Gareth Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats are keen to meet us and are willing to pay for it. Perhaps we can speak afterwards, but his constituents can speak to me any time. We are always available, across the country. This has been an excellent debate, with many views. It has highlighted the great importance of business to all our constituents, and I mean that seriously. The comments from colleagues on my side have illuminated the many different businesses that we have, whether it is Bloom Weddings, Chris and Annie’s business in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire; the fish and chip shops Old Time Fisheries and Kirkgate Fisheries in Keighley and Ilkley, which no doubt provide fantastic fish and chips but are unfortunately reducing their hours, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley pointed out; or Carmela’s in the great constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. All are having a hard time of it, but they remain excellent businesses. Some are, no doubt, places where we can all eat out. The Liberal Democrats have made some important points. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) spoke about plumbers, and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) about the hair and beauty salons and high streets in Mid Dunbartonshire. This is an important debate to have. I am reminded of the last election when one party had a key policy in their manifesto around VAT thresholds, and that was Reform. However, I am afraid that when it comes to the hard graft of making the case in this place, the party is, yet again, nowhere to be seen. I hope we can all agree that our country is stronger because of the men and women who get up every morning, go to work and drive our economy forward, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said. At the heart of every successful economy is the simple fact that prosperity begins small. It begins with the family-run café on the high street, the corner shop, the book shop and the local butchers, and the single parent who is just launching their dream from their spare room or their garage. These are not just businesses. These are stories of people who had an idea, stuck it out and made it happen. When we pile on more and more burdens, when taxes climb too high and regulation tangles dreams in red tape, we do not just make it harder to do business; the hope of what might be possible completely dims. A free society depends on free enterprise. When we get out of the way and support small businesses, we are not just fuelling the economy but lifting communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire believes that lifting the VAT threshold will help achieve that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 25 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has raised that matter at every single opportunity that he has been afforded, and he is right to stand up not just for St Barnabas, but for all hospices. However, I have to say that St Barnabas holds a particular place in the hearts of people in Lincolnshire. I know, as a Lincolnshire Member of Parliament, that it has been around for 40 years, employs 300 staff and treats more than 12,000 people across our county every single year. The fact that it is going to be hit with a cost worth hundreds of thousands of pounds for no good reason is unacceptable. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House for raising that point so consistently. I hope that the Government will listen to him. The settlement announced does not compensate St Barnabas, or any hospice, for the damage that the Government are doing, not least because we know that much of this money cannot be spent on facing down the additional running costs that this tax hike will bring. There is £100 million of capital funding, which has been set aside for buildings and equipment. Although that funding is welcome, it will not fill the national insurance blackhole that the Chancellor has created for the hospice sector, and she should not suggest otherwise. Today the Government have a chance to exempt hospices and other key areas of our health and social care sector from this tax hike, by accepting Lords amendments 1B and 5B. In addition, Lords amendment 8B seeks to provide the power to exempt the smallest businesses—those with fewer than 25 full-time employees—from the proposed cut to the threshold at which an employer is required to pay secondary class 1 national insurance. The Chancellor has spoken a lot about growth, but growth has been consistently downgraded since she took office. Something that we, as Conservatives, know, and that she, as a socialist, does not know, is that that is because economic growth cannot come from the Floor of the House of Commons; it comes from the factory floors and bustling high street shop floors in each of our constituencies. It comes not from state-created quangos such as GB Energy, but from individuals who had an idea, stuck it out, made it work and saw it through. It comes from people in this country who, by seeking a better life through enterprise, create the jobs and services that make our country strong. Those small businesses are being hammered, but not just by the national insurance hike. In less than a year they have already seen: business rates relief cut from 75% to 40%; aspiration penalised with changes