and management staff in the NHS, to get away from the concern that so many of my constituents have that any pay rises in the NHS will be taken up by managers over frontline operators?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

In the public sector pay agreement that we reached, we accepted the recommendations of the independent pay review body. That is why we decided on 3% and why the NHS was treated differently from other areas of the public sector such as the police and teachers. This recognised the importance of those frontline workers and it was why those under the threshold of £24,000 were carved out. This recognises the point that my right hon. Friend has raised.

In conclusion, this levy will enable the Government to tackle the backlog in the NHS. It will provide a new permanent way to pay for the Government’s reforms to social care and it will allow the Government to fund our vision for the future of health and social care in this country over the long term. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that there will be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches to start with. If anybody wishes to speak, they should catch my eye, and to do that it is important to keep standing. If colleagues have not put in to speak but wish to do so, it would be helpful to let me know. They will have to have been here from the beginning of the debate, and they will be expected to be here for the wind-ups, which will start at approximately 4.45. Bearing all that in mind, I now call the shadow Minister, James Murray.

Health and Social Care Levy

Steve Barclay Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

Let me first thank hon. and right hon. Members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to today’s debate.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out a series of necessary steps to tackle the covid backlogs, reform adult social care and bring the health and social care system closer together on a long-term, sustainable footing. As the House well knows, the pandemic has put unprecedented pressure on the NHS. The number of patients waiting for elective surgery and routine treatment in England is now at a record high of 5.5 million. If left unchecked, that could reach 13 million, an issue of concern across the House. At the same time, this country is facing a long-standing challenge to the social care system. Typically, around one in seven must pay over £100,000 for care, with bills falling indiscriminately on some of the sickest and most vulnerable in society.

The Government’s response, the plan we have debated today, means an investment of £36 billion in the health and social care system over the next three years. Patients across the country will benefit from the biggest catch-up programme in the history of the NHS. The social care system will finally be reformed, ending unpredictable and catastrophic care costs faced by thousands and making the system fairer for all. I gently say to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who said a moment ago that this is not the right time, that many times in this House people have highlighted the urgency of acting both on the covid backlog and on social care.

[Jake Berry]

My right hon. Friend has helpfully said that one in seven—I believe that is what he said—people currently in the care system pay over £100,000. Could he just say in absolute numbers how many that is, in any given year or period he chooses? If he does not have the information with him tonight or cannot get it from the Box, can he write to me with that information and put a copy in the House of Commons Library before we have our next debate?

[Steve Barclay]

I am glad my right hon. Friend highlights that point. Let me address it in two ways, because it goes to the crux of his remarks in the debate. We have set out, as was referred to even by critics of the Government, the illustrative analysis of the impact of this from a distributional point of view, with lower-income households being the largest net beneficiaries. We have also said that we will say more on that, because it will evolve by 2023, when those of state age who are working come within scope. Obviously, the distributional analysis will change.

Let me take head on my right hon. Friend’s central concern, which was that his constituents in Rossendale and Darwen, because of lower housing costs, will be disproportionately impacted. First, if one looks at London, the Evening Standard, for example, is concerned that 14% will pay the lion’s share of the cost because that is where the highest concentration of higher tax payers are. For his constituents, one key aspect of the reform is that, through the cap, it ends the unpredictability of costs. If I look at the north-east of England, the Resolution Foundation found that only 29% of individuals aged over 70 have sufficient eligible assets that they will not receive any state support. The point is that the uplifting in the means test, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out, again benefits those parts of the country he was championing.

[Jake Berry]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I have just given way and addressed my right hon. Friend’s points head on. Let me, in turn, address head on the points raised by the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves).

In the shadow Chancellor’s speech, she said that she opposed the levy despite, as a number of Members pointed out, the previous Labour Government taking a similar approach in 2002-03, because she supports taxing wealth. The problem with that is that only a broad-based tax base, such as income tax, VAT or national insurance contributions, can raise the sums needed for such a significant investment. Again, that was a point made by critics of the Government, including my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). It could not be raised by taxes on wealth. Currently £6 billion is raised from inheritance tax, £8.7 billion from capital gains tax and £12.3 billion from property transaction tax. Indeed, that case was demolished by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), as well as by my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who highlighted that to raise the revenue required requires a broad-based approach.

