Gareth Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Clean Energy: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is becoming clear that one year in, the public still do not know what Labour is all about, and the same could be said for its so-called National Wealth Fund. Not only has the National Wealth Fund invested less equity in clean energy than before its costly £7 billion rebrand, but it is also now rightly subject to a Treasury Committee inquiry, at which expert witnesses could not name a single thing it is doing differently. The CEO of the British Business Bank now says the Government did not understand what they were setting up. Can the Minister tell us why the National Wealth Fund has invested less in clean energy than before the costly rebrand and why the Government U-turned on incorporating the British Business Bank?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. Let me start by thanking all those who contributed and from all sides of the House, but particularly my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have highlighted so clearly the devastating impact that job losses and business closures have on families, communities and our national economy. I should also thank those on the Opposition Benches—sorry, I mean the Government Benches; it will not be too long. Is it not amazing that just three Labour Members were brave enough to speak? I pay tribute to them: the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), and the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who is not in her place. So proud are they of their economic performance that only 1% of the parliamentary Labour party actually bothered to show up to a debate on the economy—but then 1% is a pretty high figure for the Labour party. The truth is that since last July we have all heard a story of someone who is struggling to figure out how they will pay their new tax bills, or struggling to find a new job or pay their energy bills, which just keep on rising, despite people being told that they would go down. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made very good contributions in interventions and speeches today. I cannot mention them all, but in particular I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who highlighted that businesses are people. That is something I mentioned in my maiden speech. My dad set up a business; he took a risk and made it work. He made it happen, despite it being very difficult. My right hon. Friend is right; when we in this place tax businesses, we are taxing people. It is something that we understand and the Government do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) speaks with great authority, not least because he has employed so many people and driven so much growth. He is a proud colleague of mine. He highlighted right at the beginning the potent combination of taxation on businesses; it is not just one tax but a combination of taxes that are hitting retail businesses in particular, and there is also red tape being implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about his farmers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) highlighted the impact of the NICs threshold increase, which is not always talked about—there was a two-pronged attack on businesses and people in that the rate changed and the threshold changed—as well as hospitality businesses in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) also did that—he talked about his pubs—and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke about his personal experience from his previous career and his experience from his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) pointed out that if Ministers spent a bit more time listening and a little less time talking, perhaps the economy would not be in as bad a state as it is. This time last year, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were talking at people, telling anyone who would listen that the “growth lever” would be very first lever they would reach for in government, but the only economic lever they did manage to pull was the handbrake, otherwise known as the tax lever. Labour’s first Budget was the second-biggest tax raising fiscal event in the last 50 years, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) pointed out in an excellent speech, took the tax burden to the highest level on record. On growth, forecasts have been downgraded across the board by the OBR, the BOE, the OECD and the IMF—by this point, Labour’s economic performance has been panned by just about every letter in the alphabet. Labour Members can crow all they want about growth data from the first quarter of this year, but it does not change the fact that growth was higher under the Conservatives during the same quarter of 2024. Debates about growth figures are not purely academic, as the Labour academics would have us believe; they have real-world consequences for workers and businesses up and down the country, most obviously when it comes to employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, no Labour Government have ever left office with lower unemployment than they inherited. That is perhaps because in the last 60 years every Labour Government have left office with a higher tax burden than when they started. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), highlighted at the beginning of the debate, the ONS says that there are 150,000 fewer payrolled employees in our country than there were last July when Labour entered office. We have had significant falls in employment by that measure in seven of the last nine months. Let us put that into context: that follows 42 months of near unbroken payroll growth under the Conservatives as we exited the pandemic. In that time, we saw 2.2 million workers added to payrolls, leaving payroll employment 1.4 million higher than it was pre-pandemic. That is the difference that a Labour Government make: they send job recovery into reverse. Hiring expectations for the next three months are at a record low. Unemployment is going up and up, with the Bank of England now forecasting 5% unemployment by 2027. Of course, it is in the most heavily taxed sectors that we see the greatest damage. Earlier this month, 250 jobs were cut by Harbour Energy in the North sea after Labour raised the tax on the sector to some 78%. In retail and hospitality, it is small businesses who are hardest hit by the national insurance increases and the business rates relief cut. Labour Ministers talk about difficult decisions, but they are not the ones who are having to reduce opening hours, close on weekends, freeze pay and make redundancies of family members—mums and dads who just want to get up and go to work—just to survive. In too many cases, we are seeing local businesses close down for good. The country is witnessing the fastest growth of corporate closure since Labour was last in office. The great irony of the Chancellor’s much lauded securonomics is that it has created insecurity and business uncertainty. Entrepreneurship is being suppressed and jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of Labour’s sanctimony. They have the brass neck to go about claiming that this is all in order to restore stability and the public finances, when the independent National Institute of Economic and Social Research has predicted that the true size of the Chancellor’s black hole is £60 billion. Let us talk about black holes. The stable geniuses on the Government Front Bench took pensioners’ winter fuel payment away for the winter, but now that summer is appearing they talk about restoring it. They are taking pensioners for fools. What’s next—lower fuel duty for cyclists? The damage is already done. Who is to say that Labour will not be back in the winter to cut fuel payments again, just in time for Christmas, especially as Downing Street cannot guarantee today that the proposed changes will be ready by then? We shall see. In Labour’s fiscal funfair, the only ride is a merry-go-round. Round and round the vicious cycle goes, to the point where we no longer ask whether Labour’s next Budget will bring in more tax rises, but which taxes it will hike. We do not ask whether the next Budget will downgrade growth forecasts, but by how much. We do not ask whether the next Budget will support jobs, but how much higher unemployment can really go under Labour. As we found out this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister has put in her first draft, briefed to the press, for the Chancellor’s next Budget. Raising taxes on pensioners—that will hurt growth. Raising taxes on retail investment—that is anti-growth. Raising taxes on incomes—that is definitely anti-growth. When in a hole, stop digging. Labour simply cannot tax its way to jobs and growth, but it seems utterly determined to learn that the hard way. Our motion calls on the Government to learn from their mistakes and urgently change course. On behalf of millions of British workers and businesses across this country, I commend this motion to the House.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Economic Growth: Transport Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  We know that the Energy Secretary is against airport expansion unless it is in Doncaster, and we know that many Labour MPs are against airport expansion unless it is in Pakistan. To be fair, at least the Chancellor wants airport expansion actually in this country, but at the same time she is jacking up air passenger duty by as much as 16%. Only this Chancellor could be pro-airport, but anti-passenger. Labour’s Climate Change Committee wants to see air passenger numbers fall by 2030, so I ask the Minister: does he?

