Gareth Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend—a Lincolnshire colleague and Father of the House—puts it perfectly. Labour says that it supports public services and that those services are apparently being trashed, so why on earth would the Government then go and tax them? Why add to their cost base, which they have very clearly said will reduce services across every constituency? Labour Members will all walk through the Lobby tonight and add to the cost burden of those services. It does not make sense. Charities have also signalled the alarm, with more than 7,000 writing to the Chancellor to warn of the £1.4 billion hit that they will face next year.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak, on behalf of the official Opposition, to amendments 13 to 18 and new clause 1, which stand in my name. First, it is important to remember the context of the situation we find ourselves in today. Throughout the election, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister promised the British people that they would not raise taxes on working people. They committed specifically to not raising national insurance, but here we are in Committee debating a national insurance tax on working people worth some £25 billion. Each and every Government Member made specific promises to their constituents on national insurance, which they have now broken. We have it here in black and white. Clause 1 raises the rate of secondary class national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. To compound the impact, clause 2 drastically cuts the secondary threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. This two-pronged attack on business means that while clause 1 squeezes more from businesses, clause 2 simultaneously pushes more businesses into the taxman’s grasp. Taken together, based on data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a staggering 940,000 employers are set to lose out in net terms from the Bill. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that each one will be hit by an average of £26,000 in additional tax. On Second Reading we heard the same old script from the Government and their Back Benchers. Time and again we hear that the Bill will hurt only the largest businesses, but that is not correct. Most high street hair salons would not say that they are a big business with mounds of profit to give away to the Exchequer, no matter how much hair mousse this Prime Minister buys from them. A village family butcher surely would not regard themselves as profiteering fat cats. Community pharmacies providing vital services to residents young and old surely cannot be put in the same category as a large multinational pharmaceuticals company. Yet they are.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not have put it better myself. These amendments highlight the fact that Labour’s attempt to paint this tax rise as a necessity for public services is nothing but plain politics; Labour has always intended to do this, and now it is hiding behind public services to justify it. Those working on the frontline of healthcare in and alongside the NHS will be deeply impacted. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the tax bill of each GP surgery will increase by £20,000 a year, likely resulting in a reduced number of appointments. The Nuffield Trust has said that providers in the adult social care sector will face a £940 million increase, dwarfing the social care support announced in the Budget. Community Pharmacy England says that community pharmacists will be hit by an additional £50 million each year, inevitably causing pharmacies to close and services to deteriorate. Hospice UK warns that £30 million will be added to the bill for 200 hospices across the country, which will lead to greater pressure on NHS palliative services.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I have said already, I am not sure that this was intended. I do not think the Government understand what these measures will do to our communities, to the sectors I have outlined and to the businesses that I will speak about in a minute. The Minister will have to address my right hon. Friend’s point. What will the Government do to mitigate the damage of the Bill on the communities and organisations that I have highlighted? A sector I have not yet highlighted is childcare, without which millions of parents across the country could not go to work—including, by the way, many in this House. The Bill will contribute an average of £47,000 in additional costs per nursery next year, according to the National Day Nurseries Association. The previous Government did so much to extend childcare to more families, boosting workforce participation and economic growth, but this tax hike will pull us back from that progress. That is not what people voted for. There is no mandate for this harm. I urge the Government to think again. Ideally, all employers would be made exempt, which is why the Conservatives voted against the Bill. At this time of year, people should be reflecting on another year gone by all too soon and looking to the new year with hope, ambition and optimism, but so many employers will now enter 2025 with fear. Many will be thinking again about that planned expansion or the investment in new equipment or premises. Worse, some will be thinking about who they need to let go—never mind awarding the pay rises in the spring they once hoped to give.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That was a classic case of how to make an intervention, because it added to the debate. I had not mentioned that point, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on employers, who will pay the tax whether they are profitable or not, is absolutely right. That is, again, not something I think the Government have fully appreciated.