PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Finance Bill - 27 November 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Does the Minister agree with Gary Smith? This was supposed to be a Budget for growth and jobs. The increased energy profits levy is driving investment out of the North sea and will not make the slightest difference to how much oil and gas we consume, yet it is estimated that it will lose £13 billion of much-needed revenue for the taxpayer. This means we will lose environmentally, fiscally and in terms of jobs. Surely even the Minister can recognise how wrong that is.

The then Leader of the Opposition, and now Prime Minister, rightly said that his Administration would go for growth. He made it his No. 1 priority, and he inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but this is a fact. Can he say what has happened to growth since 4 July?

Will the Minister give way?

The Minister recognises the importance of reducing the tax gap, so will he commend the previous Conservative Government for halving the tax gap they inherited from Labour in 2010?

Is it not the case that state school parents work just as hard as private school parents, although they will never be in a financial position to be able to send their kids to private schools, and therefore it falls on this Government to fund state schools properly?

The Minister is dedicated to extolling the virtues of his manifesto. When he sat down to write the Budget with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, did he recall whether the manifesto put to the country at the general election stated that growth forecasts under this Government would be lower than they were under the previous Government? Was the taxing of small family farms for a total revenue of £590 million in his manifesto? He is very keen on the manifesto, but did it outline that growth would be lower under this Government?

Parents from two private schools in my area have written to me that they will have to move their children into the state system, but the problem is that there are not places in the state system to accomplish that. Will there be a dedicated fund to help those schools when pupils move? Will funds be put aside for the welfare of the kids who are being taken out of school mid-term? Figures that have been released suggest that there could be about 3,000 such pupils. Such a move will have a significant impact on their mental health and their family’s welfare, and I know this Government are committed to ensuring that children have good welfare. Will the Minister consider a ringfenced fund to help support the mental health of those kids?

Does my hon. Friend not think it ironic that Conservative Members are talking about the mental health of students? They did not consider that when they made changes to the state system. As a former teacher, I know the massive impact on young people’s mental health of the Conservative party’s decision to move from lettered grades to numbered grades at short notice, to completely change the syllabus and not to provide the resources or textbooks that teachers needed to teach those courses.

On that point, will the Minister give way?

The Minister is defending the changes that he is making to the fiscal regime as it relates to the North sea and the production of oil and gas. Can he identify another oil and gas-producing nation that taxes its industry higher than the United Kingdom does?

Does the Minister think that that is the right balance, given that Offshore Energies UK suggests that the changes will cost £12 billion in tax revenues?

When it comes to flying, Ryanair has come out and said it will cut 5 million tickets because of the change. How does that help growth?

Will the Minister give way?

One of the measures that has a bearing on the provision of public services is the increase to the employer national insurance contributions. I understand the Treasury is in discussion with the devolved Governments and local Government across England to ascertain precisely how much extra funding support is required to offset the increased cost upon their services. Will the Minister give us an update on those discussions and when he believes local authorities and, indeed, the devolved Governments will know how much money in additional support they will receive?

Will the Minister give way?

I am grateful to the Minister, who has shown his customary good humour and good will to the Chamber. He is unable to discuss the precise numbers for the devolved Governments, but can he confirm what the overall cost is to the Exchequer of compensating the public sector for the impact of NICs? I believe it is around £5.9 billion, but I want to check with the Minister that that is correct.

I call the shadow Chancellor.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give the Finance Bill a Second Reading because it derives from the 2024 Autumn Budget which will lead to jobs being lost, curtailed investment and prices being raised; because the Finance Bill constitutes an assault on business by increasing taxes on investment; because it will reduce the competitiveness of the United Kingdom’s tax regime; because it levies the first ever tax on educational choice and will increase pressure on state schools; because it will drive up rents by increasing tax on homeownership; because it will substantially increase the size of the state without a sustainable plan to fund it; and because it will reduce living standards, increase borrowing and debt, drive up inflation and interest rates, with the result that the OBR growth forecast for the Autumn Budget is lower than that accompanying the Spring Budget of the last Government.”

This Finance Bill, this Budget, are a disgrace. They are a disgrace because they are built on a deceit—a deceit that was propagated by the Labour party during the last general election. It told the British people that they need not worry about taxes being raised left, right and centre, yet what have we discovered? The figures of the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly show that this country is now heading to its highest tax burden in the history of our nation.

During the general election, we were also told by the Labour party that it had no intention of increasing national insurance. In fact, it stated exactly that in the manifesto on which the now Government stood. It broke that commitment. Do not take my word for it; Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says exactly that.

Is it not the case that the manifesto said that there would be no rise in national insurance, but when Ministers went to defend this policy, they said, “not on working people”, but then could not define working people? Now the language has slipped to “payslips”. Is the shadow Minister aware of this translation? I am pretty sure that the “payslip” was not mentioned in the manifesto.

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. As he says, Labour is now claiming that there will be no incidence of this tax increase on working people, although it seems to have a problem defining exactly what a working person is. None the less, try telling that to those people who will see their wages depressed as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the 50,000 full-time equivalents who the OBR says will lose their jobs as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the young people up and down our country who, because it is not just an increase in the rate but also an approximate halving of the threshold, will be disproportionately affected.

Labour also reassured farmers. The then shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the now Secretary of State—reassured farmers. He went to the National Farmers Union and said that nothing would be done on inheritance tax and the annual percentage rate. And on that basis, the NFU told its members that, at least on that measure, there was nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. How wrong it was. Only last week, we saw, tens of thousands of farmers, in their dignified way, coming up to the very gates of our democracy to ask a simple question of the Labour Government: “Why did you lie to us?” That is the nub of it. The measure will see the break-up of our farms and it will do nothing for food security.

Does the shadow Minister agree that the Government could not conceivably have been so ignorant about British agriculture that they did not know that inheriting the family farm is no form of enrichment whatsoever? So introducing this change to APR is just pure bad government.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It demonstrates that this Government do not understand farming and do not understand the countryside. There are 100 Labour Members who represent rural constituencies. I will not guess how many there will be after the next general election, but some number fewer than 100, I suspect.

Perhaps the cruellest deception of all was of our pensioners, who were reassured that there would not be any means-testing of the winter fuel payment, yet what happened? 10 million pensioners are to face a cut. Before somebody on the Government Benches stands up and tells us that some of those pensioners can afford it, I say that many of them simply cannot. Of those under the poverty line, two thirds will actually lose these benefits.

While the Prime Minister was out of the country on the 19th, something else was snuck out: a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, explaining that, at the point of reaching its decision on this, it knew from its own internal analysis that it would impoverish 100,000 pensioners into relative poverty and 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty. This information was asked for time and again in readiness for a debate in this House. Is it not right that information relevant to these measures should have been available in time for a debate?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is disgraceful that Labour waited until the farmers were at the gates of Westminster to sneak out that impact assessment, which showed that, by 2027, 100,000 more pensioners would be in relative poverty, after housing costs, than is the case today. Indeed, the analysis by the Labour party back in 2017, when it was against this proposal, was that up to 4,000 pensioners would prematurely die in the cold as a consequence of this measure. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you deal in deceit, you need a pretext for so doing. And a further deceit has been brought forward, and it was raised again at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, which is the £22 billion black hole. Where is it?

I wish to reflect on the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. Looking at chart 4.5 in the OBR’s document, I can see a big rise in the tax to GDP ratio, but from the right hon. Gentleman’s indignant tone, one would think that there had never been a tax rise under the previous Government. What the chart shows is a significantly larger rise in the tax to GDP ratio, because of the decisions taken by the previous Government, so is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman’s tone does not reflect the facts of the decisions he took?

Order. Before the shadow Minister responds, may I caution him against using the word “deceit” in the Chamber? No doubt he will now want to respond to the intervention.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will of course be guided by you on that matter. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, there is no doubt that, as we went into the last general election, the analysis of the manifestos of the three major parties showed that Labour’s manifesto would have by far the greatest increase on the tax burden. What Labour has done is to break its manifesto and go still further to take us, as the OBR has said, to what will be the highest tax burden in the history of our country. It is as simple as that.

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I did want to indulge him, but as he has now mentioned the OBR three times during the course of his speech, I wonder whether he would share with the House what conversations he had with former Prime Minister Liz Truss about respecting the OBR before she crashed the economy and sent inflation to 11%?

As Chair of the Treasury Committee at the time, I had quite a lot to say about it, and I would point the hon. Gentleman to the public record in that regard.

Let me return to Labour’s claims of a vast £22 billion black hole, which one senses can even be seen from the moon. When the OBR looked at this matter, it concluded that the fiscal pressure was less than half that figure. It also made the point that, had it been known at that time, there would have been discussions between Treasury officials and the OBR, and that number might well have been smaller still. And it is equally the case that Governments manage down in-year fiscal pressures as a matter of course. To use another astronomer’s analogy, this is not so much a black hole as a red dwarf. [Interruption.] Or a red herring—even better. This is about not just misleading the British people, but economic incompetence.

The Government have set great store by growth. They say that they will generate the fastest consistently, sustainably growing economy in the G7—I see Labour Members nodding their heads. How is that going? Our friends at the OBR clearly forecast a lower level of growth following the Budget than they had forecast based on our Budget the preceding spring. That is a direct consequence of the kind of growth-destroying policies in which the Government are engaged. What happened when the Office for National Statistics came out with its figures recently for the third quarter of this year? [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) has twice used the word “you” when heckling. I will not let him off in the future.

I take it as a familiar mark of respect from the hon. Gentleman.

The fact of the matter is that the ONS’s figures for the third quarter of this year show growth of 0.1%. That is one seventh of what has been achieved in the United States. In September, the third month of the quarter, there was negative growth. The reason for that is very clear. When this Government came to office, the first thing that they did was talk down the economy, and talk about black holes and what a terrible mess everything was in, as cover for what they intended to do all along. That had an impact on purchasing managers’ index surveys. We can see the slump in business confidence in the data, and the Government are now reaping the whirlwind. We have now had a Budget that will do even more damage to growth.

What will happen to inflation? Let us go back to our friends at the OBR. In every single year of its forecast, inflation is higher than in every single year of the forecast based on our last Budget back in the spring—a fiscal splurge up front that will translate into higher prices and higher interest rates for longer, meaning higher mortgage rates. Before Labour Members start jumping up and down at the M-word, the Government now own mortgage interest rates, and they are being affected in the wrong direction as a result of their policies. What about living standards? They are down and flatlining. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that by October 2029 the average family will be £770 worse off in real terms than they are today.

On the Government’s watch.

On the Government’s watch. A number of measures in the Bill will further weigh on growth. Capital gains tax will go up, destroying wealth creation. The energy profits levy will destroy jobs, making us less secure when it comes to energy. Stamp duty will go up, and that is one of the worst taxes. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) will accept that, as he shares that view—I think he makes the point in his recent book. The level of activity in the housing market will be dampened, people will be discouraged from downsizing, which will put pressure on the housing supply, and labour mobility—an important component of growth—will be impacted.

My right hon. Friend is painting an accurate but bleak picture, as reflected by the IFS, the OBR and all the independent analysts of what the impact of the Budget will be. However, I put it to him that he is understating the weakness that the Budget will create for this country. Look back at the last 14 years. We were recovering from the financial crash. We had the pandemic, Brexit and the energy crisis. We are unlikely to make it to the end of this decade without some form of further shock. Is it not central to the weakness of the Budget that it makes this country so much more vulnerable to what we do not yet know is coming?

My right hon. Friend makes a perceptive point, to which I will come momentarily, but first let me deal with VAT on private schools. We have already heard about the displacement effect—the behavioural effect—and the thousands of pupils who will have their education disrupted and the impact on their families, but does not this measure tell us all we need to know about socialism? Those who stretch to try to make ends meet to send their children to those schools are to be denied. Their aspiration is to be sacrificed on the altar of envy. Is it not as simple as that?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is right: the Budget will not create strong foundations for the future; it will create a vulnerable and brittle economy. The Chancellor has very little headroom against her fiscal targets. Against the stability target, because the Government have talked down the economy and gilt rates have responded in turn, it is conceivable that almost all that headroom has already disappeared. I will prophesy that, without doubt, perhaps if the forecasts turn in the wrong direction, or the pressure on departmental spending over the next two years becomes difficult for a profligate Labour Government, or because of some external factor, as my right hon. Friend suggested—maybe tariffs from Donald Trump’s America, or if his deficit-funded tax cuts lead to higher bond yields and higher interest rates here—I almost guarantee the House that, however it occurs, this Government will come back for more in due course.

May I prophesy too?

I will let my right hon. and gallant Friend prophesy.

To be fair to the Prime Minister, he made it absolutely clear that things would have to get worse. The difficulty is—this is my prophecy, if you like—that there is no prospect of them getting better thereafter.

That is an extremely astute observation. The prophecy is that things will get tougher further down the line. It will then be the case that this Government took decisions that left us in a weak and vulnerable position to withstand them. Why has this happened? The Labour party has very little business experience. Very few Members on the Government Front Bench have started up a business or grown a company in any significant manner.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he is an example of somebody who has done just that.

If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are against all the revenue-raising measures in the Budget, perhaps he could explain which of the many investments in the health service, roads, the justice system and schools he and his colleagues would cut?

It is not a binary decision like that. The hon. Gentleman is clever enough—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I will not disrespect him by claiming that he truly believes that. Had the Government brought forward a Budget that would have grown the economy, as the Conservatives would have done, the Government would have more money. Had Labour grasped the nettle of welfare reform, as we did when we were in office, and we had very clear plans in our manifesto for a saving of £12 billion a year, the Government would not have to go around caning companies, beating up on pensioners and so on as an alternative. There are better ways of doing things, and we had a much better way.

Earlier this week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in her conversation with the Confederation of British Industry, which did not go terribly well, that her tax-raising days are over. Yet significantly, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury failed to reiterate that assertion. Does he believe her?

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point because the Chancellor did say at the CBI conference, when asked, that she would not raise taxes in the future, but this very afternoon, at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister appeared to resile from that. We now do not even have clarity on that vital point.

Surely the point is that the Chancellor is no economist, no matter how much puff one applies to try to disguise the fact. I thought I would take a leaf out of her book, even though that page was apparently written by somebody else. I can inform the House that I am an economist. Speaking as a former Governor of the Bank of England and president of the International Monetary Fund, and having run the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation at the same time—yes, for 10 years—I have as much experience as our Chancellor. That flight of fancy is, of course, all mine, but the inspiration came from the Government Benches.