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

  More

  I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, and then give way. This tax, purely and simply, is a financial penalty on 940,000 businesses—that is how I look at it. The analysis shows that it is going to cost businesses an average of £26,000 per year per employer. Not content with ruining farmers’ futures through the immoral family farm tax, the Chancellor wants to hammer them with this Bill, too. She is going to make pubs, cafés and restaurants stump up more to cover her jobs tax, without regard for the impact on our high streets or the communities they serve. She is going to squeeze the creative industries, from theatres to film producers, in a desperate attempt to keep this circus on the road. It is crucial that we understand the impact that the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21 requires the Chancellor to carry out a review within six months of the Bill’s impact on the sectors I have described as well as on farming, creative industries, hospitality, retail and universities.

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

  More

  That is right, and it is an important point, because the decisions made by this Government are having such a profound impact on people in the real economy. I simply say to the British public that if they are unhappy with the decisions being made, they have to change the people making them. [ Interruption. ] Unbelievably, I am getting heckled on that point. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) should get out and talk to the average businessperson in her constituency. She might quieten down significantly. The Minister implied that the Government had no choice, and he still seeks to ask me what the Conservatives would do differently. Others on the Government Benches are trying that, implying that there is no other alternative. The Minister should look at the £70 billion of wasteful spending commitments that I have already listed, including the quangos, such as GB Energy, the pay-offs to the unions without any reform or productivity gains, and the billions of pounds being surrendered as part of the surrender deal to Mauritius. We have growth on the decline and inflation, debt and unemployment on the rise. We have a Chancellor on the brink, and confidence crumbling. We may not be able to kill this Bill, but we have our chance now to dent the damage. I urge Ministers and Members across the House to do the right thing and to support these amendments.