to business property relief; and crippling new red tape through the Employment Rights Bill, adding a staggering £5 billion in additional costs. This is a potent and damaging combination of costs that many fear will mark the end. Lords amendment 8B gives the Government another chance today to change their approach, to throw our smallest businesses a lifeline—a chance of survival. Finally, while our smallest businesses require specific attention, I made it clear last week that, sadly, this Bill does not discriminate. It will hit business groups of all types, across all sectors, in all parts of our country—from charities to cafés, from pharmacies to children’s nurseries and special educational needs and disabilities transport. We must understand the impact the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21B requires the Chancellor to carry out a review of the impact of the Bill on a range of sectors of our economy within six months of its passing into law. I urge Members to support the amendment. Tomorrow the Chancellor will come to this House to launch her latest attempt to reverse as much as possible of the damage of her Hallowe’en Budget of horrors. Despite the hopes and dreams of business owners across the country, we can be sure that her emergency Budget will not include scrapping this awful Bill. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to work to protect and support the most vulnerable in our society, and to take decisions that drive growth, backing the people out there who make it happen. They are the people who will be hit hardest by the Bill. The Government must change course.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the House that inflation has already gone from 2% to 3% under this Labour Government, and in fact, the OBR scored the Hallowe’en Budget as inflationary. The hon. Gentleman is right that when these tax rises hit, they will be passed on through higher prices. I hope that that will not put pressure on inflation, but it will inevitably do so. The combination of factors and how they are affecting businesses, including cafés, is not always appreciated either. The national living wage is going up. Conservative Members have welcomed that—we implemented the national living wage—but it is about the context in which it is going up: national insurance is on the rise and business rates relief for hospitality businesses and high street businesses is being reduced from 70% to 40%. All those things are compounding the impact on cafés, such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). They will be devastated, inevitably leading to job freezes or job losses, which I will come to. From healthcare to charities and small and medium-sized enterprises, I have made the consequences of this Bill clear since it began its stages in the House. Today, the Government have one more chance to change course, because what many people across the country want to know is this. What is this Bill for? We were told that it was a one-off tax rise to fix the foundations of the economy. We were told that there would be no more tax rises after this, yet we find ourselves just a week away from an emergency Budget, with speculation rife that other taxes may have to rise because the Chancellor will not meet her own new fiscal rules. Some are suggesting that Labour will break another pre-election promise and not unfreeze the income tax thresholds in 2028, but will rather extend the freeze to pay down their new debts. That surely cannot be true—the Minister himself gave me his personal assurance in this House that income tax thresholds would be unfrozen from 2028. I would like him to reconfirm that promise to me today, in order to end the speculation. This is vital context for Members as we consider the amendments before us today. If more tax rises will be needed—if the original justification for this Bill is now void—why should we stomach the Bill’s terrible consequences? Why should Labour MPs have to go out and defend this to their constituents? Why should we allow the Government to punish the sectors that the amendments before us seek to protect? In fact, why must we stand here and see this entire Bill implemented at all? One impact that hits every sector of our economy is the impact on jobs. Just yesterday, we heard Labour talk about the importance of lifting people out of welfare and getting them back into work, and it is right to do that. As Conservatives, we know that the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque is what lifts us up as a country and lifts families out of poverty. The tragedy is that this Bill has caused so much concern and so much uncertainty that employment is already declining in anticipation of its passing. The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that the Bill will depress workforce participation for years to come. Put simply, this Government are cutting welfare to boost employment, while at the same time boosting taxes, which will cut jobs. No wonder business confidence has completely and utterly nose-dived. It is inexplicable and entirely avoidable.