This is a Finance Bill of broken promises and breathtaking incompetence—a Finance Bill that represents a present danger to the future of our economy. Was there ever a Bill more injurious to what we Conservatives love—to our pensioners, our farmers, our businesses, the poor, the vulnerable and, yes, working men and women right up and down our country? They say that astrologers are there to make economists look good. Well, they cannot make this lot look good. It is written in the stars—it is a story foretold—that unchecked, this Budget and this Finance Bill would take Britain down. That is why we will never tire of the trials of opposition, and why we will be the party that stands up for working men and women across our country, and fights this Government.

To make her maiden speech, I call Samantha Niblett.

That caught me off guard; I did not expect to be called quite so soon. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is with great humility and immense pride that I stand here today delivering my first speech in this Chamber as the Member of Parliament for South Derbyshire. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the people of South Derbyshire for placing their trust in me. I was visible, accessible and active right across the constituency before the election was called, and I took great pride in proving that by directing people to my “Samantha spotting” interactive online map. I am committed to continuing in the same vein, working incredibly hard for the people I represent.

I want to thank my predecessor Heather Wheeler, who has dedicated so much of her life to local and national politics. She spent 14 years as an MP and, if an internet search result is not tricking me, began her career in local politics in 1982 when she was just 23 years old. She became an elected councillor in South Derbyshire in 1995, and went on to be leader of the council. Her commitment to public service was rewarded in the 2023 birthday honours list. I also hear on repeat, and on good authority, that she was jolly good fun in this place.

As the most recent MP for South Derbyshire, I join this House from the private sector, having built a career in data and technology, and I am still a relative newbie to politics. I joined the Labour party in my late thirties, swiftly finding my home and sense of purpose in trying to make things better for people through political activism, at a time when data and technology are key to driving economic growth to help make people better off. When I discovered that the two things that I am most proud of this country for were Labour Government creations—the welfare state and our precious national health service, which both look after people when they are at their most vulnerable and in most need of support—I knew that I had found the party that I belonged to. The NHS has saved both my parents’ lives more than once, and I am delighted that now that Labour is in government, we will save the NHS’s life.

Deciding to throw your hat in the ring for the longest ongoing job interview, for a job without a job description, when some people will instantly loathe you for simply being an MP—they are particularly harsh online—is not for everyone. Were it not for my wonderful 17-year-old daughter Lillian, I probably would not be standing here. She is the reason for my being. I could not tell her that she can be anything she wants to be if I did not show her. I want her to feel brave and able to change her career later in life, just as I have, if she so wishes. I will not stand by and let her be horrified, as she is, at the gender pay gap without trying my best to help close it. Thank goodness we have the first ever female Chancellor of the Exchequer in my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), who, having smashed a glass ceiling herself, wants to level the playing field for other women.

The desire for fairness and to look after people is what drives me, and it is one of the defining features of South Derbyshire, too. It has a strong sense of community and people who look out for one another. The many local Facebook groups, including “I love Swad”, “This is Overseal” and “Spotted: Repton”, have some interesting posts and colourful comments, and people there frequently, shall we say, hold me to account; but more often than not, when people ask for help, others rally round to support them. That community extends to local businesses, who support and work with local charities, such as South Derbyshire CVS. It not only runs a food bank—something I hope to see an end of as we make people better off again—but provides services and support to individuals and voluntary groups, of which there are very many. Then we have the Maple Tree community café in Repton village hall, whose volunteers make people so welcome. It has the best coffee, not to mention the beloved doughnuts on the first Saturday of every month. There is also the small business group Been Networking, which meets at Been Coffee, which does the most amazing bagels. There is a bit of a food theme here. People are there for one another.

South Derbyshire has something for everyone. I encourage everyone to go online to visitsouthderbyshire.co.uk to see for themselves, and then to come and see us. We have events ranging from the Melbourne festival of art and architecture, which celebrates its 20th anniversary next September, to the festival of leisure at Maurice Lea memorial park in Church Gresley, a short walk from the home of Gresley Rovers. The last time a Labour MP, Mark Todd, who people still speak so fondly of today, delivered his first speech in this Chamber in 1997, he was hoping to help Gresley Rovers move their football ground. This Labour MP hopes to help them finally make that dream a reality.

Turning from the beautiful game to the beautiful places, we have Calke Abbey in Ticknall, part of our wonderful National Trust. There, people do great work to preserve and restore woodlands and ensure visitor areas are inclusive, so that as many people as possible can enjoy them. Mercia Marina, just outside Willington, is the largest inland port in Europe and is a fantastic spot for tourism, leisure and local business. Speaking of local business, Acres Engineering is a wonderful family-run company that opens its doors to school visits. It trains and develops apprentices, and has an armed forces covenant gold award for its work to support the armed forces community and defence. As I am partaking in this year’s armed forces parliamentary scheme in the RAF, I am ever more grateful to Acres Engineering for being committed to that work. It really does go above and beyond for people.

It is not just home-grown businesses in South Derbyshire; we are home to sites for Toyota, Rolls-Royce and JCB. Those global companies provide high-quality jobs, apprenticeships and vital skills training to local people, making South Derbyshire a hub of innovation and industrial excellence. Their expertise in hydrogen-powered vehicles can help deliver a reduction in carbon emissions, and will ideally place us at the forefront of the green revolution, helping us to fight the climate crisis.

I also want to highlight the critical role of Burton and South Derbyshire college. While its main site is not technically in my constituency, it has sites and programmes that are. It provides vital education and training to the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs. It is the gold standard of technical colleges, and this Labour Government want to see more like it right across the country. Our college is helping to equip our young people, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, with the skills needed to thrive in the jobs of the future, in today’s fast-changing world. I hope many of those jobs will be in the tech sector, and I will strive to encourage tech businesses to base themselves in South Derbyshire, so that no one has to leave where they live to build a secure, successful, rewarding and well-paid career.

Our motto, “The Earth Our Wealth”, speaks of a time when our industry was about coalmining and pottery. Now, it makes me think of our stunning rural landscapes, and of the hard-working farmers who are increasingly diversifying to adapt to changing economic landscapes. Whether they are producing their own biogas from food waste, converting agricultural buildings into business units to let or running farm shops, our farmers continue to show resilience and creativity.

In closing, whether in Etwall, Egginton or Stenson Fields in the north, or in Lullington, Coton in the Elms or Walton in the south, I want people to know that I promise to represent them with integrity, dedication, and a deep sense of responsibility. Thank you for giving me that opportunity.

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), and I congratulate her on her very heartfelt maiden speech. I commend her for her commitment to the NHS, and for her desire to be a role model for the next generation of women, who will follow up the ladder behind us. Her skills in data and tech will be incredibly helpful in this House as we grapple with the challenge of online harms, and the threats and opportunities of AI, and I wish her well in her career in this House.

There is no doubt but that the Government have received a terrible inheritance. Under the former Conservative Government, our economy flatlined, people’s living standards plummeted and our public services were left on their knees, so inevitably the incoming Government have had to make some difficult decisions. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might like side B. [Interruption.] Steady on. Some of those decisions we Liberal Democrats agree with. To start with, the Government have decided to borrow for productive investment, and in principle we agree with that. They have raised the levy on the oil and gas giants and closed the loophole, and we agree with that. They have decided to invest in the NHS, and we also agree with that. However, we cannot support the Bill, for many of the reasons set out in our reasoned amendment.

The first question is who should pay for fixing our NHS and social care. We Liberal Democrats have always said that it should be those with the broadest shoulders. Unfortunately, the Government’s Finance Bill does not reverse the tax cuts given to the big banks by the Conservatives; it does not raise the digital services tax on the big tech companies; and it does not increase the remote gaming duty. Those three measures, outlined in our reasoned amendment, would have raised billions of pounds to help fix our NHS and social care, and that money could also have been used to reverse the cut to the winter fuel payment.

The inheritance tax measures are not included in the Finance Bill, but it does pave the way for them. I must say that it is a bit rich of the Conservatives to pretend suddenly to be the friends of the farmers when they ushered in the very trade deals that have undermined so many farmers. However, I urge the Government in the strongest terms to think again about the family farm tax. That measure is badly thought through and leads to the worst of both worlds. It does not close the loophole that results in big equity companies and investors buying up land—it is still more tax-efficient for them to do that than to place their money elsewhere—yet family farms are being caught up as collateral damage. There are rumours that the Government may be thinking again, and I urge them to do so. It is possible for them to look at introducing a genuine family farm test, as exists in France and Ireland. If the Government look at this issue, the Liberal Democrats will, in the spirit of constructive opposition, work with them to get this right and to protect family farmers.

Our reasoned amendment also outlines our opposition to the increase in alcohol duty, because it will hit not only consumers, but small businesses—and not just any businesses. The businesses in this sector are bastions of new craftsmanship and innovation in our small-batch distilleries.

In summary, we know that the Government had an awful inheritance and had to make difficult decisions, but we Liberal Democrats would have made different choices.

Has the hon. Member reflected on the fact that the Liberal Democrats, instead of being just the party of no, were the party who enabled the coalition Government, which she is criticising?

I think we can all say that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since those times. Since 2015, we have seen what the Conservatives did when they were left in government on their own. I hope that people will have seen at the most recent general election that we Liberal Democrats put health and social care front and centre; that led us to become the largest third party in the last 100 years.

To conclude, we Liberal Democrats would have made different decisions from the Government, and for that reason, we will not support the Bill.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the first Labour Finance Bill in 14 years, and an even greater pleasure to respond to the very first Budget delivered by a female Chancellor. It is also an honour to speak on Lancashire Day, and I would like to put on record my congratulations to all my constituents in Bolton West and further afield who are celebrating this important day.

As others have done, I congratulate the Chancellor and thank her for blazing a trail for girls in my constituency to follow. In response to the remarks from the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), I would say that having spent 14 years working in FTSE 100 companies, I believe that the measures in the Bill will be a turning point for our country. They are the first step in fixing the foundations of a broken economy after 14 long years of economic vandalism by the Conservative party.

Let me be clear: the Labour Government inherited a difficult financial situation, with debt above 90% of GDP, millions of pounds of public money wasted during the pandemic, including via contracts awarded through the VIP fast line, inflation at 11%, and a cost of living crisis that bore down not just on the most vulnerable in my constituency, but on working families, young people and many businesses. That is the economic inheritance bequeathed by Conservative Members, and we should take no lessons from them on how to manage the public finances. To that end, I very much welcome the measures in the Bill.

To take the hon. Gentleman back just a few months, he may remember that inflation was at 2% and down at target, and the level of employment was up by 4 million people on where it was in 2010. It would be fair for the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House, to want to give a balanced picture, and he may want to reflect on those 4 million additional jobs, the fact that inflation was down, and the fact that the UK was the fastest growing economy in the first quarter in the entire G7.

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution, but I will return to the point I mentioned earlier about inflation at 11%. Frankly, the work was not done by the previous Government to mitigate that.

I very much welcome measures in the Bill that will increase stamp duty on those who own a second home. The blight of second home ownership in certain parts of our country has destroyed the housing market for local people, massively inflating prices and denying those otherwise invested in the local area the ability to put down roots. I am pleased to see the Chancellor delivering on our election promise to scrap the non-dom loophole, which has been abused for far too long by those who wish to enjoy all the privileges of life in this country without paying into the system. I applaud the Chancellor’s commitment to delivering fairness into the tax system through the Budget and the Bill.

In the light of the debate we have been having in the country at large over the past few weeks, I wish briefly to focus my comments on three key topics, which I hope the Government will soon revisit at some juncture during this Parliament. The first topic, tax justice, has been overlooked for far too long. According to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the tax gap—the difference between what it should collect annually and what it actually collects—is almost £40 billion. Let me repeat that figure—forty thousand million pounds. Closing that gap by just 20% could pay for 60,000 nurses, 40,000 teachers, and 40,000 police officers. Imagine the transformative impact that could have on our public services, on education, on health, and on tackling crime. Simply put, working people in Bolton West are expected to pay the taxes they owe, so why should big multinationals and the super-rich be able to avoid contributing their fair share?

The renewed focus on tax avoidance and evasion in the Budget is much needed, but we sometimes have to spend money to make money. We all know that tough decisions about public finances have to be made, but that does not have to come at the expense of boosting enforcement through our public bodies, including HMRC, which should be self-funding, with a greater proportion of cash raised from fines, asset seizure and the like returned to the relevant agencies. Our enforcement agencies work incredibly hard to claw back billions of pounds that are lost every year to economic crime in the UK, but they do not have the resources to protect us from all manner of crimes from fraud to money laundering and tax evasion. It should be criminals who are made to pay, not the hard-working taxpayer, and for me, that would be a sensible way to both combat economic crime and bolster our public finances.

We already know that every pound invested in the Serious Fraud Office returns three pounds to the Treasury—a 317% return on its budget—while every pound spent on the National Crime Agency’s international corruption unit results in £21 of illicit wealth frozen. As it happens, research published this month by Spotlight on Corruption—I hope the Minister will take note of this—found that just 17.6% of the £4 billion generated for the Government by law enforcement agencies and anti-money laundering supervisors between 2017 and 2024 was reinvested in those agencies or in crime reduction and community projects. If just 50% of those enforcement receipts had been reinvested, economic crime regulation and enforcement would have received an extra £233 million a year—nearly double the annual investment underpinning the 2023 to 2026 economic crime plan—at no cost to the taxpayer but with potentially substantial rewards.

The second area of focus that I would like the Government to attend to during this Parliament is council tax. For almost three decades, successive Governments have sat on their hands when it comes to reforming the levy, which is regressive and disproportionately targets the wealth of lower-income families and the young, as well as affecting local authorities. Bolton council finds that it does not provide an adequate funding base to provide critical services for my constituents. Last year, a modest property in Hartlepool worth £150,000 would have been taxed at over 1% of its value, while the owner of an £8 million mansion in Westminster would have seen a bill equivalent to just 0.02%.

The Fairer Share campaign has called for a proportional property tax, which would see homeowners pay a flat rate based on current and annually updated valuations, not the absurdly outdated 1991 numbers. It calculates that that would put an average of £600 into the pockets of households in Bolton West and leave 96% of people in my constituency better off. Indeed, in total, Fairer Share reckons that that reform could save households outside central London and the south-east £6.5 billion a year, helping to level up communities and genuinely boost local economies.