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on behalf of the official Opposition on new clause 3, which stands in the name of the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). Clauses 15 to 18 concern the taxation of the oil and gas industry, which meets 75% of the UK’s household and industrial energy needs, with 50% of that need being met by the North sea. The sector supports more than 200,000 high-skilled jobs in this country, and that talent, along with the rest of the supply chain, will be crucial to our domestic energy transition. These realities underscore the imperative of a smooth and efficient transition and a fiscal regime that facilitates that, not least because the timeline for investment in the oil and gas industry is so long. If the fiscal regime is not calibrated correctly, the damage may be irreversible and the costs will be significant. To recap the measures in the Bill, clause 15 increases the rate of the energy profits levy from 35% to 38%, bringing the headline tax rate on the sector up to 78%. Clause 16 removes the 29% investment allowance and reduces the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66%, so that the cash value of that allowance remains the same. Clause 17 extends the energy profits levy to 2030, at which point the Government are committing to implementing a successor regime to respond to price shocks once the levy expires. Clause 18 and schedule 3 legislate for certain payments into decommissioning funds to be treated as decommissioning expenditure so that they can attract tax relief. The question that many are asking is this: do these measures add up to a fiscal regime that facilitates a smooth and efficient energy transition? Not according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which concludes that on average over the forecast period, capital expenditure will be 26% lower, oil production 6.3% lower and gas production 9.2% lower compared with our March forecasts. Those are dramatic movements. The University of Aberdeen has warned: “A rise in the EPL and loss of investment and capital allowances may have the unintended effect of accelerating decommissioning and decelerating the energy transition as companies face an additional cost burden.” The Government have thankfully carried out a partial U-turn, retaining the decarbonisation allowance and the 100% first-year allowance introduced by the Conservative party, but if they were persuaded of the importance of those investment allowances and that removing them would do more harm than good, why persist with removing the main 29% investment allowance? What was it about that relief compared with the others that made them want to scrap it? The Government talk about closing loopholes—we saw how well that went with carried interest—but these measures will contribute just 1% of the new revenue raised by the Budget across this Parliament. Does the Minister really think it is worth jeopardising some 50% of our domestic gas supply for that? The measures in the Budget essentially throw a massive spanner in the works for oil and gas, and it is unclear exactly what the Government’s rationale is for doing that. When we brought in the levy, it was to tax extraordinary profits in extraordinary times. The revenue that we raised contributed to our efforts through policies such as the energy price guarantee and the energy bills support scheme to reduce energy bills for the British people. Today, as those extraordinary circumstances subside, Labour is ratcheting up the levy. That sends a mixed message to the industry ahead of the consultation on a successor regime. The terms of that regime will supposedly be set by the need to respond to price shocks, yet the Government’s justification for these measures has nothing to do with price shocks. Instead, they are all dressed up in language about the sector making a “fair contribution”, as the Minister said, to the Energy Secretary’s environmental ideological ambitions. What is the Government’s vision for the taxation of oil and gas in this United Kingdom—temporary windfall taxes or permanent climate levies? The Bill suggests the latter. I would be grateful for the Minister specifically commenting on that when he responds. One way in which the Minister could give an indication and provide some long-term certainty would be to confirm further the future of the energy security investment mechanism, which he mentioned. As he kindly said, we introduced the ESIM so that when prices returned to normal levels, the energy profits levy would end; no more windfall profits would mean no more windfall tax. Will he confirm that the ESIM will remain in place up to 2030? I think he said so at the Dispatch Box, but I would be grateful for his reconfirming its end date. Will he go further and confirm that it will remain in the same condition as today? Will the price floor continue to be consumer prices index-adjusted? The Treasury and the Minister have said that the ESIM will be retained, but the industry would like further confirmation, as I have set out. Will he also write to me with the Treasury’s latest modelling of future oil and gas prices to prove that the expected revenues are not at the expense of the ESIM? That modelling will be important for us to understand and get that reassurance and certainty on the ESIM. Having been in the Treasury, I know that that modelling is continually reviewed and produced; I would be grateful if he would write to me with that. These are not purely academic questions. Our concern is for the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the UK oil and gas industry, for the UK’s energy security and for the efficient and smooth energy transition that we all care about. The Government should be not ideological but empirical in their approach, which is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require a review of the impact of these measures on employment, investment, production, demand and the whole Scottish economy. If the Government have already made detailed assessments on those specific areas, we would be grateful for the Minister publishing them. On every measure, the Budget has not survived contact with reality. Growth has been downgraded, real incomes depressed and business investment reduced, with broken promises and credibility completely shattered. It is not so much that the Labour Government take a different view on economic matters; it is that they take the wrong view. Labour is the party of the tax rise that loses money. We are the party of the tax cut that raises revenue. That is why Labour Governments always leave office with more unemployment, larger debt and higher taxes. They always run out of other people’s money, and this Government are set to do so in record time.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is always a pleasure to see you in Committee and to serve under your chairmanship. On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor. Before I do so, let me set the scene for clauses 7 to 12. When announcing these changes in her Budget, the Chancellor said: “We need to drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation”. —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 818.] She said something similar to the BBC in 2023: “We want Britain to be the best place to start and grow a business” and that was why, she said “I don’t have any plans to increase capital gains tax.” This Bill corrects the record. Labour wants to increase capital gains tax, so clearly it does not have any plans for Britain to be the best place in which to start and grow a business. Is it any wonder that business confidence is now at the lowest level we have seen since the pandemic? Clause 7 increases the main rates of capital gains tax from 10% and 20% to 18% and 24% respectively, with schedule 1 making consequential changes to reflect that these rates are now equal to those on residential property. The Office for Budget Responsibility rates the costings on this policy as “highly uncertain”. It says that “these costings are among the most uncertain in the policy package, reflecting the range of potential behavioural responses.” This Government are far too quick to ask others to explain how they would pay for Labour’s policies, when they are clearly failing to explain convincingly how their own policies would pay for themselves. I wish to take this opportunity to highlight an issue raised with me by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. First, let me place on record my thanks to the organisation for its invaluable support. It has been informed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that it is too late to change the format of the relevant 2024-25 tax return pages to accommodate this in-year change. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister could provide the following assurances to HMRC: first, that it will be properly equipped to implement this measure; secondly, that the changes will be published as widely as possible; and, thirdly, that an appropriate level of understanding will be shown to taxpayers contending with these complications. Clauses 8 and 9 increase the rates for gains that qualify for business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. From 6 April 2025, the 10% rate will increase to 14%. From 6 April 2026, it will rise again to 18%. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted, because the increase to the main rates of capital gains tax is effective immediately, this leaves a window where people selling their business can save up to 14% in capital gains tax until April 2025. In other words, the tax changes in this Bill do not cultivate a start-up Britain; they incentivise British business owners to sell up and sell up soon. This could have been avoided—along with the administrative complications that I have already outlined—had measures in clause 7 been implemented from the start of the new financial year. Will the Minister explain why the timings of these provisions appear to be so untidy, and, for that matter, how exactly they drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation? I simply say that if hon. Members are not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, I encourage them to vote for new clause 5, which would require a proper assessment of the impact of this perverse incentive. Clause 10 reduces the lifetime limit for investors’ relief from £10 million to £1 million, while clause 11 and schedule 2 bring in transitional rules and anti-forestalling provisions. On those anti-forestalling provisions, the Chartered Institute of Taxation notes that the anti-avoidance measures risk being “unfairly retrospective”, capturing those who entered into commercial contracts in good faith before the Budget, on the grounds that they do not satisfy the stringent requirement put down by the Treasury to be “wholly commercial”. Will the Minister tell the House why the wording is so tight? Widespread concern over being hit with “unfairly retrospective” taxation would have a chilling effect on parts of the economy. It would exacerbate uncertainty among those who already feel that they have been blindsided by this Government.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining all the things she has just set out, but I did not quite get an answer to the specific question of why it costs HMRC £4.5 million to execute this tax rise, which will not raise any money in the next year or the year after. Could she explain why this specific measure that only affects 3,100 people costs HMRC £4.5 million, but other tax increases cost hundreds of thousands of pounds?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  There was so little information in that response—the civil service will be very proud of the Minister. He will not say who will be spared by the Chancellor’s tax raid, but we know that working people will be made to pay—the Office for Budget Responsibility has said so; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said so; even the Resolution Foundation has said so; and working people know so. Why is it that Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it entered office?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Later today, the House will vote on the Government’s £25 billion national insurance tax hike. To avoid any uncertainty when we vote, will the Minister confirm exactly which public sector organisations will be compensated?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. We all heard what the Chancellor said at the Confederation of British Industry conference. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister will not back up her words, and even more remarkable that the Chancellor herself would not back up her words today at Treasury questions. The British people see the Bill for what it is: the biggest broken promise of them all, and there are plenty to choose from. It is a good job the Chancellor has experience on a complaints desk, because, quite frankly, there are quite a lot coming in at the moment—not least from the business community, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) highlighted so well in his speech. Before the election, the Chancellor embarked on what she referred to as the “smoked salmon offensive” with British business; now the election is over, she has dropped the smoked salmon and is focusing on just being offensive. Today’s Bill will introduce tax rises on working people in business that were never declared before the election. It is a double whammy, as the Federation of Small Businesses has said in Lincolnshire: it introduces not just the rate rise, but a reduction in the threshold. This tax is the only major tax that is paid exclusively by working people. It is a £25 billion tax rise on jobs. The OBR makes it clear that by 2027, 76% of the total cost of this tax increase will be passed on to working people through lower wages and higher prices, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) said in what I thought was a very thoughtful speech for the SNP. As I said at Treasury questions this morning, the OBR says this is a tax on working people; the IFS says this is a tax on working people; even the Resolution Foundation says this is a tax on working people. By anyone’s measure—be in no doubt—this is a manifesto breach the public will not forget. That is clear. What is not so clear any more is what this Labour party stands for. The Budget was an attack not just on working people, but on the very lowest paid working people, according to the IFS. This is a fundamentally regressive policy, leaving many out in the cold and giving businesses no choice but to freeze hiring and freeze wages. It will hit others, too. It will hit the doctors and the nurses working in general practice and social care, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set out in his speech. It will hit charities and voluntary organisations, with Marie Curie expecting that it will cost the charity £3 million next year alone—all part of a £1.4 billion bombshell to hit all charities next year. It will hit hospices, homeless support groups and disability charities, which are all warning they face reducing headcount and limiting services. This is not what the British people voted for.