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It will be no surprise that we have nothing to add, but as this is the last time I will speak, let me take this opportunity, before you get too emotional, Ms Vaz, to thank you and Mr Mundell, the Clerks, all the officials who have supported the Ministers and, in particular, on my behalf and that of my office, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians. I put on the record my thanks to Luke Pike in my office, who provided great support throughout the preparation stage, and to all Committee members—including the Lib and the Dem over there and my frenemies across the way. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen, who grabbed me on the way out of the first sitting and told me that this is the best Bill Committee he has ever served on. It is completely irrelevant that this is the first one he has ever served on—tell him it is all downhill from here. I will let my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk take it from here. Question put and agreed to. Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 1 Rate of vehicle excise duty for haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles “(1) In paragraph 7(3A) of Schedule 1 to VERA 1994 (which specifies the rate of vehicle excise duty applicable to haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles), for £350’ substitute ‘£365’. (2) The amendment made by this section has effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April 2025.”— (James Murray.) This new clause provides for an increase in the rate of vehicle excise duty applicable to haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 2 Review of sections 63 and 64 “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every six months thereafter, review the impact of the measures contained in sections 63 and 64 of this Act. (2) Each review must consider the impact of the measures on— (a) Scotch whisky distilleries, (b) small spirit distilleries, (c) wine producers and wholesalers, (d) the hospitality industry, and (e) those operating in the night-time economy. (3) Each review must also examine the expected effect of the measures on exports and the domestic wine trade. (4) A report setting out the findings of each review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”— (Mr MacDonald.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 57 fixes the inheritance tax thresholds at their current levels for a further two tax years, as the Minister set out. The nil-rate band, which remains fixed at £325,000, has been unchanged since 2009. The residence nil-rate band, which comes into play when a person leaves a property to their direct descendants when they die, was introduced at £100,000 in 2017-2018 by a Conservative Government, before being increased by £25,000 in succeeding years. In reaching the current level of £175,000, we delivered on our manifesto pledge to create an inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners of up to £1 million. Since then, the legislative default is for the thresholds to be increased in line with the consumer prices index, although Parliament agreed to override that provision in the aftermath of the pandemic and to maintain the current thresholds to 2027-2028. Although we do not oppose the measures, HMRC has reported that the Labour Government’s decision to extend the freeze on the current thresholds for a further two years will, as the Minister just set out, increase the number of tax-paying estates by 1,400 in 2028-2029 and by 2,900 in 2029-2030. It was perfectly reasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan to ask why this Labour Government have chosen to unfreeze income tax in 2028 but not inheritance tax. I am afraid the answer we got was not good enough in the context of a Budget and a series of measures that have spent £8 billion on GB Energy, an energy company that will not produce any energy or reduce any energy bills; £7 billion on a national wealth fund, which basically means repainting the UK Infrastructure Bank building; and £9 billion on union pay deals that came with no reform and no productivity gains, but massive pay rises that, by the way, the OBR has assessed as inflationary. Sure enough, inflation has gone up and interest rates are going to stay higher for longer. It is mortgage payers who will pay the price. That is the state of the public finances that Labour inherited. While we are on the subject, Labour inherited the fastest growth in the G7, half the deficit— [ Interruption. ] It is true. Labour Members do not like facts, and we know they are not good with numbers, but being the fastest growing economy in the G7 is a pretty good inheritance. On top of that, the deficit was 50%— [ Interruption. ] Even the Liberal Democrats are reacting. This is a very important point. People out there want to know why these difficult decisions are being made. It is important to set out the facts on how the economy was doing when the Government came into office. There was 2% inflation; it is now higher. The deficit was half of what it was. These are important factors. It was very reasonable of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan to point out the dichotomy and the choices that this Government have made.