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

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the record of proceedings on earlier stages of the Bill, he will see that we voted against it. If he looks at our record in government, he will see that we cut national insurance for 29 million people across the country. As I have said so many times in this place, why are we not debating the Government’s creation of an £8 billion quango in Great British Energy? Why are they spending £7 billion on a rebrand of the UK Infrastructure Bank? Why are they spending £9 billion on giving up our sovereignty to Mauritius? Let us start with those discussions; we can then have a real debate. Lords amendment 2 recognises the role that the voluntary sector plays in the provision of essential services by seeking to exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the national insurance rate rise. Charities with an income of less than £1 million make up some 95% of registered charities and undertake vital work in all our communities, yet this Chancellor will force charity staff and volunteers across the sector to raise £1.4 billion more to cover this tax rise next year alone. Supporting this Lords amendment would prevent so many services provided by the third sector from being reduced, or even removed altogether. Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 seek 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.

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

  More

  The problem with that intervention is that the chairman of GB Energy himself disagrees about the number of jobs that it will supposedly be creating. I have set out clearly some of the things that we would do differently, and the different choices we would make from the choices this Labour Government are making. When we talk about small businesses, and about the impact of this national insurance tax increase on businesses as a whole, the Minister and other Labour Members incorrectly suggest that only the largest businesses will be forced to pay this jobs tax. As I have told them consistently in every debate we have had on this Bill, that is simply not the case. Village butchers, high street hair salons and community pharmacies are not what most people would regard as large businesses, yet businesses such as those will be hit. If the Government really want to ensure that our smallest businesses are exempt from at least part of this damaging tax, they should support the Lords amendments that are before us today.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. As the Minister said, the first statutory instrument sets rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions for the 2025-26 tax year. It covers the rate of class 2 NICs, the small profits threshold, the rate of voluntary class 3 NICs, the zero-rate relief on secondary class 1 NICs for qualifying armed forces veterans—a Conservative Government legacy that we are very proud of—and the various upper secondary thresholds and the upper limits and thresholds that determine class 1 NICs. These regulations also allow for payments of a Treasury grant not exceeding 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for the 2025-26 tax year. This is to be made into the national insurance fund, with a corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. We welcome the uprating with CPI of the class 1 lower earnings limit and the class 2 small profits threshold, but the overall picture in these regulations is one of continuity, not of change. The secondary threshold, however, is the exception. Although the regulations leave it unchanged, that will not last for very long. They will be overridden by the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, which is under consideration in the other place. It will cut the secondary threshold from a weekly level of £176 to £96 in the coming tax year, on top of raising the secondary class 1 NICs rate to 15%. The disastrous, job-destroying consequences of Labour’s £25 billion tax on working people are well known by now, and have been debated in this place many times. They are also widely acknowledged, from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to the left-wing Resolution Foundation. This time last year, when in opposition, the Minister put on record his concern over the distributional impact of the freezes on allowances, limits and thresholds, which his Government are in large part continuing. We accept that these are difficult decisions, but we took them to return the public finances to a sustainable footing in the aftermath of the double crisis of the pandemic and the energy price shock driven by the disgraceful invasion of Ukraine. If the Minister was concerned about the distributional impact back then, and in particular about “the post-tax income for low and middle earners” —[ Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7 February 2024; c. 6.] , I wonder just how concerned he is now, in the context of his own party’s Budget. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the largest percentage increases in labour costs will be inflicted on lower-wage workers; meanwhile, as much as 76% of the additional tax burden will be passed on to those same workers in the form of lower real wages, according to the independent OBR. Does the Minister agree with the OBR and the IFS on the distributional impact of the NICs tax hike?

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

  More

  As the Minister said, the clause amends the main rates of the climate change levy from April 2026, in line with RPI, for electricity, gas and other taxable commodities, while continuing to freeze the rate for LPG. We will not oppose the measures in the clause. I was pleased to see the Government confirm their plans to extend the climate change agreement scheme at the Budget. The scheme allows energy-intensive industries to claim a discount on the climate change levy, subject to taking steps towards increasing their energy efficiency and reducing emissions. At autumn statement 2023, we announced a new six-year CAA scheme, and I am genuinely pleased that the Government have chosen to reaffirm our announcement and take that forward, following consultation. However, as the Minister may expect, I want to raise an issue with her. It has been raised at oral questions, so will not be a surprise to her. There have been several reports in recent weeks about the UK chemicals industry that are directly relevant to climate change and the CCA scheme, as the Minister will know better than me. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has warned that the UK chemicals industry is at risk of “extinction”. His firm, INEOS, closed its synthetic ethanol plant at Grangemouth this month, which will result in the loss of many jobs. That was the last remaining synthetic ethanol plant in the country. Given the ongoing concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on what consideration has been given to the UK chemicals industry in calibrating these policies. As the Minister knows, the UK chemicals industry is the third-largest manufacturing sector in this country. It contributes £30 billion to our economy and directly employs 138,000 people across the country in 4,100 businesses. I presume that the Chancellor has met representatives of the sector, but I would like to hear the Minister confirm that, given how topical this issue is, how concerned the industry is and how widely reported the issues have been.