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I pay tribute to and thank all colleagues from both sides of the House for their contributions. I will try to touch on some of their points as I go through. Just nine months ago, I opened the Second Reading of a Conservative national insurance Bill that cut taxes for millions of working people across the country. Today, we have before us a Labour national insurance Bill that will take the tax burden to the highest levels in history on the backs of working people. That is the stark difference that a Labour Government make, but it is not the change that people voted for. Nine months ago, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the House that the then Opposition supported our tax cut, but barely three hours later, she and her Labour colleagues remarkably failed to vote for it and back up their words with actions. Now we know why: it is Labour’s playbook to say one thing as loudly as possible and then do the exact opposite as quietly as it can.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is really nothing to add to that. The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech and at Treasury questions—it is a very important point. In just six months, we have hit the highest tax burden in history. Debt is up, with debt interest payments above £100 billion—for the first time ever—in every year of the forecast. Today’s Bill will result in lower wages, higher prices and a tougher employment market. I urge this Government to reverse course, but I will not hold my breath. Instead, I think I can predict what the Minister is going to say. She is going to say three things when she stands up to speak. First, she is going to try to blame the Conservative party—blaming everybody else for this clear political choice. She will not explain the £8 billion on GB Energy—an energy company that will not actually reduce bills or produce any energy—or the £10 billion on public pay splurges that come with no reform on productivity, or £7 billion on rebranding the national infrastructure bank. Perhaps if the Government dropped those pet projects—which will not actually grow the economy—they would have a little more money and would not have to screw with small businesses and make people unemployed. Secondly, the Minister will forget that she is in government and that I am in opposition. She will ask me what my party would do instead. To that, I simply say that we would fund the NHS well, but we would also reform it.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the British people are listening to this: none of those things. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although he was not here, that NHS spending increased by 45% in cash terms in the last Parliament under a Conservative Government. The issue is not spending—the Labour party will never get this—but reforming the NHS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said. It is about growing our economy faster than the Labour party would grow it, according to the OBR, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said. We would tackle the welfare bill—£12 billion of savings that we set out in government—and we would boost productivity, because if public sector productivity returned to pre-pandemic levels, £20 billion would be saved. Finally, the Minister will try to suggest that she is bringing stability, even though businesses and consumer confidence have plummeted ever since she and her colleagues took office. Let us remind ourselves of what she means by stability. In just a few months, we have seen a Downing Street chief of staff sacked, a Cabinet Minister resign, a Back-Bench MP quit the party, key manifesto promises like cutting energy bills by £300 completely dropped, a delayed spending review, fiddled fiscal rules and, just this week, complete confusion about whether the Prime Minister will drop his economic growth pledge. It is all so predictable, yet so damaging to our economy. The Bill breaks Labour’s manifesto. We cannot back it. We will not vote for it. We urge the Government to think again

• 12 Nov 2024 · Draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Sir Roger. It is worth remembering that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was founded in 1991 to support the transition to market-oriented economies in central and eastern Europe following the collapse of socialist and communist regimes. Since then, the bank has invested more than €200 billion in more than 7,000 projects across three continents. As a founding member of the EBRD, the UK is a generous contributor to the bank’s work. It was one of the first donors to contribute to the bank’s Ukraine stabilisation and sustainable growth multi-donor account and, in October 2023, it signed a statement of intent with the bank to help UK companies do business in Ukraine. The draft order enables the Government to make a payment of €343.6 million to the EBRD for the purchase of additional capital stock. As the Minister rightly said, this follows a decision by the EBRD’s board of governors in December 2023 to increase the bank’s capital by €4 billion. The Opposition fully support the Government’s decision to purchase additional stock in the EBRD. Alongside ensuring that the UK maintains its stake and voting power in the EBRD, the capital increase is vital to sustaining the ongoing work in Ukraine and ensuring the bank’s ability to meet the needs of other countries in its portfolio. However, given the size of the UK’s investment, it is right that the Opposition should seek clarity on three specific, simple points, which I hope will be straightforward for the Government. First, can the Minister tell us whether other member countries of the EBRD are increasing, decreasing or maintaining their stock shares in the bank? Secondly, as she mentioned, the EBRD has green objectives, so is support for Ukraine subject to the EBRD’s target for at least half of its business volume to be green and does that allow for Ukraine’s most urgent funding needs to be prioritised? Finally, does she believe that this capital increase will be sufficient for the EBRD to fulfil its overall mandate, or should we expect further capital requests in the future? We support the draft order, but we would be grateful for clarification of those points.