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Where it has gone wrong is that the Labour party said pre-election that it would not increase national insurance, but has now gone back on that. Labour said it would not hit farmers and would support them, but we now have the family farm tax. We are slightly veering off topic, as Mr Mundell will point out, but I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that although I hope he retains his seat at the next election— [ Laughter. ] The Chancellor, who is completely out of her depth, has made his life a little more difficult. He is laughing now but I am not sure he will be in four years. In the context of more drastic changes to inheritance tax elsewhere in the Budget, and the changes to agricultural relief in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan asked about the Government’s assessment of how many of the estates being brought into the regime as a result of the threshold freeze are family farms. I did not quite hear an answer. On behalf of all the farmers we all represent, I say it would be good to hear the Treasury’s estimate as to how many family farms will be impacted. Ministers frequently cite the inheritance tax thresholds in mitigation of their decision to introduce the family farm tax, but that mitigation is being steadily eroded by inflation. By the time the family farm tax comes into effect next year, Labour’s excuses will be worth even less than they are today, not least because the OBR forecasts that inflation will be higher for longer under Labour. It has already gone up in this short period. It is a shameful exercise in how not to govern, and we will be holding the Government to account going forward.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will intervene anyway. As I said, any certainty that can be provided to businesses regarding the tax system is a good thing. The point I am trying to make—I will try again—is that corporation tax is just one tax paid by businesses. They also pay national insurance contributions. They also use reliefs such as the business rates relief the Minister talked about—by the way, the Government have cut that from 70% to 40%, although I am not sure that it was clear before the election that they would do that. The uncertainty has been caused by all the things that the British public were told would not happen, but that then did happen. We are talking about corporation tax today, and I can see that you are, quite rightly, about to bring us back in scope, Mr Mundell. I will leave it here by saying that British businesses pay more than just corporation tax, and what they need is certainty across the board. We have a corporation tax road map, but why do we not have a holistic, comprehensive business tax road map that includes national insurance, business rates and other taxes borne by businesses? That is my point.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These sittings are long, but I did say at the beginning of my speech that we announced in March 2024 that we would bring in this same measure and that we will support it today. I am not saying that we are against it, but I am saying two things. First, as I was saying at the beginning of my speech, the context in which the measure is being introduced is very different from the context in March 2024. The context today is that hospitality businesses across the country, but particularly in rural communities, are being hit by a series of taxes that they did not ask for, did not vote for and were told would not happen. That is the context in which we find ourselves. Secondly, His Majesty’s official Opposition have a duty to communicate the concerns of the British public and the sectors that will be directly impacted by this measure. It is vital that His Majesty’s Opposition scrutinise whatever policies are put in front of us, with a forward look at how that will economically damage or benefit communities. As you can tell, Mr Mundell, and as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster can tell, I take a constructive tone. When we do support measures, we will say so, and when we do not, or we feel that additional scrutiny is needed, Members better believe that I will be there. That is what I am doing today. I hope that addresses the intervention from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. In the interests of scrutiny on behalf of the many thousands of people that will be impacted by the measure and in a context of a wider hammering through the tax system by this Labour Government, let me continue my questions on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. First of all, I seek confirmation from the Minister that an FHL disposal must be made before 6 April 2025 in order for a qualifying replacement asset to be eligible for roll-over relief, even though the replacement asset itself can be purchased up to three years after FHL disposal. Secondly, I seek confirmation that lettings must cease altogether before 6 April 2025—not just furnished holiday lettings, but even unfurnished long-term rentals—for an FHL disposal to qualify for business asset disposal relief. Thirdly, I seek confirmation that married couples or civil partners who jointly own an FHL must make an election if they are to continue to split the income unequally, rather than reverting to the normal 50:50 rule, and make a declaration to HMRC before 6 April 2025 if this is to have effect in the 2025-26 tax year. I ask those questions constructively, on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and if the Exchequer Secretary is not able to answer them, of course I will take a written answer by way of letter following this sitting. In addition to the confirmation on those three points, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide reassurance that HMRC guidance has been specifically and sufficiently clear on these points, so that those affected are aware of the implications of the changes. It is important to remember that when the Government make changes and when we made changes, we were very conscious—I am sure he is too—that the public are aware. He should take all measures possible to ensure that people are aware of these changes, but I appreciate his guidance on what measures are being taken. Finally, on the case of joint ownership—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. This is one of many Finance Bill Committees that I have participated in. The subjects have changed somewhat each time, but something has remained consistent: the presence of the hon. Member for Ealing North. It is a pleasure to see him in his place, and I hope that his experience as the Treasury Minister in a Finance Bill Committee is as unpleasurable as mine when I was facing him. As the Minister rightly set out, clause 1 imposes a charge to income tax for the year 2025-26, which is a formality. Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax in England and Northern Ireland for 2025-26—the 20% basic rate, the 40% higher rate and the 45% additional rate—leaving them unchanged. Clause 3 sets the default rate and savings rate of income tax for the tax year 2025-26 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Clause 4 freezes the starting rate limit for savings at £5,000. Of course, the Government’s big announcement on income tax in the Budget was that they would not extend the freeze to income tax thresholds beyond April 2028. Committee members will be aware that that announcement does not need to be legislated for, as the income tax personal allowance and the basic rate limit are subject to consumer prices index indexation by default, unless Parliament overrides that via a Finance Bill, and Parliament has not overridden indexation beyond the 2027-28 tax year. As the current legislative framework did not allow the Government to enact their announcement on income tax thresholds at the Budget, we must take them at their word that they will keep their promise and not succumb to the temptation to override the thresholds in future. Given the possibility that rising borrowing costs have eliminated the Chancellor’s headroom under the Government’s own stability rule, I would be grateful if the Minister could reconfirm that they will allow CPI indexation to resume from 2028-29 and that they will not renege on that promise. On a point of clarity, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the unfreezing of income tax thresholds in 2028-29 will involve an increase to the fixed portion of the income tax higher limit, which he will be aware of. The limit is set at £100,000 plus twice the personal allowance, and that £100,000 is not indexed to CPI by default. Should we expect the additional rate to rise only in so far as the personal allowance rises, or will that £100,000 be unfrozen too? I would appreciate an explanation on that. I leave it to others to interpret what it says about this Labour Government and Budget that a non-binding commitment merely not to raise some tax thresholds in three years’ time is presented as a big win for the British taxpayer. On income tax, as with most of the Government’s more positive policy announcements, the benefits are prospective and entirely speculative. Meanwhile the pain, as we have seen with national insurance contributions and in other areas, is very much immediate and certain. Pensioners left out in the cold by the Government this winter will recognise that all too familiar pattern. A pensioner who receives the full rate of the new state pension without additional income—whose income from April is roughly £12,000—is now in most cases no longer receiving the winter fuel payment. The Government have defended that decision by referring to the triple lock. Will the Minister update the Committee on when the Government now project the full rate of the new state pension to exceed the income tax personal allowance, and how many pensioners they expect will be newly taken into income tax as a result of the development? If he cannot tell the Committee, perhaps he and his colleagues will vote in favour of new clause 3, which would require the Treasury to produce and publish forward projections for the number of people receiving the full rate of the new state pension who are liable to pay income tax, and specifically what the tax liability of their state pension income will be. Pensioners cannot easily alter their financial circumstances, yet they were given less than six months’ notice of the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. They must not be blindsided for a second time by the taxman—especially not those who are just about getting by without additional income beyond the state pension. I urge Members and the Minister to vote for new clause 3 to prevent that from happening.