• 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 (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the Government have launched an attack on farmers across rural communities in our country. The family farm tax is a disgrace. Farmers have protested and tried to make their voices heard, but still cannot get a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I urge the Minister, who is very open to meetings, to have a word with his Chancellor, who is consistently in hiding and running out of the country when things get difficult as a result of her decisions. Perhaps it is true that the Environment Secretary wants farmers to pay even more tax. Why else would he say to farmers in Oxford, “Convert your barns into holiday lets,” while over the road the Treasury is taking away these reliefs and making it more tax inefficient for them to do so? This is yet another area where the Labour Government seem intent on cancelling out genuinely pro-growth deregulation, which we welcome, with anti-growth taxation.

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

  More

  As the Minister set out, clauses 23 and 24 extend the availability of the 100% first-year allowance for business expenditure on zero emission cars and for expenditure on plant or machinery for an electric vehicle charging point. Both allowances are extended for a single year from April 2025. In their current forms, both allowances were introduced by Conservative Governments. Although we will not oppose the clauses, there are a few questions that I would like the Minister to address. The first relates to a point that has been highlighted by the Association of Taxation Technicians concerning clause 24. The ATT has queried why the specific allowance for charging points is being extended when this expenditure has been covered by both the annual investment allowance and full expensing since the Conservative Government made those reliefs permanent in 2023. That means that the allowance is really relevant only to unincorporated business—for example, a partnership or sole trader— that has already used its annual investment allowance in full, which is a scenario that the ATT considers to be quite rare. According to the ATT, we should be able to tell how rare this is from the number of claims made for this specific allowance on tax returns. Will the Minister provide any information that he has to hand on that? HMRC has said it expects 6,000 unincorporated businesses to be impacted by clauses 23 and 24. Does the Minister have a figure for clause 24 alone and for specific unincorporated businesses that have exhausted their annual investment allowance? At the very least, I would be grateful if the Minister explained to the Committee the rationale behind that specific extension, given the context that the ATT has so clearly set out. The cost to HMRC of implementing the clauses is a cool £1.2 million—a relatively high figure for the extension of a pre-existing allowance for a single year. If clause 24 is largely redundant, this hardly seems good value for money on HMRC’s part. I therefore ask the Minister to provide a clause-by-clause breakdown of the £1.2 million of taxpayers’ money that HMRC will spend to be able to execute the relief. Turning back to clause 23, electric vehicles, unlike charging points, are not in scope of the annual investment allowance or full expensing, so I will not question the extension of that specific allowance, which we welcome. However, given the Government’s ambition to accelerate our transition to electric vehicles, I cannot help but wonder why they are putting a brake on the allowance after just a single year. The Red Book states that the allowance will “help drive the transition to electric vehicles”, yet from April 2026, a business investing in these cars will receive relief only through annual writing-down allowances of either 18% or 6%, depending on the car’s emissions—those incentives are less generous and less immediate. At Budget 2020, we extended the EV allowance by four years to provide the support and certainty to businesses that the Minister says he so desperately wants. This Labour Government have declined to do the same, creating what some—not me—may call a cliff edge. As Labour increases the pace and the burden of the transition to net zero, they are also shifting the burden away from His Majesty’s Government and on to British businesses and British consumers. Once again, it is they who will pay the price for the Government’s obsession with decarbonising our grid and imposing net zero policies on the British public.