Finally, I would very much like to see the spending commitment to 2.5% of GDP on defence reached as soon as fiscally possible. I welcome the Government’s commitment to that effect. The increase of £2.9 billion for defence already announced by the Government is indeed welcome. We must continue to invest in defence to ensure that the UK will have the capacity to keep us safe in what is becoming an increasingly dangerous world.

This Finance Bill demonstrates that after 14 years of dither and delay, the Labour Government are taking the difficult decisions head on. With the measures announced last month by the Chancellor, I am confident that my constituents across Bolton West will be able to realise their full potential and that together we can build the healthier, more prosperous society that I want to see, with tax justice at its heart and those with the broadest shoulders paying their fair share to fix the crises in our schools, our hospitals and our prisons.

I commend the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for her maiden speech. She and I share many interests, not least in technology, promoting women in technology and accessibility. I wish her well.

Turning to the matter in hand, the measures in the Bill are in addition to others announced as part of a Budget that has caused serious concern for businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Re-energising our high streets has been one of my key priorities, but the Budget pushes us further from that goal.

The Government plan to increase employers’ national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15% and to lower the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. That will force businesses to pay more sooner. Meanwhile, business rates relief for retail and hospitality will drop from 75% to 40%. Research shows that that will cause a 140% increase in rates, with the average UK restaurant seeing costs rise from £5,051 to £12,122l, a £7,000 hike that could force closures. Those changes come on top of existing pressures caused by covid, the war in Ukraine and energy price inflation. A local business has shared the impact of that on its profit and loss: its freight costs are up 126% since 2019, raw materials are rising by 6%, warehouse rents were up 24% last year, with another 6% rise in 2024, and utility costs were up 58% in 2023. Businesses already stretched thin cannot absorb the additional costs that the Budget imposes. Piling on national insurance contributions and higher business rates alongside steep minimum wage hikes, without supporting productivity and growth, is a recipe for disaster.

In painting this stark picture, my hon. Friend has not mentioned the Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to impose particular burdens on hospitality businesses, including those on her high streets—a total of £5 billion in addition to the measures in this Budget.

My right hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. I have restricted my comments to the Finance Bill and the Budget, but the Employment Rights Bill places significant additional pressures on businesses, and I thank him for that point.

For towns such as Bognor Regis and Littlehampton where businesses already operate on razor-thin margins, these measures could be existential. Highly regarded local employers, including family-run small and medium-sized enterprises such as Temple Spa and Meridian Medical, are gravely concerned. Entrepreneurs like those take immense personal and financial risks to create jobs and support our economy, yet this Government treat them as an endless revenue source instead of engines for growth. The Chancellor’s projections may work on paper, but they are disconnected from reality. Our high streets, SMEs and family businesses need support, not policies that make survival—let alone growth—harder. I urge the Government to rethink their approach or take steps to mitigate the impact on our communities.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate as we move to put the measures announced at the Budget on the statute book but, first, I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on a superb maiden speech, demonstrating the commitment and expertise that we are lucky to have on the Government Benches, and the House is lucky to have as a whole.

I suspect that this was not the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) envisaged as her first as Chancellor, but it was the one that was needed once the economic inheritance received by this Government became fully understood. I want to touch on the very difficult financial situation that this Government have inherited, and what difference the measures announced in the Budget will make to residents living in my constituency.

We should be clear about what the inheritance from the Conservative party was: an economy that, over the past 14 years, has seen productivity and wages flatlining, leaving British families significantly poorer than those in France and Germany; and a country exposed to fossil fuel markets, which led directly to the worst cost of living and energy bills crises in generations. Whatever the Conservatives may like to say to wriggle out of that inestimable fact, they left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, with no plan to fix it and—this is the worst part—unfeasible departmental spending targets stretching into future years.

Our response of capital gains tax rises, air passenger duty and agricultural property relief undoubtedly falls on those with the broadest shoulders who are most able to bear those increases.

May I clarify whether the hon. Member believes that the farmers making on average less than £45,000 year, and the 25% making less than £20,000 a year, are those with the broadest shoulders?

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. We are very clear: the numbers from HMRC show that very few of the sorts of farms that she is referring to will be affected. Actually, it said everything to me that the person leading the march last week had boasted that he had spent £4.25 million on a farm in order to avoid inheritance tax.

This was a Budget to reset our finances after years of chaos, with difficult but necessary decisions—decisions we have not dodged, unlike the previous Government. This Labour Government were elected to fix the foundations of our economy and to begin to rebuild the public services that people across our country—including my residents in Dartford, whom I am privileged to represent in this place—really need. The measures in the Bill will rebalance the tax system, protecting working people and raising the crucial revenue so desperately needed for our public services at a time when their performance is unfortunately at a historic low.

What does this Budget mean for people living in my constituency, in Dartford, Swanscombe, Greenhithe and Ebbsfleet? People living across my constituency rely on their excellent district general hospital at Darent Valley, which is full of brilliant, hard-working staff who do their absolute best; however, after 14 years of a Conservative Government, capacity in the hospital has just not kept up with need. Dartford borough was the second fastest growing local authority area in the period covered by the last census, thanks largely to the development of Ebbsfleet Garden City, but investment in services has not kept up with the needs of a growing population. The more than £25 billion announced in the Budget over two years for our health service will cut waiting times, thanks to 40,000 extra elective appointments each week and the capacity for more than 30,000 additional procedures.

Thanks to the new homes in Ebbsfleet and across Dartford, we are also becoming a much younger constituency, as younger couples settle in our community and start families. We warmly welcome these new residents, and I am confident they will welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase the core schools budget by more than £2 billion a year, meaning the recruitment of 6,500 teachers, and the additional £1 billion investment to address the broken special educational needs system in Dartford and across our country. If Conservative Members disapprove of the revenue-raising measures in the Budget, it really is incumbent on them to say which bit of that extra investment they would cut. I am afraid we are back to magic money tree economics—we heard that very clearly from the shadow Chancellor. All these measures form part of our manifesto commitment to break down the barriers to opportunity, of which sadly far too many remain.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the long-term prospects of our country, I hope the whole House will support the Government’s strong focus on boosting public investment by more than £100 billion over the next five years. This is an area where we have been sadly lacking when compared with our international competitors. The announcement has been further enhanced by the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which included proposals to unlock the power of our pension funds to invest in our country.

Against that background, it would be remiss of me not to mention a project that hon. Members across the Chamber might remember me describing in previous contributions as shovel-ready. The proposed new lower Thames crossing is crucial to unlocking the growth that the new Government are seeking, both in the south-east and beyond, and could be started very quickly, with much of the preparatory work already having been undertaken. It would create jobs and unlock investment across the Thames estuary, addressing the largest traffic bottleneck in the UK, and allow freight to move much more easily from ports in the south-east to destinations across the country.

I will end as I began. I recognise that these are difficult decisions and that they will not be welcomed by all; however, we must not duck the tough choices needed to restore the foundations of economic stability in our country and our public services.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. Let us travel back in time to those halcyon days for the Labour party: so confidently predicting victory in the election, so far ahead in the opinion polls and so clear on the prospectus they laid before the British people. It had a fully funded, fully costed programme. When the now Chancellor was challenged about whether she had a full insight into the public finances, she assured the interviewer, if I recall correctly, that absolutely she did. Therefore, people could rely on the cast-iron promise, which all Labour Members stood on, that Labour would not raise national insurance, would not raise income tax, would protect farmers and would not cut pensioners’ benefits. That was the promise.

But it is better than that. It is not just that Labour was not going to bring in all those taxes, but that it was going to make growth their No. 1 mission for a mission-led Government. Those who feared a return to a sort of socialist job-destroying and enterprise-wrecking past could be reassured that this was a moderate party that had put the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) well behind it, no matter how many Labour Members had said he was a great friend and would make a great Prime Minister. They had changed their mind. There was a moderate promise.

It was not only members of the public who were led to believe in the Labour mission and what it could bring for the country. Imagine Labour Members, the people who were selected as candidates for the Labour party, who came in not to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party but to this Labour party of enterprise, protecting workers and encouraging a low-tax system, but doing so in a way that none the less would prioritise the healthcare system, special educational needs children and the like. That was the promise and it did not just beguile many people in the country—although not that many, as only 34% of people actually did vote Labour, but none the less enough. Imagine what it was like—I say this to Opposition Members—to come to this place and be a part of that fantastic crew of hundreds and hundreds of Labour MPs to deliver that manifesto. And where are we now at the historic Second Reading of the Finance Bill of the central policy measures of this new Government. Where are they?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

They have been humiliated in the Budget debate, as one after another repeated their rote words. It was the most intellectually empty Budget debate I have ever taken part in. I listened to Labour Member after Labour Member trot out their “14 years of chaos” and their “£22 billion black hole”.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

It would be entirely wrong of me, given how few Labour Members there are in the Chamber prepared to defend the Budget, if I did not now give way to one of them.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. I wonder if he might use the opportunity to reflect on the economic record of the previous Government, which saw the highest interest rates and inflation through the roof that affected people’s pockets and their ability to get on in life. Will he also reflect on the fact that his party lost the election and perhaps show some humility?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am happy to do so, although it is worth pointing out that we are supposed to reflect today on the actual proposals put forward by the Government of which she is now a member.

But the hon. Lady is right to highlight the Conservative’s economic record. I have a criticism of those of us on the Conservative Benches: I do not think we do enough to talk about it. From 2010 to 2024, which economy in Europe grew the most? Was it Germany or the UK? Oh, it was the UK! Was it France or the UK? Oh, it was the UK! Which country in Europe created 4 million more jobs? For which Government did the horrible scar of youth unemployment, which was a permanent feature even in the good years prior to the crash—for those interested in the history of employment—stay horribly high, with its long-term scarring impact on young people? It was the Labour Government.

All that was turned around. People were paying tax at £6,500 when Labour left power. That was lifted to £12,500. They may be decrying and disowning their part in the coalition Government, but the Liberal Democrats should have some pride in what we were able to do together. We inherited an economic basket case. We brought discipline back. But while we were fixing the foundations, we did not lose sight of the fact that we knew where the wealth comes from. It comes from the private sector, not the public sector—from those small shops, those restaurants, all those other businesses on which the country relies for its wealth. This Budget has gone down and damaged each and every one of them, one by one. It has looked around for targets—the “broad shoulders” for the socialist envy to vent itself on—and who better than landowners?

So the Budget focuses on people. I am not an expert on every area of the economic life of this country, but let us suppose that I looked across the entire economy and tried to find people in private enterprise using their own assets. Where would people have millions of pounds in assets and be prepared to receive a 1% return on them? Who would keep that up, year after year, simply in order to feed the nation as part of a pact—a compact—between them and the Government, indeed the whole country? Who would be prepared to do that, and to feed us, while asking so little in return? Attacking farmers, of all groups in society, is one of the most retrograde and regrettable of attacks.

As my right hon. Friend knows, I worked for a charity for six years—or a decade, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to call it. Would he care to reflect on the damage done to charities by this Government’s Budget? They are already in a squeeze, and the Government have squeezed them further through their decisions on employment rights and also through taxation in the Budget.

We are seeing a kind of socialist envy and attack on misguided targets. For instance, children with special educational needs in private schools will be pulled out of those schools mid-year because their families can no longer afford to send them there. That was not the intent; not only did Labour Members want to stand on an honest prospectus, but that is not, I am sure, what they wanted. Nevertheless, that is what is happening. [Interruption.] It is exactly what is happening.

My hon. Friend is right, however, to point out that this is not just about a class-based assault on people who do not deserve to be assaulted. It is also about sheer ineptitude. Let us consider the £22 billion for the NHS. Why so little for social care? Surely Labour Members, however green and new to the House, must be aware that the NHS depends on the social care system, but because of the increases in national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, its costs are rising by about £2.5 billion and it is getting £600 million. Hospices will be affected, and so will small charities.

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed all other Members, that this is, specifically, a Finance Bill Second Reading debate. We are not having a general debate on the Budget.

I am extremely grateful to you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to refer too much to the impact of national insurance contributions, because we will have that opportunity next Tuesday. None the less, my hon. Friend was right to talk about the impact of this Budget overall, and the effect on hospices and charities in particular.

Yesterday I met the chief executive of HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care. HICA is a brilliant organisation, which has made real progress over the last few years. It finally managed to make a surplus last year, so it can pay its staff more than the minimum wage and invest in its stock. Now it is facing a £3.5 million impact on its £40 million turnover as a result of this Budget and this Finance Bill.

As well as farmers, oil and gas have been touched on today. When I was the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, it always struck me as absurd to look at the production of oil and gas rather than the consumption. It is the consumption that is the problem. We must change our factories, our vehicles, our buildings, so that they no longer need oil and gas if we are to move away from them. Attacking production when it is driven by demand is attacking the wrong end. In this measure, the Labour Government are raising the energy profits levy, on top of refusing to issue new licences. The net effect of that, notwithstanding the Liberal Democrats’ saying that they support the policy—I do not know why or how they can do so—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will in a moment.

This does not make the slightest difference to how much we consume, but it means that we import more from abroad, and, in the case of liquefied natural gas, those imports have embedded emissions four times higher than the emissions of what we produce domestically. We are going to bring this in from places that are less careful than we are in its production. We are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs and £13 billion of tax revenue, and we are going to lose the engineering expertise and companies that we need for the transition. There is literally no way to make that make sense, and I hope the hon. Lady will now do a U-turn and see the logic of my argument.

I will resist that invitation. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the nature of a windfall tax? It raises money on the windfall that a sector was not expecting. We know that the big oil and gas giants base their investment plans on the profits that they were expecting, but clearly they raised a lot more money because of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Windfall taxes have been placed on the big oil and gas giants for the profits over and above what they were expecting to receive.

The hon. Lady did not actually refer to the measure in front of us. I know it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to have a windfall tax on anyone who does not sound popular—big banks, big tech, and oil and gas. That is their answer. If anyone says, “How would you do it?”, they trot that out and lose not a single vote, because the very definition of not taking a tough choice is suggesting that there is easy money.

The measure in front of us, which the hon. Lady specifically said she supported, is not a windfall tax. It is a further tax, in tandem with the removal of any new licences, which effectively destroys investment in the North sea. I point to Apache—which says it is looking to withdraw by 2029, risking 500 jobs—Harbour Energy, JAPEX and Chevron, to name just a few. They are pulling out, and there is no environmental benefit. We are losing all that tax, all those jobs and all that expertise, which is exactly what we need for carbon capture, and for hydrogen, for the green economy. It is utterly insane.