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister set out, clauses 13 and 14 set the charge and rates of corporation tax for financial year 2026. The main rate remains unchanged at 25%, with the standard small profits rate at 19%, and the standard marginal relief fraction remains three 200ths. In Committee on the last Finance Bill, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury—a great Opposition role—told the House that if Labour won the election, they would bring certainty back for businesses by capping the rate of corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. At that point, he spoke of capping corporation tax and publishing a business taxation road map as though they were two separate things. This year’s Budget makes clear that there is no cap outside the road map, and once again, as with income tax, we must take Labour at their word that they will stick to a non-binding commitment, which is not legislated for in this Finance Bill. It is unclear how much certainty or stability such a loose commitment will bring, especially when the Budget blindsided businesses with a £25 billion tax hike. Not only that, but the corporate tax road map itself says that, while the Government are committed to providing stability and predictability in the business tax system, they cannot rule out changes to the corporate tax regime over the course of this Parliament. Given the Government’s ongoing worries about headroom and the uncertainty and instability that has created, will the Minister reconfirm for the parliamentary record the Government’s commitment, first, not to raise the headline rate of corporation tax for the duration of this Parliament; secondly, not to raise the small profits rate or reduce the marginal relief currently available; and thirdly, to maintain full expensing and the annual investment allowance, as well as writing down allowances and the structures and buildings allowance without meaningfully altering their eligibility?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let us be clear: it is good when a Government set out a tax rate over a multi-year period; we accept that that is a good thing. However, does the Minister accept—to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan—that although a road map has been set out on corporation tax, the Labour party has created uncertainty by saying, before the election, that it would not increase national insurance contributions and then, immediately after the election, hitting businesses with a £25 billion tax rise, including not only a rate change but a threshold change that brings many new businesses into the tax regime? Does the Minister accept that the problem is about more than corporation tax? It is about the entire business tax ecosystem. On that basis, the charge is very clear: his Government have caused great uncertainty and great damage to British businesses.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Green Infrastructure Investment · Hansard source

  More

  Never in doubt, Mr Speaker. May I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to his place? The removal of investment allowances from our domestic oil and gas industry is strangling domestic supplies at a time when our storage levels are depleted. Labour’s ideologically driven, unachievable obsession with decarbonising the grid by 2030 might be good news for Chinese renewables manufacturers, but it is bad news for British households. Is it not the case that the only growth that we will see from Labour’s energy policy is in the amount that people pay for their energy bills, or can the Minister stand up now and commit—just as Labour did during the general election campaign—to cutting energy bills by £300?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate and giving an incredibly moving speech, in which he told the story of Sasha—and, of course, 19,000 other children. What is happening in Ukraine is absolutely heartbreaking, and he is right to raise those concerns in the House today. Last week, many people started 2025, just as we start every new year, with hope, optimism and determination that this year will be better than the last. It is therefore right that our first debate this year is about our united resolve to ensure that Ukraine can continue to oppose Russian aggression, and about ways that we in this country can continue to support our friend and ally in this task. We have heard a number of excellent speeches from across the House, which have been both informed and incredibly moving. For 1,047 days now, Ukrainian men, women and children have been suffering the consequences of the most recent stage of a war that they did not ask for and did not start, and that continues to claim the lives of so many of their friends, family and fellow countrymen. We Conservative Members are proud of our record of support for the people of Ukraine. In government, we provided over £12 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support. Because of this, the United Kingdom has rightly taken its place as a global leader in defending Ukraine. The UK was a first mover in providing vital aid, from helmets and body armour to, yes, Storm Shadow missiles and Challenger 2 battle tanks. We created safer routes for those fleeing the conflict, through the Ukrainian family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme, in which many Members participated. We established Operation Interflex, which has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion in 2022, and we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions Russia has ever seen, with 2,000 individuals, countries and groups sanctioned. This ensures that we are targeting not just the sectors of strategic significance to the Russian Government, and