[Peter Grant]

On the subject of cases being demolished, one of the cases that the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have made great deal of play of today is that of the fictional Yusuf in the Government’s own document. According to the Government, Yusuf’s care home costs are £700 a week. They claim that under the current system they would have had to spend £293,000 before they reached the current cap. The Minister will be aware—I hope he can count—that in order to spend £293,000 at £700 a week—

[Peter Grant]

What percentage of people going into a care home have any chance of still being alive in nine years’ time?

[Steve Barclay]

One of the features of the Dilnot proposals—Dilnot has been very frank about this—is that his costs ramp up over time. That is why the initial funding is £5.4 billion, but obviously, the social care element will increase. I will come to the case put forward by SNP Members, who seem bizarrely not to want the Union dividend that is offered and to not be seeking that additional funding. Let me finish on the Opposition amendment—

[Richard Thomson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I will come to the points on devolution and happily give way at that stage, but let me just deal with the Opposition amendment, which requests a distributional impact assessment. As we have covered, that has been set out today. The Government have already published a document on the impact of our health and social care plan on households, looking at the impact of the new spending and the levy, with a full distributional analysis being published at the Budget and spending review.

As for the impact on businesses, businesses will play their part in funding this plan. However, existing national insurance contribution reliefs and allowances will also apply to the levy. This means that 40% of all businesses will not be affected due to the employment allowance, and it allows eligible employees to reduce their national insurance liability by up to £4,000. Again, that point was brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who highlighted the impact on business and the fact that businesses, with 1% of the highest turnover, will cover 70% of the cost.

[Mr Betts]

I think the right hon. Gentleman probably knows which point I am going to raise. I am very interested in the impact on local authorities. Out of the £36 billion that will be raised over three years, how much extra money will go to local authorities after the costs of the “cap and floor” system have been taken into account? How much extra money over three years will go to local authorities out of the £36 billion?

[Steve Barclay]

I listened very closely to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, because he is a very informed and knowledgeable commentator on these issues. He rightly pointed to paragraph 36, where we are being very clear about the role in terms of demographic and unit pressure. As he well knows, part of the discussion at a spending review is to look at local government pressures in the round. That is in the context that local authorities are getting an additional £2.2 billion of funding. I remind the House, in terms of the adult social care flexibility that was allowed for councils this year, that out of the 152 local authorities, less than two thirds actually used that flexibility. That is part of looking at these issues in context.

Let me come to the central point put forward by the Scottish National party, which was very well demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). All parts of the United Kingdom need a long-term solution to fund health and social care. The Scottish Government’s independent review of adult social care recently noted—[Interruption.] I am quoting from their own review. I thought they would want to hear that. It stated that

“Scotland’s ageing demography means that more money will need to be spent on adult social care over the long term”—

and its recommendations to the Scottish Government are that this would

“require a long-term and substantial uplift in adult social care funding.”

In fact, in 2002, John Swinney said that a 1% increase was

“progressive taxation…required to invest in the health service in Scotland”.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 18 April 2002; c. 8005.]

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that was 18 years ago and that things have changed? Since that time, national insurance has not been reformed in any way to protect the poorest, as income tax has been.

[Steve Barclay]

Obviously, what SNP Members regard as progressive has changed. The point is that if they disagree with this, they can adjust their Barnett consequentials, spend that and reprioritise their spending accordingly. Indeed, likewise, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—I hold him in great affection and he speaks very powerfully in the Chamber—said that these are “English priorities”. Clearing the covid backlog and addressing the challenges of social care are not English priorities. They are United Kingdom priorities, they are this Government’s priorities, and they are the people’s priorities.

This levy will enable the biggest catch-up initiative in the history of the NHS, a comprehensive long-term solution to the social care challenge and a significant long-term investment that will directly improve people’s lives.

Those are things that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) values, and I hope he will support them.

The Prime Minister said yesterday:

“You can’t fix the covid backlogs without giving the NHS the money it needs; you can’t fix the NHS without fixing social care; you can’t fix social care without removing the fear of losing everything to pay for social care”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 155.]

This plan addresses those problems. I commend it to the House.