I note that there are very few Labour Members present. I watched them as they came in for the Budget, full of cherry-cheeked enthusiasm and reading out their Whip-prepared rote remarks about the disaster left behind, which, as we know, was the fastest-growing economy in the G7, with inflation at target, debt coming down and the economy coming up. They are not all mad, socialist loons, and day by day we can see them losing spirit in the Tea Room and in the corridors as they realise that the deceit that their Front Benchers practised not only on the people, but on them, is coming home to roost.

The Government will pour all of the £22 billion into the NHS in the next year—it is in the figures—and we are supposed to believe that public services will rise by 1.3% or 1.4% in the rest of the period up to the next general election. Is that credible? It is not. I think Labour Members know that, which is what they have signalled by their absence, because they realise, as we do, that this Finance Bill and the Budget are ruinous for this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was absolutely right to say that they make this country more vulnerable to the shocks that may and most likely will come, and it will be the Labour party that owns the mistakes that are being sown today.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who gave a wonderful maiden speech. I am sure that her daughter Lillian will look on her as a lovely role model as she moves forward.

Earlier this month, we witnessed an historic moment as the first ever female Chancellor delivered the Government’s Budget—a comprehensive plan that is designed to support working people, rebuild our economy and bring fiscal responsibility back to the heart of Government. The Budget delivered a plan for recovery, a plan to undo the damage left by the previous Government and, most importantly, a plan that will benefit the people of Halesowen and the wider community.

However, let us be clear: this Government inherited a dire financial situation. [Interruption.] It is true. The Chancellor exposed a £22 billion black hole that was left by the previous Government, and a series of undeliverable promises that the Conservatives knew they would never have to keep. The last Government knew that they had no money to deliver their agenda, yet they concealed the truth from the British people, leaving the incoming Government to pick up the pieces. The Budget was about sorting this out, and we are committed to doing just that.

Our economy faces multiple challenges, including high debt, underfunded public services and rising youth unemployment, but the true cost of the past 14 years is felt most acutely by the people who have been left behind. In Halesowen I hear from residents every day: people who have been waiting weeks for a doctor’s appointment; people who are forced to travel miles to receive healthcare; and people who are completely unable to access their NHS dentist. Fourteen years of cuts have left our NHS in crisis, and no matter someone’s political affiliation, no one can deny the challenges our health service faces.

But it is not just in healthcare. Our schools, roads, railways—all of this infrastructure—has suffered from years of under-investment. Our public services are falling apart.

It is tempting for Members to read out the rote stuff that is given to them—as some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have been prepared to do, but are mostly not prepared to do today—but I just gently point out that there was never a reduction in NHS spending; in real terms it went up in every single year. If there is a belief that the NHS can be magically turned around by having above-inflation increases in spending alone, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not true, because we did it every year and we still had demand going beyond the resource.

The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we reached record NHS waiting lists under the last Government, more than 7 million people waiting and many of my constituents waiting over two years. If he thinks the investment in the NHS by the last Government was enough, he is completely wrong.

Our roads are literally crumbling, working families are struggling and the hope of upward mobility is slipping further out of reach. We cannot let this continue. The Government are faced with what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as a genuinely difficult inheritance. The truth is that the last 14 years can be described as, at best, a period of managed decline; or at worst, wilful neglect. The last Government will be characterised as an Administration that allowed services to erode and future generations to be abandoned.

We must take a different approach and offer real change. We are not pretending that the work ahead will be easy, but we are determined to rebuild and restore. A key part of this recovery is investing in our most vital public services, especially the NHS, which cannot survive on good will alone. The Budget commits to injecting much-needed funds into our healthcare system, securing a lifeline for the NHS that will allow it to begin this recovery.

The Budget is also about presenting an offer to working people who have been neglected for so many years, including a rise in the minimum wage to boost the living standards of 3 million low-paid workers; NHS funding to support 2 million more operations, scans and appointments every year; fuel duty frozen for another year, providing relief to drivers and families; a £500 million investment to fund the construction of 5,000 more social homes; a significant increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit, because those who care for our loved ones deserve our support; and a crackdown on tax avoidance, fraud and waste, ensuring that the super-wealthy pay their fair share of tax.

The decisions in the Budget, though some are difficult in the short term, are the right ones for the long-term good of our country. This is a Finance Bill that prioritises public services and working people without raising taxes on the majority. It is about restoring fairness, rebuilding trust and setting the country on a new path towards growth. It is also important to remember that fiscal responsibility is central to this Government’s approach. The IFS has praised the soundness of our fiscal rules, ensuring that our efforts to drive growth are sustainable and the public finances remain on a stable footing. Changing the fiscal rule to allow more investment is both sensible and necessary, and this investment will boost long-term growth.

The Bill is not just about recovery; it is about securing a prosperous future. Businesses in Halesowen have been struggling, especially on our high streets, where many have been forced to close their doors in recent years. I have heard the concerns of small business owners and the concerns shared by the Black Country chamber of commerce, and I am pleased that the Chancellor’s plans include support for high street businesses, including business rates reform, which will give local shops the chance to compete against tax-avoiding multinationals.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech highlighting a whole series of important points. I just wondered whether he was going to come to the cut in beer duty. I know there are a number of famous brewers in his area and this is an important measure for many brewing towns—[Interruption.] This is an important point for many brewing towns and many small, related businesses in that sector. I have a number of SMEs in my own constituency that will benefit from this, as well as pubs. Does my hon. Friend welcome this measure, as well as the important measures he has mentioned for small businesses in town centres?

I welcome the 1p reduction in tax on beer. I have spoken to many businesses in my constituency’s hospitality sector, including many pubs, that are happy with this measure, which they hope will increase the footfall in our town centres and in their businesses.

I am also delighted that the Budget confirmed £20 million of investment in the redevelopment of Haden Hill leisure centre in Cradley Heath in my constituency, and £20 million of investment in Halesowen town centre, to redevelop what is becoming a difficult area.

The Bill will ensure that local assets that serve the community are protected and enhanced. It marks a turning point for our country, laying the groundwork for a better future. It is a plan that protects our public services, supports working people and puts the economy on a sustainable path. I fully support this Bill for Halesowen and beyond. It delivers hope, invests in communities and fixes the foundations of the economy, so that we can deliver the change for which the country voted.

This Finance Bill is bad news for my Woking constituency. In the Budget, the Government announced an extra £1.3 billion for local authorities. That might sound good, but the reality is stark. Inflation, rising wages and increased demand for services mean that councils are facing a £6.2 billion funding gap over the next two years. By failing to provide adequate funding in this Budget and Finance Bill, the Government are pushing some councils to the brink of bankruptcy.

The situation is even worse in Woking, as our local authority has already gone bankrupt. Woking borough council, a small authority in a two-tier structure, is carrying £2.1 billion-worth of debt. Members can guess which political party ran the council at the time: the Conservatives. It is an eye-watering figure, and taxpayers should never be put in the position of footing such a bill, but they will have to shoulder it. As part of the Government intervention in Woking, the borough council will have to sell a lot of its assets to try to pay off the debt. However, at current values, those assets are worth £1 billion, which is a huge gap that puts the council in massive negative equity.

The Government like to talk about a £22 billion black hole, but I fear the black hole is worse than they realise. To understand these issues, Ministers need to look at local government bad debt and off-balance-sheet debt. It is quite possible that my local authority alone will not repay £1 billion of debt that this Finance Bill assumes will be repaid. Woking is just one local authority in one constituency out of 650. This Finance Bill makes mistakes, but it could be even worse if it is built on flawed foundations.

One way for my constituency to get out of the mess we have inherited is to grow the town, so that our economy grows and improves. However, I worry that this Budget and Finance Bill undermine that goal. The measures go after small businesses, which are the lifeblood of my high street and community. I am particularly concerned that the increase in alcohol duty will hit small breweries, such as Thurstons in my constituency.

Like many of my constituents and neighbours, I use buses all the time. Buses are a lifeline for us. The £2 fare cap was helpful during the cost-of-living crisis and encouraged people back on to the buses after the covid pandemic. However, the Government are now scrapping it. A resident from Knaphill told me:

“The rise is concerning. With a £1 increase each way, it will put even more strain on pensioners like me.”

It amounts to an extra £500 a year for someone who commutes by bus every day. That is a huge burden at a time when households and families in my constituency and elsewhere are already struggling.

Buses are not just a convenience or a luxury; they are the backbone of local economies, connecting people to work, schools, colleges, shops and healthcare. If this Government are serious about economic growth, they should be investing in buses, not hitting passengers with what is effectively a bus tax on working people. In their election campaign, the Labour party promised not to increase taxes on workers, but this Budget and Finance Bill do just that. At a time when people are facing the worst cost of living crisis in decades, this Finance Bill increases the tax burden on everyone.

The Liberal Democrat manifesto and our reasoned amendment show that there is a fairer way. We have bold plans to properly fund the NHS, social care and other public services by asking big banks, oil and gas giants and big tech companies to pay their fair share. Our plan is ambitious, which is what this country needs; Labour’s Budget does not come close. The Finance Bill does not go far enough to protect people and the services that they rely on.

The Government need to get their priorities right. The Liberal Democrats are against the Bill because it does not effectively tackle the crisis in social care, or reverse cuts to winter fuel support. It does not support people with the cost of living crisis, and it introduces a shocking tax on education. Woking deserves better, and this country deserves better.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her phenomenal maiden speech. She is already proving to be a powerful advocate for her constituents.

The Finance Bill is a necessary corollary to the Budget. It is the beginning of a process that the new Labour Government are undertaking to rebuild the foundations of our country, after an incredibly poor inheritance from the predecessor Government. I have been quite shocked to hear the joy with which Conservative Members have been speaking about the phenomenal economy that they left the country with. It is an economy in which wage growth has flatlined at the lowest level since the Napoleonic wars, leaving households £10,000 worse off per person. Trade has fallen 15% lower than our neighbours’, and national debt went from 64% in 2010 to 96% just before the pandemic. I know they love blaming the pandemic for everything, but things were pretty bad before the pandemic. The heart of the problem is that the Conservatives lack credibility.

In 2010, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) stood for election on a manifesto that said that the Conservatives would “eliminate” the deficit by the end of the Parliament. In 2015, he stood for election on a manifesto that said the same thing, as he did in 2017. In 2019, he and his colleagues decided to give up entirely on tackling the national debt, which is one of many things that we now have to tackle. Of course, that was the more rational end of the previous 14 years, and there were seven Chancellors in 14 years, by the way. We had the blip, which I know Conservative Members do not like talking about, when one of their Chancellors, with the backing of a Prime Minister, Liz Truss, promised £45 billion—2% of GDP—of unfunded tax cuts. I am incredulous that the Conservatives were talking about gilts earlier. Gilts moved more in one week under Liz Truss than in a whole year on average. There is no comparison—

Order. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I asked Members to return to debating the Finance Bill, rather than the rather context of the Budget.

I was, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tried to intervene on the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness a number of times, but he would not give way, so I felt I had to squeeze in a couple of points before getting to the Finance Bill.

The Finance Bill includes many important measures that I support. The freeze on fuel duty is an important and welcome decision by the Chancellor. The Conservatives imposed a stealth tax on the country by freezing thresholds on income tax, and the Chancellor rightly committed to changing that in 2028. It was a revenue-raising Budget, but despite all the changes, we will have capital gains and corporation tax rates that are very competitive with those of our G7 colleagues.

My constituency needs this Budget because it needs stability. It needs the investment that this Budget will bring. That investment is crucial because the legacy that I talked about spanned a number of areas, including a lack of public investment. The Institute for Public Policy Research said that nearly £500 billion less was invested in the public sector than in comparable economies, as we can see in our public services, hospitals and schools. The Budget was about choices. It was a difficult Budget, and not a perfect Budget, because of the inheritance. We have to deal with the facts. There was disagreement on the Budget, but people who disagree with the revenue-raising measures and agree with the spending have to say what taxes they would have increased. I say gently to Liberal Democrat colleagues, who have found other sources of income, that the Institute for Fiscal Studies effectively said that their plans to raise income elsewhere had no real credibility.

This is a difficult Budget, but it is the beginning of plotting a course for stability, economic growth and investment in public services in our country. That is what my constituents very much hope will be the legacy.

It is a very long-standing principle, observed all but universally around the world, that we do not tax education, because it is a public good. Some families find that independent education caters to needs that the state simply does not; that is the case with schools in the music and dance scheme or in certain faith communities. In some cases, a family chooses an independent school because of their child’s special needs—or because, for whatever reason, that is the place where their child can be happy. Whatever the circumstances and whatever the reason, we believe in the sanctity of the principle of parental choice. Many places around the world recognise the value of that choice through the tax system. This country is not one of them. There is no tax break for using independent education providers. Everybody contributes—[Interruption.] Does someone want to make an intervention? I would love to hear it.

I thank the right hon. Member for inviting me to intervene. I remind him that the IFS has confirmed that there is enough capacity in the state sector for the transfer of pupils. Also, on the point of special educational needs—

Thank you.

Order. The right hon. Member will know full well that it is for me to decide if the hon. Lady’s intervention is too long.

The right hon. Member may also recognise that the Government have been clear that when special educational needs are being met in the private sector, VAT will not apply.

On three counts, I am afraid that is incorrect. First, it does not cover everybody with special needs at a private school. Secondly, the IFS has not said that there is ample space in state schools, nor could it possibly know that. Thirdly, and most importantly, the point on which I was heckled, and on which I invited somebody to intervene, was a completely different one. My point was that unlike in quite a large number of countries, here there is no tax break for those using independent education providers. Everybody contributes towards state education through general taxation; if we take up a private school place, that contribution does not reduce.

In the modelling that goes with the Finance Bill, the Government say that they expect a little over £1.5 billion to be raised from the measure in maturity. We do not know the detail of the modelling and how robust the analysis is. However, I agree, intuitively, with the Treasury that a small part of the effect will be felt immediately in January, but that the effect will really start from September 2025. It will be felt gradually, through some children leaving the independent sector; the bigger effect will probably be from those who do not start in the independent sector in the first place, or who do not start their next phase of education in the sector.