that those in and around the Kremlin are left with nowhere to hide, no matter where they are based. Just as President Putin has so far sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen on the altar of his personal imperial ambitions, he seems determined to destroy the future prosperity of the Russian people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, Putin must be made to pay for his actions, and a number of other Members also made that clear. Ukraine must continue to be supported in its fight against Putin’s war machine, so we welcome the fact that this Government are continuing much of the vital work that we started to strengthen the Ukrainian response. However, British support for Ukraine is underpinned by our willingness, and that of our NATO allies, to also invest in our own defence. That is why I hope that the Government will keep to their pre-election pledge of increasing defence spending in this country to 2.5% of GDP. As I have said before, I am pleased that there is such clear consensus on support for Ukraine in this House. On military support, humanitarian aid and indeed sanctions, where the Government take responsible and sensible further steps, the official Opposition will of course support them. The last Conservative Government were one of the most vocal proponents of repurposing frozen Russian assets, and we drove our G7 and European allies to coalesce around the most ambitious solution. The announcement by the Treasury on 22 October that the UK would contribute £2.26 billion to the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme represents progress on that journey, and we very much welcome that, but we should never stop looking for innovative ways to legally mobilise frozen sovereign assets. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what further steps the Government are exploring. Given that the House is debating frozen Russian assets, it would be helpful for it to be provided with the most up-to-date information. First, can the Minister update the House on the total value today of Russian assets frozen by the G7 and of the total assets frozen by UK jurisdictions? Secondly, can he give some indication of the allocation of frozen assets by type? There has been some discussion of that today, but it would be helpful if the Government gave that breakdown to colleagues. Today’s debate is focused on the seizure of frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine. The Minister will be well aware—this has been discussed at length today—of the various legal considerations, internationally and domestically, relating to seizure. Given recent comments by the EU’s chief diplomat, I look forward to the Minister clarifying exactly what the Government’s position is. Will he update the House on the Government’s latest discussions—many have called for this today—with our G7 partners and other allies on seizure? We should never allow ourselves to forget what this debate is ultimately all about. Many of us are returning to this place after a restful and perhaps indulgent Christmas break, but I remind the House that the people of Ukraine faced a very different Christmas. Nothing illustrates that better than the fact that on Christmas day, as Ukrainians gathered together at St Michael’s cathedral in Kyiv, praying for peace and victory in 2025, their prayers were cruelly interrupted by the piercing sound of air raid sirens. Be in no doubt that the fight continues, not just for those on the frontline, but for all those who want their country to be free again.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman was not here at that time, but those of us who were in Parliament then faced an incredibly challenging time in very difficult circumstances. Billions of pounds went to support businesses in his constituency; if he has a conversation with the average business that benefited from the furlough scheme, I am sure he will correct the record. The problem is that socialists fundamentally do not understand or care what it means to have an idea, to take a risk or to work hard day in, day out to make a business a reality. That is the problem. They think it is all so easy—that profits just flow in. They think it will all be all right, because Government can step in and take us much tax as they want. That is not the case. If Government Members talk to the average business in their constituencies, they will find this out; if they set up a business, they will see it for themselves. Perhaps most worrying of all, not only do the Government not understand the private sector, but they have completely overlooked the different ways in which the public sector provides for our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) set out. Whether healthcare, childcare or the charity sector, organisation after organisation has warned Ministers that this tax rise will impact the services they provide. That may not have been intended, but the Government have yet to act. That is why we have tabled amendments 13 to 15 and 16 to 18, which seek to protect certain key sectors from both parts of this tax in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 (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

  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 · 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?

• 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?