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Conservative Members will never stop holding the Government to account for their pre-election promise to cut energy bills by £300. Have civil service officials conducted any modelling whatsoever that can legitimise that figure?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Draft Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024 Draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 Draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to see you in your place and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I also welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her place. I have spent many hours with her in these rooms, and that may or may not continue—we will find out soon. The UK is one of the world’s leading financial centres and our financial services sector is one of the great engines of our economy. We should never forget that the sector employs some 2.3 million people, two thirds of whom are based outside of London—a slightly underappreciated fact about the sector. Investment trusts are currently subject to disclosure requirements under the EU-inherited packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regulation—or PRIIPs, which is much easier to say—regulation, alongside other assimilated EU legislation. Ensuring that retail investors can make informed investment decisions is crucial for maintaining healthy capital markets. Industry leaders widely agree that the single aggregated figure currently produced under these EU-inherited rules fails to accurately reflect the true cost of investing in shares of an investment trust. The previous Government recognised those concerns completely and launched a consultation on a proposed alternative framework for retail disclosure in the UK. This consultation was designed to ensure that, following the repeal of the PRIIPs regulation, the new framework would be better aligned with the UK’s dynamic capital markets and foster more informed retail participation. As the Minister quite rightly set out, the draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024 replaced assimilated law relating to PRIIPs regulation, establishing a new legislative framework for the regulation of consumer composite investments. Replacing those assimilated laws was a crucial part of the previous Government’s plans to develop a smarter regulatory framework. The draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 extend a temporary arrangement, granting preferential prudential treatment for EU origin STS securitisations, and the draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 make amendments to primary legislation in connection with the revocation by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 of the EU capital requirements regulation, which currently forms part of assimilated law on financial services. All that is a long way of saying that His Majesty’s Opposition welcome these draft regulations, and hope that they will provide listed investment companies with the long-term regulatory certainty that they need. However, I will end by saying that the financial services sector thrives on stability and predictability, and I am deeply concerned that such certainty will be undermined by the recent Budget of broken promises and betrayal, though I am happy to leave those discussions for another day.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall start by paying tribute to and thanking my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor for his service on our Front Bench. I had the pleasure of serving him in government, as Parliamentary Private Secretary and then as Exchequer Secretary; we worked very closely together. If I may say so, there are very few people who match his ability, but also his decency. I thank him for that. This debate has had a number of excellent contributions. I will come to the maiden speeches in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, made important points about the pension fund industry and the importance of getting it to invest in infrastructure—something that we worked on very hard in government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly highlighted the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which has undoubtedly had a massive impact on our economy, but we were showing the signs of recovery, as he pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) rightly focused on the new tax on education, and especially the impact on displaced children, which I appreciated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) gave a great speech, first highlighting the importance of pubs and the hospitality industry, but then the importance to our economy of enterprise more broadly. As a vet, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) made excellent points—as usual—about the importance of farming, and mentioned in particular the devastating impact of the Budget on family farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made excellent remarks, not least about Margaret Thatcher and, in particular, the importance of private sector investment to our economy. Those speeches were part of a debate that has included some excellent maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) will, as an engineer, bring great talent and experience to the House. He was right to highlight the importance of innovation in our economy. I personally appreciated his comments about his predecessor, who worked very hard for the people of Worcester, as I am sure will he. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) made an excellent speech about her home. She comes to this place not just as a local MP but as a strong advocate for workers throughout her constituency, and I wish her well. The hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) represents the home of one of my favourite drinks. Scottish whisky is one of our great exports, and I wish him well in championing that sector as well as his constituents. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) painted a wonderful picture of her constituency. Her dad clearly made a good decision in raising his family there, and if I may say so, he would be extremely proud of what she has achieved, but I feel that she is only getting started. Let me turn to today’s subject. The Government are calling it “Fixing the foundations,” but frankly I think the OBR would call it “Breaking the foundations,” because in just one hour Labour broke our economic fundamentals. Labour has broken trust with the British people, and the spirit of aspiration and opportunity, which it will never understand or accept is the true foundation of growth in our economy. Our country woke up this morning to a new but darker dawn, with fear and a feeling of betrayal. People woke up to a number of headlines that I am not sure the Chancellor was expecting or hoping for, including “Halloween horror show,” “£40bn tax bombshell for Britain’s strivers,” “Things can only debt better”—which I particularly liked—and even The Guardian laments the “Return of tax and spend” under Labour. It is indeed a Budget that has broken our economic fundamentals. Labour has performed its biggest U-turn yet and reversed our economic recovery. Let us never forget that the Labour Government inherited the fastest growth in the G7, inflation at target, and a deficit that is half what we inherited from Labour. Their first act was to spook consumer and business confidence, which fell more sharply than at any time since the pandemic. Now we see those worst fears being realised. Across almost every conceivable metric, the latest figures on our economy make for grim reading, even for Halloween: the highest tax burden in history, debt up and rising as a share of GDP in every year of the forecast, and debt interest payments above £100 billion in every year of the forecast—the first time ever that that has happened. The OBR says that inflation will be higher, interest rates will be higher for longer, mortgage rates will be revised up. Gilt rates are today soaring, real household incomes are declining, and employment will undoubtedly be down, as anybody who has run a business would tell us. And for what? Unbelievably, and perhaps most humiliatingly, growth—the No. 1 pledge and priority for this Chancellor—has been downgraded by the OBR as a result of the Budget. The Government used to talk about pulling the growth lever, but they have gone and pulled us into reverse. It is unbelievable. The Labour Government have also broken trust with the British people. They promised that they would not raise national insurance, but the Budget increases it by £25 billion. They promised that their plans were fully funded, but the OBR calls the Budget the largest increase in borrowing as a result of policies in nearly three decades. They promised that they would not fiddle the fiscal rules, but they have done just that to fund their borrowing spree. They promised that they would crowd in private sector investment; the OBR now says that it is being crowded out by this Budget. They promised to boost business investment; the OBR says that it will now fall. They promised to cut energy bills by £300; we questioned them countless times on that, and the OBR now says that we will experience “higher gas and electricity prices”. To justify all of this, the Government concocted a fictitious black hole, which the OBR yesterday refused to endorse. Let me quote this to Labour Members, because it is important that we clear this up once and for all: Richard Hughes of the OBR was directly asked this question live on television. He said: “Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion.” Nobody believes it; nobody is backing it up. Finally, Labour has broken the spirit of aspiration that, as I said, is the true foundation of growth. We on the Conservative Benches recognise that it is the British people and British businesses who drive growth and prosperity in our country, not the Government, and certainly not this Labour Government. This Budget said to Britain, “If you want to invest—to expand, to take risks, to innovate—and to build a better life for yourself and your children, Labour will not back you; it will tax you.” Far from fixing the foundations, this is a Budget of broken promises, a Budget of betrayal, and a Budget that will set us back, push us down and kill aspiration. It is a Budget that the public will never forget and will never forgive.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Investor Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, the Chancellor is desperately trying to raise old ghosts, along with debt and taxes, but her own broken promises are coming back to haunt her and are frightening investors. It does not have to be Halloween for socialists to spook British business. Why does she think that business confidence has fallen faster in the past three months than at any point since the pandemic?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I wondered whether the Chancellor’s announcement of changes to the fiscal rules would survive the weekend, given the five fictitious freeports that came and went. It was a cautionary tale about the uncertainty and confusion that can be created when policy is not announced in the proper way in Parliament. I welcome the delayed statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am grateful for advance sight of it. Making a £50-billion announcement at an overseas conference, and not at a fiscal event in this House, has understandably and notably moved markets, creating further uncertainty for an already nervous business community. Although the Chancellor announced change last week, she did not provide any details about what that change would be—a common approach by Labour that is now coming back to bite them as the realities of government set in. The Prime Minister has admitted as much in recent days, speaking of the need to “embrace…fiscal reality” by adopting measures that were never listed in Labour’s manifesto. In fact, the Chancellor explicitly said before the election that she would not change the fiscal rules because that would be “to fiddle the figures”. By going ahead with this latest U-turn and broken promise, she has compromised trust and credibility ahead of her first Budget. That joins the long list of promises already broken by the Labour Government in such a short time: the promise to cut energy bills by £300—broken; the promise that their manifesto was fully costed—broken; the promise to be on the side of pensioners—so obviously broken; and we know that their promise not to raise taxes on working people is about to be broken, too. Try as they might to sell a different story, just like Government bonds right now, people ain’t buying it. We are left in the ludicrous position in which the UK—the sixth-largest economy in the world—does not have an operative definition of public debt. Quite understandably, markets have responded to this latest uncertainty by applying a premium to UK sovereign debt at a time when they have been discounting the sovereign debt of our international peers. The markets are also perplexed as to why these changes were announced without an accompanying OBR report. In the words of the Chancellor, “Never have a Government borrowed so much and explained so little.” —[ Official Report , 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 941.] The Government may think that this will all go unnoticed, and that most people do not know enough about the fiscal rules to know what is really going on here, but let me be very clear: the people will know about this. They will know it and feel it when interest rates stay higher for longer. Treasury advice to us was consistently clear: interest rates would stay higher