I am not totally clear from what the Treasury has published whether it factors in all the effects of the change. It obviously factors in families who are directly priced out of the independent sector, but what about those who are indirectly displaced, because they were at a school where a number of other families were priced out and the school had to close? Does it factor in the higher number of education, health and care plan applications that will be made, and the much higher than average per-place cost that the state will have to meet for those displaced?

I am also unclear whether the Treasury’s analysis looks at all the effects on independent education cumulatively. Yes, there is the VAT, which is in the Finance Bill, but there are also a number of other measures being taken this year that materially affect the cost base of independent schools, and that is likely to be reflected in fees. They include the increased contribution to the teacher pension scheme; business rates changes, which affect about half of independent schools; and the massive hike in employer national insurance contributions, which will affect so many sectors.

All those are transfers from the independent state sector to the Exchequer, so the real increase in the cost base for that sector will be considerably more than 20% over the course of the year. In the Minister’s summing up, I would love her to tell us what assumption was made about the total average price increase. Whatever it was, the Government calculate that, in the policy’s maturity, 37,000 children will be displaced from the independent sector, and of those, 35,000 will go to the state sector. Ministers say, “Don’t worry; there are loads of places available in the state sector.” In fact, the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) suggested that a third party had said that as well, and the Exchequer Secretary said it again in his remarks. He said that we are talking about 0.5% of the total population in state schools. It is useless to have places available in primary schools in inner London if that is not the age group of people leaving the independent sector. The effect will be uneven across the country, and need is concentrated largely in secondary schools and sixth forms.

There are plenty of places where even a small number of children being displaced from one sector to the other could have a big effect on the state school system. What discussions have Ministers had with colleagues, and with councils in Salford, Stockport, Sale, Bury, Bedford, Bristol and so on? I could name considerably more. What contingency plans are in place?

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I take it that means that he has not had those conversations. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from him. What contingency plans are in place for September if the displacement is greater than anticipated? We know that the money will follow the pupil if more pupils turn up in the state sector, but we have not heard whether that money is coming out of general Exchequer receipts—in other words, that the Department for Education will not be expected to find that money from elsewhere in its budget. Similarly, what are the contingency plans, and what capital has been set aside in case extra capital funding is needed? As well as the displacement of pupils, there is also potential displacement of teachers, as we have heard from the unions.

As the right hon. Gentleman encouraged me to intervene, I will agree that there will be a movement of teachers from the private sector back to the state sector. As a former teacher, I know a number of former colleagues who left the state sector because of the failings of the last Conservative Government, and they are considering going back into state education only because of the hope that the new Labour Government have given them.

Well, we shall see. As a teacher, he will know that teachers move between the state and independent sectors all the time. They move in both directions, but that is not what the Association of School and College Leaders was talking about. It was talking about the fact that the change is being made mid-year, and said that it carried a risk of redundancies, and of the permanent loss of teachers to the profession.

Labour Members—the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is one of them—frequently like to say to Opposition Members that we have to choose. They say: “Are you on the side of the many or the few? Are you with 94% or the 6%?”. Well, we refuse to choose. It is not a question of whether we care about the 94% or the 6%. We care about the 100%—all the children. It is definitely true and right that at the Department for Education—this was true when I was a Minister there—Ministers spend way more than 94% of their time and effort on the state sector. In our time in government, between 2010 and 2024, that paid off with huge results. When we supported our brilliant teachers in their great work, our results went up. We went from 27th in the world to 11th for maths, and from 25th in the world to 13th for reading. We had the best primary school readers in the western world. Free school meal eligible children were 50% more likely to go on to university, and the number of schools rated less than good was down from one in three to fewer than one in 10. That was through supporting teachers, academy trusts, a broad knowledge-rich curriculum and the propagation and spread—from school to school and teacher to teacher—of proven methods, such as maths mastery and synthetic phonics.

Yes, the system does also need money. Per-pupil funding under the last Government was higher than it was under previous Labour Governments. Among the G7 nations, it was middle of the range in cash per child, and the highest as a proportion of national income. Of course, we have to keep increasing the resourcing that we put into key services, none more so than education, but the Conservatives did that as a priority from general taxation, not by taking from another part of the wider education system. I repeat: the Government do not have to choose. These are all children.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his comment that all the education spending that he mentioned came from general taxation? My understanding is that the figures that he just quoted include the student loan system.

No, they do not. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the OECD figures, they are for primary, secondary and college-based education in the state sector, but I am grateful to him for his intervention.

When Government Members talk about “the 6%” in the same tone in which they sometimes talk about “the 1%”, I think they believe that they are about to topple the toffs and achieve some sort of great victory in the class war. They are not. Eton college will not miss a heartbeat over this measure. The pupils who will be hit will be those in smaller town schools—the ones that are significant employers locally and a big part of the local community. They do not have big endowments; they do have pretty thin margins. Schools that cater to children with special educational needs will be hit. Denominational schools will be hit.

There have been some concessions from the Government. They are not the most massive concessions in the world, but they are not nothing either. We should acknowledge them, and I thank the Government for them. The first is on the music and dance scheme, with extra help for families with children at the schools in question, albeit that the concession will benefit only a little less than half the total number of families in what is a means-tested scheme anyway. There is also the confirmation that centres for advanced training will be exempt, and of what the Government plan to do on the continuity of education allowance. We need to ensure that those mitigations are more comprehensive than they are now, and that they become permanent.

Of course, the Opposition would prefer the Government to drop this measure altogether and not be the international outlier by taxing education, but if they are determined to bulldoze on, we must have key changes in Committee. We must have an exemption for all children with an EHCP—not only if it specifies the individual school—children who have SEN support, and those who are currently applying for an EHCP. We must have exemptions for schools whose fees are lower than the average charge in the state sector, and for religious denominations where there is no faith school provision in the state sector.

I do not accept the notion that, as Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, members of religious faith communities are not discriminated against by this measure. It may well be that, as a whole, people of faith are not discriminated against more than others because the vast majority of people of religious faith are in the state sector anyway, where there are plenty of Catholic schools, Anglican schools and other denominational schools, but it is not credible in the slightest to claim that there is no discrimination, and that the effect will not be felt much more strongly by members of certain traditions within Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

We also need key postponements. Children who are already in public exam years, or the year before public exams, cannot have their education disrupted in this way. The school that they move to may not even offer the same GCSEs or A-levels, the same exam board or the same syllabus. Most significantly of all, the Government must for good reasons, including simple practical reasons, at least postpone the introduction of the measure in areas where state schools are already full, or almost full, at that stage of education, because the biggest effect of this divisive, destructive tax attack will be on state schools. It will be felt in class sizes, and ultimately in all parents’ ability to get the preferred choice of school for their child.

I pay tribute to Conservative Members for embracing their role in opposition. They are throwing their whole heart into it, and it is wonderful to see them in their rightful place—long may it continue.

I am the Member for Darlington, where a quarter of the Treasury is based, and my wonderful home town is filled with people from all walks of life. We share the unifying belief that despite our rich railway heritage we do not like to be taken for a ride. The coalition of people who elected me came from every part of the town, from people working two jobs, worried about keeping their children fed, right across to people earning six figures who voted Labour for the first time because they were worried about the lack of opportunities for their children to succeed. The people in that coalition lead different lives but agree completely on their reasons for voting Labour. Their reason was the same as for those up and down the country who voted for Labour for the first time in droves: the Conservatives had crashed our economy and stifled growth, and all those people were worse off because of it.

As a member of the prestigious Treasury Committee, I am privileged to hear the views of the top economic leaders in our country. Their advice is clear: growth and investment require economic stability, and this Finance Bill will deliver economic stability. Our Labour Government were elected to offer industry and the markets the assurances they need that Britain is back in business. The Bill does just that. Our Labour Government were elected to ensure that people in every corner of the country can be better off. This Finance Bill will create the conditions to do just that. Our Labour Government were elected to get our children’s future back—a future that they can be excited about, with a life filled with opportunities, prosperity and public services that work when they need them. The Bill is essential to deliver just that.

I am proud to stand here to champion a Bill that will create the conditions for long-term investment in my area. The huge amount of investment from big business that this Government have already crowded in is testament to the fantastic reputation our country has on the global stage—a reputation that the last three Prime Ministers nearly destroyed. While the Conservatives chopped and changed their leaders, Chancellors and policies, the markets, business leaders and global investors stepped back. They watched and waited to see if the new Prime Minister knew what they were doing, or if the next new Prime Minister had the backing of their colleagues. They watched and waited to see the new Prime Minister’s long-term vision for the country, but scandal after disastrous scandal led them to lose confidence—

Order. The hon. Lady should sit when I am on my feet. This needs to be a debate about the Finance Bill, not other matters, and certainly not a general debate on the Budget again.

The Conservatives stopped answering the phone to Labour; the industry ghosted them; and then the country rejected them. But, on the Finance Bill, not 100 days into this new Labour Government, Britain is back open for business with billions of pounds of investment in green technology, new nuclear, solar and hydro projects being given the go-ahead, and a whopping £63 billion of private investment crowded in. Tough choices were taken to fix the foundations and to stabilise the economy—choices only necessary because of the incompetence, inertia and wilful ignorance of the last Government. To govern is to choose, and I am proud to have chosen to stabilise the economy, invest in net zero and energy independence, balance the books and begin to rebuild our public services, all in the service of working people. This House will pass the Bill; the economy will be stabilised; and every corner of our great country will be better off, and not a moment too soon.

It is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the Bill. I would have thought it would be a pleasure enjoyed by many more people on the Government Benches. Last time I checked—it has been a while since I was at university—it was quite important to have constituents’ views heard on the Finance Bill and the Budget. It is scandalous how quiet the Government Benches are. We will have in the order of eight Labour speeches today, which is just unbelievable. If one were a Unionist, and I am not—[Interruption.] Was that an intervention? No, it was not. If I were, this would be an opportunity. The Government had an opportunity, with the mandate they had, to create a Budget for change, but this Budget will leave millions worse off.

The Budget last month had some moments of cheer in it, and I will touch on them now because it will not take long. There is scope within the Finance Bill for increased investment, which the SNP has called for. There is scope within the Budget for increased funding for the NHS all across the United Kingdom; again, the SNP has called for that, and it is welcome to see. Tackling the most elite of all the elites, the non-doms, is also welcome, as is the ambition to tackle the scourge of vapes.

Thereafter, though, we get into serious difficulty. I will start with the Bill’s clauses 15 to 18, a further and final attack on North sea oil and gas, Scotland’s natural endowment. The UK has drawn hundreds of billions of pounds from the North sea over the course of my lifetime, the past 50 years. It is almost as though the UK is addicted to it—so much so that it is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The Government are hiking taxes, eroding allowances and driving investment from the North sea, including precisely the businesses that we need to drive the just transition to net zero in the places where we need them. What other state would attack one of its own industries in this way? It beggars belief. It will come home to roost in spades, and it will not shift the dial one bit towards the net zero future that we are trying to get to. The oil and gas that is being displaced from the Scottish sector by this Government’s ineptitude will be replaced by oil and gas from other jurisdictions, where the tax will be paid and where, doubtless, human rights are very much worse.

Clause 61 contains the universally detested provisions on agricultural property relief. The way in which this Government have manipulated the figures to justify this mendacious attack on one of the most noble professions anywhere in the world, and certainly across these islands, is simply unbelievable, as is the idea that 70% of farms will not be affected by these provisions. The fact that the Government habitually quote a circumstance in which two parents bequeath a farm at the same time—which almost never happens—shows that they themselves know that they are on shaky ground. If the problem is non-farming enterprises investing in the purchase of agricultural land in tax-efficient ways, tax that. That is what the Government should have had the bravery to do. There is no material enrichment from inheriting the family farm—other Members have talked today about the return on capital employed in farming being miserably low. It is as much a vocation as it is an employment, and we should never forget that the product of what farmers do feeds us all. It is ridiculous, single-minded, myopic nonsense from another dysfunctional, fiscally incompetent Labour Government who would not know which way up was if somebody did not point it out to them.

Because farms are a business, we can add the imposition across the economy of the increase in employer’s national insurance charges. If that were not enough, the Government have stuck the boot in on four-door pick-ups, turning them into family cars for taxation purposes. Pick-ups are the backbone of the agricultural economy, but it seems that nothing is off limits for this Labour Government when it comes to sticking the boot into agriculture. What Government seriously take on the people who produce our food? I remind the Government—I am guessing, but I am pretty certain that they will not know—that malting barley is the prime ingredient in the Scotch whisky industry, which again produces billions for the UK Exchequer.

On the topic of the Scotch whisky industry, does the hon. Member agree that increasing the levy by 3.65%, so that a bottle of whisky now has £12 of tax added before it is even out of the door, is another attack on one of Scotland’s main industries?

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. That is absolutely right, and I am going to touch on that topic a little later.

We see in clause 75 that the rates of landfill tax are going up by 25%. I wonder what discussions Government Ministers have had with local authorities on the impact of this increase. It would be just like this Government to not have put two and two together and realised that it will be a significant upward pressure on costs for councils.

Clause 78 deals with high-sugar drinks. A public health emergency exists in this country—in this state—and the Government are proposing to increase the tax on high-sugar drinks from 24p per litre to £2.59 per 10 litres. That is scarcely an increase at all. A tax of 24p per litre is going up to 25.9p per litre, an increase of 1.9p per litre. We do not sell sugary drinks in litres, we sell them in 330 ml cans, so that is an increase of 0.6p per can. Are the Government kidding? It is a public health emergency—the clue is in the title. Have they got no ambition at all?

This Bill, and the Budget that led up to it, will impose billions of pounds of tax rises and cuts that will hit working Scots in the pocket. We see our old folk freezing in their houses as a result of this Bill and the Budget that underpins it. As a result of the Bill, young people will be chasing fewer and fewer jobs with lower and lower wages. The CBI said this week that the tax rises in the Budget had sent businesses into “crisis containment” and “damage control”, because this Chancellor’s £40 billion raid on businesses is the single biggest tax increase since Norman Lamont’s in 1993. The Chancellor’s decisions hinge on 2% departmental efficiencies that will never ever be realised—we know this because it has never ever been done—so further cuts are coming down on top of these taxes.