• 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

  Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your election. Let me take my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. and hon. Members in the new Treasury ministerial team, who have taken up some of the best jobs in government. I loved every minute of my time in the Treasury, even when I had to come to this place to face my shadows. I will always be grateful to the officials who so ably supported me and the team. As the Member of Parliament for Grantham, the home of our country’s first female Prime Minister, I congratulate our country’s first female Chancellor. It is right that we highlight that. While the two are not politically aligned, we can all recognise when a ceiling has been shattered and no matter who is breaking it, we certainly recognise that on this side of the House. The Bill before us seeks to amend the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011—a Bill, introduced by a Conservative Chancellor, that created the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Bill should be understood in that context, building on a previous Bill that replaced the system where His Majesty’s Treasury would produce its own forecasts and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would essentially mark their own homework. Back then, that was an essential piece of legislation, given what had gone on before. Between 2000 and 2010 the then Labour Government’s so-called forecasts for growth in the economy were out by an average of £13 billion and their forecasts for the budget deficit three years ahead were out by an average of £40 billion. Their forecasts therefore lacked any credibility at all. It was not just their forecasts that led to the creation of the OBR; it was their management of the economy. Much has already been said by the shadow Chancellor about the higher inflation, higher deficit and higher unemployment that the Conservatives inherited from Labour in 2010. What is, however, sometimes forgotten is that total public spending accounted for almost half the national income when Labour last left office. Welfare spending ballooned by a staggering 45%, and that runaway spending meant that we inherited the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe with the sole exception of Ireland. The idea that Labour has an unblemished record when it comes to the public finances is, therefore, plain wrong. We Conservatives created the OBR, in Parliament, to guard against Labour’s fiscal unaccountability and recklessness with the public finances. We continue to support the role of the OBR in providing open, fully transparent, independent forecasts for all to see, no matter who is in government. It was genuinely good to hear that the Chancellor recognised the importance of the OBR when she said that because of the OBR, in her words, “You don’t need to win an election to find out the state of public finances.” She was absolutely right about that. That is why yesterday’s supposed revelations simply won’t wash. In fact, if she is so supportive of the OBR, I ask a simple question: why was yesterday’s statement based on internal Treasury analysis, not OBR analysis? Surely if they are very supportive of the OBR they would have asked the OBR to conduct the analysis. The OBR has always said that it would be ready to produce analysis at any time, on short notice. That was yesterday, and today we are here to talk about the Bill before us. While we are supportive of the OBR, we think it is right that the House should consider a number of concerns that we have, on which we will seek clarification. First, the Bill will require the Treasury to request, and the OBR to produce, a report on fiscally significant measures announced by the Government, with the exception of temporary, emergency measures. The definitions of these terms—"fiscally significant”, “temporary” and “emergency”—will be set out in a charter for budget responsibility as the Chief Secretary outlined. The draft charter text, published alongside the Bill, deems measures to be fiscally significant if they cost the equivalent of 1% of GDP in any financial year. It defines as temporary any measure intended to end within two years, and the draft charter text gives the OBR discretion to reasonably disagree with the Treasury’s interpretation of what constitutes emergency. Despite some of the rhetoric, we note that nowhere in the Bill or the surrounding documents is the OBR empowered to prevent a Government from taking fiscally significant action of any kind. The effect of this Bill is to ensure that an OBR costing accompanies any fiscally significant action the Government take—nothing more, nothing less. The way in which the Chancellor described this Bill as a so-called lock to prevent certain activity is—to be generous on my first outing—overly ambitious. The Bill is described as introducing a fiscal lock, which the Chancellor promises will prevent large-scale unfunded commitments, but that is not what it does. There is no fiscal lock, and if anything, it is a forecast lock. The potential impact of the Bill is so limited and specific as to lead some to wonder whether, for all the animated hyperbole of the Chancellor yesterday, this is the prioritisation of gimmicks over governing, despite what the Prime Minister said on the King’s Speech. Secondly, and I say this genuinely constructively, the Government need to be better prepared to clarify what is meant by “emergency”. The draft charter gives the OBR the power to reasonably disagree with the Government’s interpretation of what is an emergency, but this raises questions about whether the OBR is equipped to make such a decision in the first place. What counts as an emergency should mostly be clear-cut, but what about instances that are less obvious, or when unforeseen circumstances come down the track? The OBR would then be straying into political decision making, which would rightly raise constitutional issues. Even if it is ultimately for Ministers to decide on such matters, any resulting disagreement between the Government and the OBR about whether the circumstances amount to an emergency could undermine the credibility of the Government, the OBR or both.

• 30 Jul 2024 · Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  In setting out our concerns, my right hon. Friend speaks not just for South Holland and The Deepings, but for the whole of Lincolnshire. Just before the general election, a written ministerial statement set out several provisions and thoughts about the problems that he describes. It specifically mentioned Lincolnshire and the issue of geographical clustering. Does he share my disappointment that the new Labour Government have not committed to those provisions and those statements?