if the rules were changed. What advice did Treasury officials give the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the impact on interest rates? Does he agree with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that the change will mean “more debt, more debt interest”, and that it is “no free lunch”? Of course, we all want to see investment in our public services and infrastructure. We oversaw the largest ever increase in funding for the NHS, we increased defence spending to the highest levels since the cold war, and we attracted the second-greatest foreign direct investment in the world, but we sought that investment with a view to boosting productivity by investing in technology—that approach has now been scrapped by Labour—and spreading opportunity around this country through freeports and investment zones. This Labour Government are quick to spend but unwilling to explain. Finally, on behalf of the British people, and the markets, which are watching this statement so very nervously, I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: what definition of public debt is the UK offering to lenders today, and how much do the Government plan to borrow under an expanded definition? He will say that we have to wait for the Budget, but the Chancellor did not wait last week, so why should we?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pub and Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on obtaining this important debate. We could talk about the economic contribution of our pubs—the £54 billion of tax revenue, the 3.5 million people employed—but ultimately, as many Members have outlined, their main contribution is the community benefits that our pubs bring to all our communities and constituencies. I have 79 pubs in my constituency, not just in our two towns of Grantham and Bourne, but across our postcard-picture villages, such as the Green Man in Ropsley, the Wishing Well in Dyke and very many others that I could go on to mention—possibly to my benefit when I write to them after this speech. Those pubs are concerned about the environment that will ensue after the Halloween Budget. They are concerned about the potential national insurance increase, which will break not just Labour’s manifesto commitment but many of our pubs. They are concerned about last night’s Employment Rights Bill and the increased burdens it will place on them, and they are very concerned about the implications of the outdoor smoking ban. In government, we sought to support pubs as best we could with 75% rates relief. We increased the VAT threshold and did many things, such as the Brexit pubs guarantee, that changed the dynamic of alcohol duty to ensure that the pint in the pub always pays less duty than the can of beer in the supermarket. The Minister will not be able to speculate on what is in the Halloween Budget, but he should know that we are united in this room today on the need to support our pub sector, not just for the economy but for the communities in our constituencies.

• 17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all those who have spoken in today’s debate. It is right that I recognise the contributions that have been made from both sides of the House, but especially those made by Members making their maiden speeches. We all remember the moments leading up to and during our maiden speech, and it still gives me chills to this day. Let me say to the hon. Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) that I hope her mother is enjoying seeing the bright lights of London for the first time. I know she will be very proud of her daughter. I wish the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) well with her campaigning on parental leave. We all regret the time we spend away from our families, but it is for a life of purpose and a worthwhile cause, as hard as it is. I had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) before he was a Member of Parliament. I hope that, as the Member of Parliament representing Bletchley, he can crack the code to the success of this place. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) gave an excellent speech, and he will be a great local champion for Banbury. I appreciated the comments he made about my former colleague and his predecessor. The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) will no doubt be busy in this job, but I hope she will still find time for frog searching. Finally, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) gave an incredibly impressive and excellent speech. He went to one of our finest schools, studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford and later attended Stanford University in California, which, by the way, has some quite impressive alumni. I am sure he has a bright future in this place, although he should be prepared for many of his Labour colleagues to constantly suggest that he is desperate to return to California at the earliest opportunity. All jest aside, let me say genuinely from the outset that it is right that we welcome this Government’s building on the strong foundations for international investment in our country. As of July—a randomly picked month—the UK was Europe’s leader for new foreign direct investment projects for a third successive year, with the highest total number of projects in the past five years. The most recent official figures show that the UK ranked second only to the United States for greenfield FDI overall, while leading the world in investment into our renewables sector. That is one of the reasons why we have achieved the fastest decarbonisation of any developed country in the world, and we should be proud of that. That is down not just to those who are elected but to officials who work day in, day out to support Governments: those in the Office for Investment, the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and our many trade commissioners, who help drive our efforts to attract significant pools of investment capital from across the world. This has been a good week for investment into our country— [ Interruption. ] It really has. It is important that we recognise the cross-party heritage of this week’s summit, which I am sure the Minister will acknowledge when she stands up. Labour has carried forward good ideas that we Conservatives either implemented or started in government. The Government deserve credit and I am very happy to give it, because this was, in the end, a fine follow-up to the global investment summit pioneered this time last year. Our cross-party collaboration does not end there. In many cases, this Labour Government have announced or re-announced investments that were negotiated or even agreed by their Conservative predecessors. I guess some things sound so good that they are worth repeating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—who has made a timely