This is pure fiscal poison for communities and businesses across these islands. The Government are inflicting the same pain on the Northern hotel in Brechin, Perthshire Timber and Montrose port as they are inflicting on Nissan and Tesco. I am not implying that it is fine for big business and bad for small business; this is a “one size fits nobody” Finance Bill, and the Budget that goes along with it is the same. The clawback that they are applying to the devolved nations, which the Exchequer Secretary would not speak about earlier, does not come close to meeting the cost of the national insurance increase. There is £300 million of compensation for the Scottish Government, who are facing a £750 million exposure, and that is the nature of what this Government are doing. What of the reward for this fiscal pain? Lower growth in the economy, lower profits, increased debt, lower investment, lower wages, falling output, capital flight and the risk of default as the ultimate conclusion. It is almost as though the Chancellor has forgotten that her job is to run the economy, not ruin the economy.

This would be a matter for separate debate—I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to test your patience—but the raid on employer’s national insurance will devastate small businesses, charities and the care sector. It will cost Scottish public services—the public sector with direct employees in Scotland— £600 million, and when we include the partner agencies working with our NHS and our care services, that figure will be very much higher. Supermarkets and other retailers have also said that the inevitable result of the Chancellor’s changes will be higher prices for consumers. The Government make great play about not raising taxes, but it amounts to the same thing when wages are suppressed and prices are going up.

As the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned, the duty on Scotch whisky has been hiked in this Bill, which the industry has called an “indefensible tax grab”. This was despite Labour’s leader in Scotland—for Labour Members’ interest, he is a gentleman called Anas Sarwar—claiming that he spoke to the Chancellor about it. I would be very interested to know about that conversation, but perhaps it was: “Is it okay if I hike up duties, Anas?” with the reply, “Yes, no bother, Chancellor. You carry on.”

One of the glaring omissions in the Bill is any provision for the WASPI women. It is of course welcome that the Budget will address the great impositions put on people affected by the infected blood scandal and on postmasters. However, those were caused by the Post Office, or the NHS and others, whereas the WASPI women issue was caused by the UK Government. That great tragedy was caused by the Government, yet it is the one that is not addressed in this Bill or in the broader Budget.

It is therefore little wonder that polling in Scotland last week showed that 75% of Scots feel they are going to be worse off, or certainly no better off, as a result of the Budget. Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, supermarkets, farms, pubs and telecom providers have all warned that these decisions will be inflationary.

Does the hon. Member think it was fiscally responsible for the SNP Finance Secretary to have used all of the £460 million from offshore wind? He has spoken a lot about this Government, but does he think that that was appropriate?

To my great regret, I am not entirely sure what the hon. Member is talking about. If she would like, I am very happy to catch up with her afterwards. We can find out exactly what is concerning her, and I will make sure she has all the facts she needs.

Just when mortgage payers thought things were going to stabilise and that the worst of the last UK Government’s fiscal incompetence was over, the major banks have been talking since the Budget about an increase in the rates they are able to offer.

Many hon. Members have talked about what was said before the election, and what has come to pass after it, but during the election the Prime Minister promised that there would be a £300 reduction in energy prices. We have seen that that is not the case, and that energy prices are £149 higher and will go up by £21 in January. There is a £470 honesty tax on energy bills across the United Kingdom as a result of what people were told was going to happen before the election, and what has come to pass at the hands of this Labour Government.

The hon. Gentleman talks about honesty. It sounds like he has read our manifesto, so did we say that we would reduce energy prices by November 2024? Did we say that we would raise the minimum wage, and did we do it?

I am pleased with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I can only assume he was a used car salesman in a previous life. We need to read the small print from Labour: “We will reduce your energy bill by £300. Terms and conditions apply.” Honestly, you couldn’t make it up—[Interruption.] I think they are probably speaking to the hon. Gentleman, rather than me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Things do not end with the honesty tax I mentioned. This is a serious point, because 900,000 pensioners in Scotland will be stripped of their winter fuel payment in the coldest part of these islands, without so much as a by your leave to the Scottish Government—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not—we have touched on a number of issues there. In closing, earnings are set to grow by just 1.6% in real terms over this Parliament as a result of the Bill and the Budget that goes with it, and that will extend the UK’s long pay stagnation. The Resolution Foundation has found that

“By 2028, average weekly earnings are set to be just £13 higher than they were in 2008.”

Furthermore, the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:

“Labour’s spending plans after 2025-26 are unlikely to survive contact with reality”

Those are—[Interruption.] I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) because he has goaded me.

The Government have taken the difficult decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance and protect the poorest pensioners, but my understanding is that that is a devolved power in Scotland. The Scottish Government could have made the decision to use the resources they have, perhaps from wind as was discussed, to extend the allowance to more pensioners in Scotland, but they did not. They decided to enforce that cut in Scotland when they could have taken a different path, particularly given the additional uplift of money that has come from this Budget.

I do not know the hon. Gentleman. I have never set eyes on him, but I will make the assumption that he is a Scottish Labour MP. I do not know who he is, because he has only just appeared in the Chamber, despite the fact that we are two and a half hours into the debate—[Interruption.] We have heard a lot from the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) as well. The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Scottish Government will do about the winter fuel payment, so let me tell him for the next time he is an apologist for the United Kingdom. The Labour Government devolved control over the winter fuel payment, and then effectively took the budget away by cutting it for pensioners elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is the trap of devolution. He does not want to see it, but I can see it fine. I do not know it, so I do not know how he knows what the Scottish Government will do regarding the winter fuel payment, and what targeted support they will provide in the winter ahead. One thing for sure, however, is that whoever in Scotland is standing up for pensioners, it certainly will not be the Labour party.

In closing, it is no surprise that the Bill and the Budget hold nothing but pain for communities, services and business in Scotland. Labour takes Scotland for granted. The Labour Government even ignore representations from their Westminster apologists with Scottish constituencies who sit on their own Benches. This is another tragic Budget for Scotland, and another push factor inexorably moving us closer to independence—at least the Budget is good for one thing.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on a fantastic maiden speech. I am sure that her expertise in the tech sector will be an asset to this place.

I welcome the ability to contribute to the debate on the Finance Bill. I am wholly supportive of the measures announced in the Budget that form the legislation. After 14 years of Conservative mismanagement of our economy and the country, the public spoke on 4 July and gave a clear mandate to repair the dire circumstances we found ourselves in that left my constituents footing the bill.

The electorate knew and showed at the ballot box that they were in dire need of a grown-up Government that would not shy away from the hard decisions. We have heard many contributions from Opposition Members setting out the things they do not like about the Budget. If they support the benefits of the Budget, we have not heard much about how they would fund those measures or what they would cut.

My constituents voted for a Government who would finally ensure, after years of failure, that we would grow our economy, lower the tax burden on working people and restore the fantastic public services that once upon a time made this country a world leader. My constituents understand that there are difficult decisions to be made. They know that government is about making choices and deciding what country we want to be in the future. They made their decision at the ballot box, doing away with the Conservatives.

My constituents chose to no longer be a country with crumbling roads, a country that dipped in and out of recession, a country with low investment ultimately steered by the hands of the Conservatives in a chaotic fashion that clobbered their living standards. They voted for Labour, and with that they decided that they wanted to live in a country with monumental investment in its national health service, which will reduce waiting lists—we are already seeing the benefits of that—and rebuild key hospitals such as Leighton hospital in my constituency. They want to be in a country where their work is rewarded fairly and where minimum wage increases will put £1,400 a year into their pockets. Not only that; they want to live in a country—

Order. I am going to make the request that I have made at least twice—this could be third time or the fourth. Please can Members debate the Finance Bill’s Second Reading, which is what we have on the Order Paper this afternoon? This is not a general debate on the Budget. We debated the Budget several weeks ago and we cannot keep covering old ground.

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am about to move on to points covered by the Finance Bill.

My constituents want to live in a country that levels the playing field and ensures that working families have as much opportunity at all stages of their life, regardless of their postcode or their background. That is why I support the Government’s decision to end VAT relief on private schools, aiming to equalise educational opportunities. I know that many families work hard to send their child to private school, but I have never met a constituent who does not work hard just to make ends meet, and their children also deserve the very best education that our country can provide. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Conservative Members say “Hear, hear!” but we do not often hear them advocating for state schools.

As a former state school pupil with three daughters in a state school, let me assure the hon. Member that, despite the caricature that sometimes he and others like to paint, not all Conservative Members are privately educated. I say to him quietly that it is not a choice of either/or; we want to see excellence and choice in education right across the board. It is not one against the other.

I thank the hon. Member for making that intervention. He says that it is not a choice between one and the other, but for 14 years under the previous Government we heard his side talk about state schools having to make difficult decisions and tighten their belts. As the husband of a state schoolteacher, I know that our state schools were severely underserved by the previous Government. The money generated by ending the VAT relief on private schools will be vital to recruit the 6,500 more teachers that we need in our state schools and to roll out free breakfast clubs across the country, to ensure that no child in education goes hungry.

Does the hon. Member know how many additional teachers were recruited in the last Parliament without putting VAT on private education? Does he know how many breakfast clubs are already in state schools in this country? There are thousands of them, thanks to the national school breakfast programme.

We have heard lots of contributions from the Opposition Benches about the fantastic record of the previous Government, but that does not stand up to the lived reality of our constituents. That is exactly why we saw the result that we had in the general election. The sooner Opposition Members come to terms with that result, the better.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am sorry, but I have given way several times already.

I welcome the Government going even further in the Bill to level the playing field and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take the heaviest burden. That is why we need the legislation to close loopholes such as the non-dom status, change the furnished holiday lettings tax regime and provide more resources to HMRC to tackle the tax gap. That will help us address the financial black hole that the Conservative party clearly had no regard for, claims does not exist and has failed to apologise for. The Bill will allow us to fix what the Leader of the Opposition admitted today were broken foundations. I believe that the Government’s Budget and the Bill will be a vital starting point on a long road to recovery for this country. I commend the Government for their work and support this Bill’s progression through the House.

May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her excellent maiden speech? Not only will her daughter have been inspired by her words, but so too will countless other young women.

I must declare a personal financial interest in relation to independent school fees. I want to start by telling a story of aspiration, sacrifice and hard work. This story was told to me by a parent who is going into Christmas feeling devastated. They have worked tirelessly, missing valuable time with their child, and sacrificing holidays and any form of luxury because of an aspiration to give their child an education that otherwise would have been out of reach. This parent said to me, “I am not a rich person; I hustle every day to make the money I need to send my child to this school.” This parent will now see all those sacrifices come to nothing, as her child faces the upheaval of moving schools in the middle of the academic year.

Let us imagine that child’s first day in their new state school, their school year having been disrupted, and their efforts to catch up on the missed learning as a consequence of being forced to change schools part way through the academic year. They join 35,000 other students across the country who are expected to do the same as a consequence of this policy. Their classroom sizes swell as the promise of 6,500 new teachers remains years away from becoming a reality, and the school struggles to stretch its existing budget to accommodate the new intake. There are not enough textbooks, computers or teachers.

Let us imagine the child with special educational needs and disabilities. Their routine having been overhauled, they start to fall behind in their class. Despite the very best efforts of their teachers, who want to provide the extra support so desperately needed, they simply do not have the bandwidth. The consequences of that are children’s future prospects slipping through their fingers every day, because the school they now attend has not been adequately resourced for the arrival of them and their fellow new classmates.

Imagine being the parents of these children. They are not rich; they just want the best for their child. As a consequence of one ill-conceived, ideologically driven policy, that dream has been snatched away, with no consideration of the impact it will have on families, on schools and on teachers, who will be left redundant.

While the Government speak of a hope to bring aspiration to all, their policy to charge VAT on independent school fees will do the precise opposite. It will not deliver high standards across the board. This is not a policy that lifts up; on the contrary, it will deliver the worst for all children. It is the very definition of levelling down.

A Government cannot be expected to get things right all the time, but it is not unreasonable to expect a Government to recognise when they have got something wrong. It is not unreasonable to expect a Government to hold up their hands and to pause, reflect and recalibrate. If the Government’s true endeavour is to bring about policies for positive change, they must be willing to recognise when they need to change course, and this is that moment. I ask the Government to demonstrate some moral courage, admit that they have erred and abandon this policy of folly.

The Budget that was presented to the House will turn the page on what has been a chaotic few years under the last Government. It is also an opportunity for my constituents to welcome a Budget that demonstrates a responsible Government who will take tight fiscal rules seriously. The truth is that economic growth comes when there is financial stability, and the first step towards financial stability is to ensure that the books are balanced.

This Budget protects working people from higher taxes in their payslips and provides an increase in the national minimum wage, which my constituents will absolutely benefit from. It speaks volumes that the majority of the time spent by Opposition Members has focused on a subsidy that used to exist for private schools and now does not because this Government are ensuring that we invest in the state sector.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No. I can tell those Members that when additional money is spent on the state sector, it improves the life chances and opportunities of my constituents.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she identify which subsidy she is talking about?

I am talking about the VAT relief that existed for private schools. [Interruption.] Yes, it was a subsidy. Politics is full of choices, and a Government’s first responsibility is to ensure that they balance the books. If a Government are responsible, they will invest in decent public services and create conditions for economic stability. I want to concentrate on that final point for a moment. We have heard remarks from Opposition Members on small and medium-sized businesses; I say to those Members that when I speak to local businesses in Barking, they say that the economic instability over the past few years is what has created pressure for them.

I welcome, in particular, the Government’s tax announcements on non-dom loopholes. The Government changing the residential base means they will increase revenue by almost £13 billion. The rate changes on capital gains mean we will maintain our position as having the lowest capital gains tax of any European G7 economy. These measures are a collection of decisions that show we are prioritising investment in public services, alongside an absolute commitment from the Government to create economic stability to achieve the future growth that this country deserves.

I will speak about the impact of the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy on people and businesses in my constituency, and on the UK as a whole, in terms of the energy security the Government are meant to ensure and the Government’s ever-more ambitious decarbonisation targets, which are being put at risk.

The Chancellor’s decision to increase the EPL rate to 38% and extend it to 2030, while also removing investment allowances, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our energy sector—indeed, the global energy sector—and the communities here that depend on it. According to Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, 100,000 energy-related jobs across the UK, but disproportionately in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, are being put at risk because of the changes. The OBR’s figures project that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, with oil production down 6.3% and gas production down 9.2%. For businesses across my constituency, that means fewer contracts, reduced investment and diminishing opportunities. Or to put it another way: fewer jobs, fewer prospects and more redundancies.

