Budget Resolutions

Debate between Torsten Bell and Sarah Olney

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Pensions: Expatriates

Debate between Torsten Bell and Sarah Olney

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Torsten Bell]

Let me get through the discussion of the costs, and then I will take any interventions on that issue.

I recognise that many campaigners are asking for indexation in future, not for retrospective indexation, although there are obviously disagreements among campaigners about the exact ask to prioritise. However, arguing that we can simply put in place indexation going forward does not escape the need to recognise the real trade-offs involved. The long-term impact would be the same, as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) explained. In the end, moving to forward-looking indexation would take us to the same increase in spending levels as would immediately lifting people up to the current level of the basic and new state pension. It is the same effect in the long-run, and we owe it to everyone to make financial decisions based on the long-run effects of the policies that we call for.

There are wider considerations about the net financial effects of these decisions. The hon. Member for Strangford and others raised the issue of health expenditure. To get to a wider understanding of the net effects, we have also to take into account where income is taxed and where it is spent. That does not get us away from the underlying point, which is that, focusing narrowly on the question of uprating, the costs are as I have set out.

[Sarah Olney]

Does the Minister not agree that under a reciprocal arrangement, not only would we uprate the pensions of our citizens who are living in a partner country, but that partner country will then be required to uprate the pensions of their citizens living here, and that would obviously be a benefit to this country, because they will have a greater income that they can spend here? Can the Minister assure me that that particular effect is included in the estimates?

[Torsten Bell]

I recognise the point that the hon. Member is making. I offer a few reflections on that. Some countries already do provide uprating for their pensioners based in the UK, so some of that is already in place, although it does vary across countries. It is, obviously, always for countries to set in place their own social security system. That is why the Australian system, for example, provides means-testing of the state pension, or elements of means-testing of their state pension. I suspect most people—with the possible exception of the Leader of the Opposition on occasion—do not support means-testing of the state pension.

I come on to the other point made by the hon. Member in the debate, which was to call for new reciprocal arrangements to put in place more widespread uprating. As I have explained, that would require significant tax rises. There is no way around that. The issue she raised would not negate that effect.

It is worth putting ourselves in other’s shoes. Why did the Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister for five years not change the policy on this issue? It was because he recognised the costs involved, and that it would involve tax rises. It is worth us reflecting on why the situation is not as some people would like.