entrance to this Chamber to rapturous applause—highlighted, more than half the investment that the Government announced was actually announced before the general election. That includes the £10 billion committed by Blackstone, which was announced in April, and the £8 billion committed by Amazon, which was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. I could mention BW Group, which was announced in 2021, or CyrusOne, which was announced in 2022. Whatever the origin, more private investment clearly benefits the British people, contributing to more jobs, better productivity and stronger growth. We can all agree on that point, and it should not be taken for granted. I commend the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), a relatively new Member, who highlighted the importance of not being complacent about that, and in particular ensuring that regulation remains low. As I said at the beginning, I commend Members for all the contributions to this debate, maiden or otherwise, that rightly recognised the importance of private investment in our economy. However, we need to face the fact that this summit has been overshadowed by a rather large elephant in the room. As the Transport Secretary knows all too well, many investment decisions are provisional and dependent on an economic environment that welcomes and supports investment. Since Labour has taken office, thanks to all the doom and gloom, made-up black holes and submission to the unions, business and consumer confidence has fallen and the cost of borrowing for the British Government has risen. We have had 100 days of self-contradiction and uncertainty. Even in just a few months, this Labour Government have promised public investment while cutting capital expenditure, fretted over a supposed black hole while frittering away billions on pet projects and union paymasters, disavowed red tape while smothering small businesses in new regulations, and paid lip service to fiscal responsibility while laying the ground to fiddle the financial rules. Meanwhile, almost every single revenue-raising policy in the Labour manifesto has proven pretty much worthless, just like its promise not to raise national insurance. The rest of us were left wondering, and continue to wonder: if I make a successful investment, how much of the return will I be able to keep? If I take on a new employee, how much tax will I need to pay for the privilege? If I increase my workers’ pay, what will the total cost be? If I save for the future, will the Government help themselves? If I pass on the business I built all my life to the next generation, will they be penalised? If £1 billion is jeopardised by bad Labour commentary, £63 billion can be jeopardised by bad Labour policy. Investment and economic growth are not simply convened; they take concerted effort, not contorted fiscal signals. Some have questioned whether having the summit before the Budget was putting the cart before the horse, but my worry is that, come Budget day, the horse will already have bolted. I wonder, in the event that the Budget backfires, will the Prime Minister be forced to disown or defenestrate yet another member of his top team, to avoid taking responsibility himself—sacrificing someone else on the altar of self-service? As has been said before, Labour’s chaos might be in my party’s interest, but it is not in the national interest. I want to see the promise of these investments fulfilled. Labour must not put them at risk. Let us build on the success of our country’s economy and push up businesses that want to succeed, not pull them down when they do succeed. I am afraid that as long as this chaos, scandal and uncertainty continues, I will not hold my breath.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Energy Bills: Support for Households · Hansard source

  More

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

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We support the OBR. I have been clear on that. We created the OBR, so to suggest that we do not support it is incorrect. I would just pull the hon. Member up on some economic facts. The reason interest rates were so high and mortgages went up is that we faced a global challenge, which this Government will now experience. In office, the Government have to deal with events, and what caused inflation around the world was two things: the war in Ukraine, which pushed up wholesale gas prices to record highs; and the fallout from a once-in-a-century pandemic that the Labour party seems to have forgotten about. Those two factors resulted in 11% inflation, which resulted in the Chancellor and Prime Minister at the time prioritising bringing down inflation, which we did, to 2%. We have now handed this Government 2% inflation, half the deficit we inherited in 2010, half the unemployment and the fastest growth in the G7, so it is a little bit rich to suggest that we take lessons from the Labour party on economic performance. Our third and final concern—we have others, but I am in keeping this short on Second Reading—is that, in the event that the lock is triggered, the OBR does not need to produce one of its standard reports, even though the Treasury, under the Bill, is required to request such a report to avoid breaking the lock. The Bill creates, therefore, the possibility of an entirely new OBR report, which is not envisaged by the original Act. I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary explained that and what it means in practice when he sums up. Although standard OBR reports must be published, it is not clear whether that applies to other reports that the OBR may prepare. If this requirement does not apply, are the Government happy to give the OBR the power to decide whether its costings are published? That is potentially very concerning for transparency. The official Opposition look forward to more detailed scrutiny of the Bill and its practical implications. Be in no doubt: we support the OBR, which we created to bring in much-needed transparency to our fiscal framework after years of fiscal folly and false promises by the Labour party. At the same time, let us not pretend that the OBR should be the ultimate judge of good policy, that nothing bad can happen under its watchful eye and that nothing good can happen beyond its gaze. Labour Members know this: it is precisely what they argued 15 years ago when we first debated the Bill that led to the OBR’s creation. The OBR should not become too political. It should be a referee, not a player, in the fight for fiscal accountability. In the end, we stand by the principle that the British people, through their elected representatives, should always have the deciding say on public policy. We look forward to debating this further in the months ahead. We will not be voting against this Bill on Second Reading. I look forward to the debate.