What is incomprehensible about the changes to the EPL is that they make no economic sense. Studies by Offshore Energies UK show that the changes will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost tax revenue—£12 billion. If the Chancellor is so convinced that she is in a hole, maybe not digging deeper would be a good idea. The OEUK put that down to a rapid decline in production due to under-investment. While we are still going to use oil and gas for years to come, the Government are therefore choosing to take it from overseas producers where there are low environmental credentials and worse employment standards, rather than from the UK where we will be able to increase employment, secure employment, help our tax revenues and secure our economic growth both locally and nationally.

Labour’s changes in the Budget will see a wholly punitive regime, with the effective tax rate being 78% on oil and gas companies—the highest of any comparable off-sea mature basin. What other industry in the UK would be expected to deliver something as fundamental as our heating, lighting or transport fuel—indeed, energy to ensure the NHS can operate and schools can run—while also being taxed to such an extent that the Government are driving away investment in a sector so crucial to our national security?

What is particularly concerning about the EPL is the impact on home-grown energy businesses. These are not global multinationals that are often used as examples of the energy giants who make massive profits; companies that can and do buffer the impacts of EPL by increasing their overseas investments and reducing their investments in the North sea. Instead, this policy hits hardest the companies that have emerged and grown out of north-east Scotland, employing local people, supporting local supply chains and helping our local economies.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. In January 2023 the Conservative Chancellor increased the energy profit levy by 10%, from 25% to 35%. What was the impact of that change on North sea jobs and the economy?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We must remember that investment allowances have now been reduced and taken away. Increasing the EPL by a further 3% while decreasing investment allowances makes the North sea a really difficult place to invest in.

Apache has announced that it is set to pull out of the North sea basin. How does the hon. Lady think that announcement relates to the fiscal decisions of this Government? Does she think that it is inextricably linked to this Government’s ambitions for North sea oil and gas, and their failure to fully understand how the industry works?

The fact that Apache’s announcement came within a week of the Budget speaks for itself when it comes to the question of the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

As I was saying, the energy profits levy has the greatest impact on our local, home-grown businesses. It is turning the lights off in the very businesses that we should be supporting and championing. By removing investment allowances, the Government are forcing companies to scale back their North sea projects, thereby increasing our reliance on expensive imported energy from overseas.

North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest.

This Labour Government are turning what was a windfall tax into a permanent feature of our tax system, creating long-term uncertainty that will drive investment away from north-east Scotland. The energy profits levy is a blunt instrument, not a balanced strategy. The Government must listen to industry experts, local businesses, and communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan. We need a competitive, open business environment that attracts investment and will support our energy transition, while protecting jobs and supply chains and securing our energy supplies. The nation’s energy security depends on it.

It is a pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was also a pleasure to hear the brilliant maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). We are colleagues and partners in crime in the cause of technology. I know that she has a glittering career in front of her, and I look forward to witnessing it.

In view of the instruction from your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I studiously read the Budget briefing from the House of Commons Library, which explained the history of the Finance Bill. Broadly, that history commends this country’s stability and its financial institutions—broadly, but with one great blip. Let me start by recognising the context of the Bill: the wreckage from which we emerge—the wreckage of the “growth plan”, as the Conservatives called it under their Prime Minister Liz Truss. The briefing, for which I thank the Library’s staff, tells us that not setting out the prospective flow of a Finance Bill from that was a total aberration. From the wreckage, however, has come the return of stability.

In fairness, I recognise that at the time, the present shadow Chancellor—the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—called the party leader out. He said that she was “flying blind”, and others were following her blindly. It seems that blind flight is contagious on the Opposition Benches today. The right hon. Gentleman talks about opposing, about being the party of “no” rather than the party of government. He did not tell us how he would fund public services; he did not tell us what taxes he would raise if he opposed all of ours. I am conscious that he also once called the pension triple lock “unsustainable”. This is not someone to be trusted with government or with opposition.

I note that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has just left the Chamber, having said that he was not interested in choosing. He stands for the 100%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said, to govern is to choose. To avoid choice is to play the fantasy politics of opposition, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found the warm Benches opposite.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Tories have no plan for public services. I accept that the Labour Government do have a plan, but it is completely unbelievable, so where does that leave us?

May I recognise, with warm comfort, the traditional place of the Scottish nationalists as total enablers of Conservative Governments? The hon. Gentleman talks about fiscal credibility. May I point out the absolute wreckage of the Scottish Government, who have wasted almost half a billion pounds of offshore wind proceeds on day-to-day spending because of their fiscal mismanagement? If he is taking tutorials alongside the Conservative party, may I ask him to invite his colleagues in Scotland to them? Those will serve them very efficiently.

From my experience of the City of London, and of investing in this country and abroad, the broad lesson I have learned is that finance is always contingent, but the fundamentals matter. For that reason, the Bill has to be seen in the context of what it enables. Where the Conservatives treated the working people of this country as their cash machines, we are protecting payslips. Where they did not support healthcare in this country and wrecked the waiting list system, as I experienced growing up in this country, we are supporting the NHS. Where they slashed public investment and took cowardly decisions across their Finance Bills, we are investing in our future.

I want to mention a proposal in the Bill that is close to my heart: the relief on draught duty, which will affect the Lamb and Flag in Wick, the Three Golden Cups in Southerndown and, closest to my heart, Finnegans on Barry Island. When the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special is shown, I will make sure to make the most of the draught duty relief—particularly at Finnegans, but across the Vale of Glamorgan.

Let me return to the choice at the heart of this Bill. As the Treasury’s distributional analysis shows, the overall context of what we have done, both in the Bill and more broadly, is that 90% of households in this country will be better off. That is the amazing distributional context, after 14 years of what we experienced under the Conservative party.

What a daffodil-laden Budget we have! The Bill offers the biggest ever budget settlement for Wales; it means £1.7 billion for Welsh public services. Some 70,000 minimum-wage workers in Wales will be better off. There is £100 million for our coal and steel communities, and a timely £25 million of support for coal tips. For the daffodil-laden Budget and the Bill that undergirds it, I am very grateful to the Chancellor.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate as a member of the Treasury Committee. After suffering the highest fall in living standards since records began, the United Kingdom desperately needs economic growth, yet the OBR forecasts that the policies in the Government’s Finance Bill and Budget will have no impact on growth over the next five years. The recessionary impact of the tax rises, combined with a focus on current spending that crowds out the private sector, largely offsets the fiscal stimulus of one of the largest fiscal events in recent decades, and of borrowing an extra £32 billion a year.

There are potential upsides to the growth forecasts in the Budget, mainly from the impact of planning reform, but this Budget and Finance Bill are a missed opportunity for growth. That matters, because there are chronic structural problems in the British economy that we must address. Indeed, given that public sector net debt is now approaching 100% of GDP, the Government’s ability to borrow to invest in the future, or to cope with an unforeseen shock, is severely constrained.

Many Labour Members have spoken about the importance of public investment, which I agree with, so I would like to address the following points. Since the 2008 financial crash, the UK economy has been hampered by productivity growth collapsing to 0.6% per year—the second worst in the G7. Unless and until we solve the productivity crisis, the UK will not escape its downward economic spiral of higher taxes, an ageing population, ever crumbling public services and ever higher debt. A key cause of that is chronically low public and private investment. In 24 of the last 30 years, the UK has had the lowest total investment of any G7 economy, yet as the OBR testified, under the Budget, public investment will remain flat as a share of GDP, so the Budget is unlikely to help solve the productivity crisis. This is why the OBR is forecasting that for every £1 borrowed by the Government, the economy will grow by only 60p next year, and that these effects will reverse in five years.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard, but I am slightly perplexed because he welcomes this Government’s investment in public services, the NHS and so forth, yet his colleagues oppose many of the revenue raisers in this Finance Bill—and perhaps he does, too. Can he help me square that circle?

As the hon. Member will know, the Liberal Democrats have alternative measures for raising those revenues, but my fundamental point is that, yes, I welcome public investment, but it is flat in the Budget; it is not enough, in my view, and furthermore, it is not focused on the right areas.

By contrast, economists have found that optimal forms of public investment are able to raise GDP by £1.50 for every £1 invested. The best public investments for raising economic growth are investments in intangible capital such as knowledge, research and development, patents and licenses. That can bring greater gains in productivity because knowledge can build on existing knowledge, and it can crowd in private investment, as it lowers the financial risk of participation for private investors.

Indeed, the most effective form of R&D is targeted on a specific goal. For example, the Kennedy Administration in the ’60s had stunning success in increasing US productivity and growth by having the very specific goal of the moon landings. I was excited to see that R&D to solve targeted problems was in the Budget, on page 76, but then I saw that of the £70 billion in spending in the Budget, only £25 million will be spent on the best type of R&D to drive economic growth. That is about double the budget of my local district council. That is not really appropriate for the world’s sixth-largest economy.

We stand on the cusp of a new industrial revolution in artificial intelligence, and this country has just one chance to gain the first mover advantage, and to harvest the productivity gains and growth that could result. Indeed, combined with innovations in the life sciences and climate technology, which are mentioned in the Budget, this could be our route out of this downward economic spiral, yet in the 164-page Budget, the words “artificial intelligence” appear once. I call on the Government to redouble their efforts on public investment and R&D, because I would like to live in a country that has the resources that it needs to provide opportunities for our citizens, and this Budget is a missed opportunity to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) has left the Chamber, but I praise her for her maiden speech. I am pleased to speak on this Finance Bill. It underpins the first Labour Budget in 14 years. It also raises the revenue that this country needs in order to recover, rebuild and renew. I will not spend ages talking about the Conservatives and the mess they have made, but—cue groans from Conservative Members—we all know about the £22 billion black hole, the mini-Budget and their reprehensible record on public finances.

However, I want to take a moment to praise the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), because I genuinely enjoyed his astronomy references. It is just a shame that he is not quite on planet Earth when it comes to recognising that we need to not only invest in public services but pay for them—the vehicle for that being this very Finance Bill. Even while this Government are tackling the Tories’ toxic inheritance, we are, through this Finance Bill, protecting payslips, when it comes to income tax and employee national insurance.

Let me get on to other key measures in the Bill that I welcome. Measures on tobacco duty, non-dom tax status and the oil and gas windfall mean that public services in my constituency of York Outer will be all the better off. Let me start by talking about the NHS. This week, I met Yorkshire Cancer Research to talk about the vital work that it does. As we discussed on Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill yesterday, the tobacco duty increase will act as a deterrent to smoking, and it will save lives. Taken together, these measures are important to changing habits, but the tobacco duty increase will also raise extra cash to fund our NHS.

Primary care services such as the York Medical Group, which I recently visited, and York hospital will undoubtedly welcome extra investment. I certainly welcome it, as a parent who recently had to wait many hours in York A&E with a screaming toddler after a trapped finger. It is vital that we get the NHS back up and running for constituents like mine. One constituent has been waiting seven years for surgery. Let that sink in: it is half the time that the Tories were in power. I am clear that this Bill raises the revenue to put the NHS on a much surer footing.

The hon. Gentleman is a conscientious Member of Parliament, and I understand what he is saying, but does he accept that, in the words of a former Labour leader, we invest in public services with the proceeds of growth? When he stands for re-election, will he tell his constituents that he advocated for a Budget to cut growth in his country?

That is slightly laughable, if I may say so as an affable Yorkshireman. Things like the national planning policy framework will drive growth, and some of these measures were not included in the OBR blue book. This pro-growth Government are doing so much for growth, so I find the hon. Gentleman’s question slightly perplexing.

The Bill will abolish the non-dom tax loophole and replace it with a residence-based regime. I had a look, and this change will raise £12.7 billion. Just last week, the Transport Secretary kindly visited me and the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire to announce £12.7 million of funding for our buses, which will transform our region. My quick maths shows that closing the non-dom tax loophole will pay 1,000 times more than that sum, which is the difference this Bill will make.

I will soon be having my office Christmas do. I am sure there is a joke to be made about liquid assets, but I recently visited Elvington brewery, and this Bill rightly cuts alcohol duty on draught products. That is wonderful news for our Yorkshire pubs. I need to declare an interest for myself and my hard-working team, because these measures mean that we are looking forward to enjoying a cheaper pint of the wonderfully named Fairytale of Brew York, which will be launched by Brew York over the festive period. Conservative Members back investment in our public services, but they do not support the revenue raised by this Bill. Perhaps they have been having too many fairytale economic pints.

The VAT increase on private school fees will bring in £1.7 billion a year, which will go directly to schools like those in York Outer. The Budget announced a £1 billion uplift for SEN provision and a £2.3 billion increase in the schools budget, which will make a huge difference to places like Applefields school and Manor Church of England academy.

I have also visited Askham Bryan college, a fantastic agricultural college in York Outer. Its great students, who are studying T-levels, will benefit from £300 million of extra funding for colleges, directly stemming from this Finance Bill. While making some proportionate tax rises in the Budget, we have maintained our position of having the lowest capital gains tax in Europe. We have struck the right balance, because we will have extra cash for our schools, and it is a real lifeline.

For all the Conservatives’ obfuscation, we have actually kept so many of our manifesto promises, one of which was to deliver a windfall tax on oil and gas companies—a policy so good that the Conservatives stole it when they were in government. The additional revenue raised by the EPL will help us to set up GB Energy, which will deliver for the British people by delivering the green jobs of the future.

May I briefly refer to the first Bill I ever spoke on in this House, which is now the Budget Responsibility Act 2024? I said the Bill was important because it was

“the only way we can grow those public services with a stable economy.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1253.]

That is as true now as it was back then—[Interruption.] I hear grumbles from the Opposition Benches. Conservative Members do not seem to think that economic stability matters when it comes to investing in public services; they certainly know quite a lot about economic instability. This Government have been tasked with ripping out the rot following 14 years of chaos. The Bill helps to fix the foundations by providing the revenue to restore public services in York Outer and beyond.

We are debating the Finance Bill following an election. In usual times, such a Bill would enact what was said in the winning party’s manifesto, but not this time. On the electoral trail, all the Labour Members who are now Ministers repeated what was said in the Labour manifesto time and again: their plans were “fully costed” and “fully funded”. They repeatedly said that they had no plans to raise taxes beyond VAT on private schools or to increase public borrowing. The manifesto said, in bald terms, that

“we will not increase National Insurance”.

There was no qualification to that—it was there in black and white.