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

  More

  Oh, so it was more of a heckle than an intervention, but that is very welcome too; it makes it a bit more lively for the very large audience we have today. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the policy of this Labour Government. Do they support holiday lets? The Environment Secretary clearly supports them and wants farmers to diversify into them, while at the same time the Treasury—yes, we announced the policy in March—clearly wants to tighten up the rules on taxation. It would be great to hear the Minister clarify that, but it seems that the answer depends on which Minister one talks to on any given day. Let us see what the answer is in this Committee, from this Minister, today. Clause 25 also touches on a long-standing issue of whether letting constitutes a trading activity or a property business. The FHL regime created a clear distinction by deeming a letting business to be considered a trade for certain purposes. Some organisations, such as the excellent Chartered Institute of Taxation, are concerned that removing the regime removes this distinction and could open up a whole can of worms, leading to costly disputes for both the taxpayer and HMRC. Can the Minister clarify what defines a letting as a trading activity in the absence of the FHL regime, or at least commit to the publication of updated, clearer guidance for the industry on that subject? The Chartered Institute of Taxation is also seeking confirmation on the following points—

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

  More

  As the Minister set out, clauses 5 and 6 set the appropriate percentage used for calculating the taxable benefit for a company car for tax years 2028-29 and 2029-30. In those tax years, the appropriate percentage for EVs will increase by 2% to 7% in 2028-29 and 9% in 2029-30. For most other vehicles, the appropriate percentage will increase by a further 1% in each year, up to a maximum of 39%. Hybrid vehicles are the standout exception. The effect of these clauses for vehicles capable of operating on electric power while producing between 1 gram and 50 grams of CO 2 per kilometre is to introduce a steep increase in the appropriate percentage of as much as 13% in 2028-29 to reach 18%, before rising to 19% in 2029-30. Whereas previously the appropriate percentage for cars with emissions between 1 gram and 50 grams of CO 2 per kilometre would rise as the electric range reduced, from 2028-29 that system will be replaced with a single flat rate, regardless of the electric range. That means that hybrid cars with the greatest electric range, which are presumably the least polluting, will see the steepest tax rise. Any distinction between hybrid vehicles will be eliminated for the purposes of these provisions. Indeed, as the explanatory notes make very clear, rates for hybrid vehicles will align more closely with the rates for internal combustion engine vehicles, as the Minister just pointed out. It will not have escaped Members that these new rates take us to 2030. The Government have confirmed their intention to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by that date. What has not yet been confirmed is the future of hybrid vehicles. The Department for Transport is consulting on which hybrid cars can be sold alongside zero emission models between 2030 and 2035. The Minister, naturally, will not pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, but these measures effectively do just that. While the Department for Transport parses the differences between plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles, the Treasury is eliminating that distinction altogether by 2028, let alone by 2030. Not only that, but the Treasury is effectively lumping all hybrid vehicles in with those powered by internal combustion engines. Treasury Ministers will be aware that the manufacturing of hybrid vehicles and engines supports thousands of British jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan alluded to, and car manufacturing firms operate on a multi-year investment cycle. The contradictions between the Bill and the Department for Transport’s consultation send a less than clear signal, which puts those jobs at risk. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister clarified the Government’s intention in making these changes, especially when the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee has heard that these rates have been the single most effective intervention to date in changing consumer behaviour around different types of vehicles. I would also be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps the Treasury and HMRC are taking to make the general public aware of these changes. I grant they are quite technical, but they could impose a significant additional tax bill on certain taxpayers with plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Chartered Institute of Taxation raised that as a key area of concern, which could confront unsuspecting taxpayers—those seeking to do the right thing by purchasing a less-emitting vehicle— with a massive and steep tax rise. A higher rate taxpayer on £51,000 whose company car is a plug-in hybrid VW Golf could face an additional tax bill of as much as £1,600 in 2027-28. That strikes me as neither fair nor proportionate. It has been reported that this Labour Government ordered no fewer than 10 petrol hybrid Jaguars upon assuming office to supplement the existing departmental, chauffeur-driven pool cars. If the Minister is confident that the consequences of the changes have been communicated and fully understood, I am sure he will be able to inform the Committee of the extra tax liability in 2028-29 of someone on a salary similar to that of a Treasury Minister—£110,000—whose full-time work car is a plug-in hybrid Jaguar F-Pace valued at roughly £60,000 with an electric range of just under 40 miles. As the Committee can tell, we have serious reservations about the communication of the changes, the unfair overnight tax hikes they impose on taxpayers just trying to do the right thing, and the mixed messages they send to vehicle manufacturers by contradicting other areas of Government policy and consultation. The measures concern the ’28-29 and ’29-30 tax years, so the Government have time to think again and to bring back a better calibrated policy in a future Finance Bill. For the reasons that I have set out, we will vote against the clauses.

• 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?

• 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 (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 · 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.