It is extraordinary that we are debating a Finance Bill that has no correlation to the manifesto that it comes after. The electorate were profoundly misled. The reality is that the Labour party is increasing spending by more than £70 billion. Labour Members use the argument of their fantasy black hole, which has been thoroughly debunked by the independent Government body, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent IFS and the Financial Times. No one believes Labour, because that black hole is not there. It is not a black hole; it is more like a red herring.

The reason for that red herring is that Labour needed it as the excuse to do what it always intended to do—put up taxes and increase spending on public workers. Why did it do that? Because Labour Members—all of them— knew that if they had been honest with the electorate and told them that Labour was going to be a tax and spend party, no one would have voted for them. Even then, only 34% of the public did. It was a big con on the electorate. That is why we have a petition live on the Government website that says:

“I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.”

As of this afternoon, 2.75 million people have signed that petition because they feel misled by this Government.

The Budget provided £2.6 billion for education, £1 billion for SEND, £22 billion for the NHS and several billion more for things like councils. Would the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Broadland and Fakenham welcome the contribution of those funds to the NHS, schools and councils, or would he not like that investment to go into his constituency?

There were a number of points in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First, how much money should be spent? Secondly, what should it be spent on? And thirdly, where should we get it from? I will go straight to the heart of where we can get the money from: if we return public service productivity back to 2019 levels, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; if we return the size of the civil service to the 2019 level, before the big covid expansion, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; and if we return welfare spending on disability back to pre-covid levels, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was in process of doing before the general election, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved.

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a moment. If we add that all up, there would be £50 billion that could be spent on the frontline. However, the problem with the Labour party is that it takes money and spends it on inflation-busting wage rises for its union paymasters, but not on increasing and improving the outcomes for the people who use services. That is the big difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The focus of our spending is not the people providing the services; we are for the people who use those services—the people of this country.

My hon. Friend is making a typically eloquent and excellent speech. I challenged a number of Labour Members to outline that public services can be invested in if, in addition to some of the tax-raising mechanisms they have chosen, we have economic growth. Will my hon. Friend outline how much growth has been cut by under the Government’s proposals compared with ours? Am I correct in thinking it is 0.7% over the Parliament?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct: over the course of the forecast period, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that growth will be cut by 0.7%. It is worse than that, however, because we also have an increase in taxes on businesses of £25 billion through the national insurance contributions, which the OBR tells us will be paid for overwhelmingly by reduced pay for workers, amounting to £7.5 billion. It also forecasts that more than 50,000 full time-equivalent jobs will be lost as a result of the policies that Labour Members plan to vote for.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will on that point.

The hon. Member keeps talking about his Government having been in the process of making a mark on productivity. Having left us with the worst productivity slowdown in 250 years, will he tell us how long the process would have taken?

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was not on the point that he rose for, but there is one thing that he does not mention, and that is the covid impact. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can laugh about it, but we spent £400 billion supporting the economy and the people of this country in a once-in-a-century impact on our economy.

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, will he give way?

Yes, I will. That was extraordinary.

Does he agree with me that there seems to be a collective amnesia among colleagues on the Labour Benches? If we had taken their advice during covid, when we were making reasonable decisions, not only would we have seen the longer lockdowns that the now Prime Minister was calling for, but more economic damage, which they now deny ever happened in the first place.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is a point worth making here. Since covid, the private sector has improved productivity by about 6%. Productivity in the public sector has yet to improve, although before the general election it was starting to do that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not. I want to make some progress because I have been quite generous in giving way.

The OBR says that more than 50,000 jobs will be actively lost as a direct result of the decisions Members on the Labour Benches are about to take. I think that is an underestimate. I have been talking to businesses in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham over the past few weeks and, as a former entrepreneur, I have been taken aback by quite how badly the tax and spend decisions of the Labour party have gone down with my small and medium-sized employers. Their accounts to me suggest that those choices are affecting their decisions on employment, and particularly on employing young people.

One employer said to me just two weeks ago that 18-year-olds are harder to employ than, say, 25 or 26-year-olds because overall more of them will fail in their job as they get used to the working environment. Employing 18-year-olds used to be worthwhile because the national minimum wage was lower and national insurance contributions did not have to be paid on the first £9,200 of their employment. That advantage has been removed and it is now disproportionately more expensive to employ an 18-year-old than older members of staff. That is a real-life case, where the employer told me they will stop employing young people in their business. Is that really what Labour Members wanted to achieve? That is what is happening already.

I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he advising businesses in his constituency not to employ 18-year-olds, or is he telling 18-year-olds in his constituency that he wants them to be paid less?

I am not telling anyone anything; I am reporting what businesses are telling me. As a direct consequence of the actions of the Members on the Labour Benches, young people are not being employed who otherwise would have been. The OBR says that will lead to more than 50,000 jobs being lost. Time will tell, but I think that is an underestimate.

We have a reduction in recruitment, a reduction in the employment of young staff, a reduction in investment and, as a result, we will have a reduction in growth over the course of the forecast period. But worse than that, we will have a reduction in living standards. This cost of living crisis, which has now been caused by Labour, will reduce living standards by 1.25% by 2029. That reduction is a direct result of the Budget, so if Labour Members vote for this Bill, they will be voting for increasing the cost of living crisis by 1.25%.

None the less, we have seen some increases: debt costs are increasing; inflation is increasing, which will exacerbate the cost of living crisis; and mortgage costs are increasing.

You talk about increasing inflation, yet we saw record levels of inflation—11%—under the Conservative Government, one third of which was caused by our exposure to gas shocks. Does he agree with this Labour Government that we need to invest in clean energy, so that we are no longer left vulnerable to foreign dictators and their control of fossil fuel markets?

Order. Before the hon. Member answers that intervention, I remind Members not to use the word “you”. Moreover, this is a debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, so can we please make comments, interventions and speeches relevant to the Finance Bill?

I am grateful for that intervention. Inflation 11% was a direct consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as everyone knows, but what is important is that the Conservative Government took the difficult decision to get it down to a target of 2%. It is already creeping up under Labour, and it will be higher than it otherwise would have been as a direct consequence of these measures. Do not trust my word for that; that comes directly from the OBR. Again, the OBR tells us that mortgage rises will occur directly because of the decisions of Government Members. Union activity will be up, with the consequential impact on productivity and efficiency of our private sector. The size of the state will go up and, shamefully, the tax take will be the highest since records began. I will not support this Finance Bill, or its Second Reading, so Labour Members will have to take the consequences of their own decisions.

May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her excellent maiden speech? As a fellow technologist, she has done so much to make sure that women in particular are part of the technology sector. That is vital as we work to get more women involved in the technology sector and in technology policy.

Last week, a constituent who had voted Labour at the election came to see me. She was an elderly woman and she asked me this very simple question: what makes this a Labour Budget? As a corollary of that, she said, “If I were to vote now, why should I vote Labour to make sure that we have another Budget like the one you have just passed?” And I had a particular answer for her. We talked about some big things. We talked about the big choices that were in the Budget underpinned by this Finance Bill. We talked about, for example, the choice to make hard decisions in order to fund our NHS properly, to make sure that we shift from a national health service to a neighbourhood health service, so that, in my constituency we can ensure that there is proper health provision in towns like Hindley Green and Orrell, which over the past 14 years, have lost all their primary care provision. She thought that was compelling.

I then said that another of the bigger choices that we made in the Budget, which this Finance Bill underpins, is to invest, instead of accepting the slow decline that the Conservative Members have presided over for 14 years. We then discussed some of the less well covered measures that this Finance Bill supports, and it is those that I wish to talk about today. In these measures, we can see the values that make the Budget, and this Finance Bill, a Labour Budget: care, respect, and pride in our communities. These are the measures that answer her question: what is it that made the Budget that this Finance Bill pays for a Labour Budget?

Let me talk about a few of the smaller things that will benefit my constituents and working people right across the country. Most importantly for those I represent, we will end the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Just yesterday, my constituents remembered the Springs colliery disaster in Hindley. Tens of thousands of people who used to live in the constituency of Ince, which preceded my own, came together in what was a powerful and emotional moment for them. By ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, the Chancellor ensured that as we build the next generation of energy, reducing bills and ensuring that foreign dictators no longer have a hold over energy production in this nation, we also remember the last generation of energy production: the workers who powered our industrial revolution and built this nation’s wealth.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proceeds from the Finance Bill will allow us not just to invest in the future but to recognise our heritage, compensate mineworkers, and in particular support coal tips in Wales?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To be specific about the benefits that will accrue, there are 500 families in my constituency who for decades have watched the Government take out of their pension scheme and refuse to rectify the ongoing justice. We all know what Conservative Members think of miners. By ensuring that they get a 32% increase in their pension we are not only putting money directly into the pockets of the working people who built this nation but signalling our respect for an industry and profession that made this country’s wealth.

The second smaller, subtler, sometimes missed thing that demonstrates the values that lie behind the measures that the Finance Bill will pay for is the £44 million funding increase for kinship and foster carers. My council in Wigan is a pioneer in the provision of adult social care and care for children. It has blazed the way in ensuring that it works with third sector organisations and maintains the budget to fund its own care provision publicly. Now it is backed by a Government who care about what carers do. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has argued, the flipside of a high-productivity and high-technology economy is caring. Caring is the most human thing that we will do more and more of as we build a higher-tech and higher-productivity economy. The Government’s £44 million increase will ensure that caring is properly funded in this country.

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning carers. I was also really pleased to see in the Budget an increase in the carer’s allowance eligibility limit to £196 a week, which will allow many carers to work longer and earn more money before their allowance is withdrawn. Does he welcome that commitment, which shows the real commitment of the Labour Government to supporting carers?

Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the carer’s allowance, which will benefit 8,000 people in my region of the north-west, the increase demonstrates a wider point about respecting those who provide care in our society and economy. For too long, we have thought the profession to be unskilled, and have undervalued it as a path of work. In several of the measures that the Finance Bill will pay for, the Government have demonstrated that caring is a vital part of the economy that we wish to build. I have said this before, and will say it again: higher productivity and more technology mean more care. We must respect and value that most human of professions if we are to build an economy in which we all want to live in the future.

Every Thursday during the pandemic, we clapped, cheered and made noise to signal to our NHS carers that we cared about them. It was not just about noise; it was about the promise of a better future on the other side of the pandemic, which is where we are now. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things that this Labour Government have done is give a much-deserved pay rise to our teachers and NHS staff? Under the Conservatives, 1.5 million NHS appointments were cancelled and 25 million teaching days were lost. Because of Conservative policies, the NHS was forced to spend £9.3 billion on temporary staffing, and we lost school days that cost the economy £900 million. Conservative Members ask how much our public sector workers are paid, and how much they are worth. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are worth every single penny that they will be paid under this Labour Government?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that those who kept this nation going, who kept teaching our children and who kept looking after those who were sick and dying deserve every penny of the pay rise that this Government awarded them.

Since the subject of the pandemic has come up, I would add that the moral credibility of Conservative Members to ever use the sacrifices that our nation made during the covid pandemic as a rebuttal to anything that this Government do was lost the moment the Prime Minister told the nation to stay at home while he invited his colleagues to a booze-up in No. 10 Downing Street.

My hon. Friend mentioned partygate, but it goes far beyond that. We have to remember that the dodgy contracts that went to mates and donors brought our country into utter disrepute. In this Finance Bill debate, does he recognise the financial impact of that on the country?

Order. I once again remind Members that interventions should be on what is in front of us: the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

I absolutely take that point, but I will remind Conservative Members of the simple argument I am making in case they have lost the thread of it. I am going through the measures in the Budget that may have been lost by media scrutiny of some of the bigger measures. My question is: how would they pay for those measures? If they support them, they need to answer that question posed by the Bill today. As the Minister said earlier, the first words in Labour’s manifesto were about restoring economic stability. If Conservative Members support some of the measures I am describing, they must themselves answer the question of how they would pay for them.

I will mention three more measures before I close. These measures specifically benefit the region that I am proud to represent in the north-west, and they will drive growth not just here in London and the south-east, but right across the country, including in Wigan and the towns across Makerfield. The first measure is the electrification of the Wigan to Bolton line, which will mean that constituents in Hindley will benefit from more reliable train services that do not get cancelled, as they have repeatedly been over the past two weeks due to the weather.

The second measure is an increase in the household support fund of £66 million in the north-west. That will specifically help those just above the pension credit threshold who none the less need support this winter.

The third and final measure is the integrated settlement with our trailblazing Labour Mayor Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, meaning that we can cap bus fares at £2. It also means that we will trailblaze the Live Well centres, which working people will benefit from and those out of work will be provided with the holistic support they need to get back into work.

Those are the measures that this Finance Bill supports. The question for Conservative Members is: will they support the measures that pay for those provisions? If they will not, they will continue to be the party that does not restore economic stability, that crashed the economy and that sent mortgage rates spiralling. The first and most important thing this Labour Government have done and will always do is protect the economic stability of this nation.

A person’s character is most on display in watching what they do when nobody else is looking. I cannot remember who said that—either a former Prime Minister or a baseball coach in the United States. A Government’s character is often in the things that get less attention, that demonstrate whose side that Government are on. In the provisions, the Government have demonstrated that they are on the side of miners, carers, commuters and workers in Makerfield, Greater Manchester and the north-west. What this Finance Bill shows me is that this is a Government who will tear down any barrier that gets in the way of us delivering for working people in the United Kingdom.

This Finance Bill should be a chance to begin the vital work of transforming our economy to make it fairer, to restore public services, and to make our economy greener by investing in urgent climate and nature action. As such, I welcome the focus on public investment.

However, overall, the Green party’s view is that the Bill lacks vision for our future and does not deliver the ambitious and hopeful change that people voted for in July. I would argue that that is because it seeks to answer the wrong question. The Bill should not be designed to focus purely on growth for growth’s sake, but should instead focus on more modern and rounded ways of measuring economic success that deliver wellbeing, a liveable future, better standards of living and good-quality jobs. When delivering the Budget, the Chancellor referred to growth 32 times, but she did not mention climate or nature once. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis warns that current spending plans will see inequality and poverty increase while average disposable incomes fall, the Government’s plans clearly are not going to deliver a fairer future for us all.

The Finance Bill was an opportunity to set things on the right track, because that is possible with the right choices. I was elected advocating specifically for a transformative wealth tax—for those with the broadest shoulders to bear the greatest financial responsibility for transforming our economy. Therefore, I very much hoped that this Finance Bill would seek to tax all kinds of wealth much more ambitiously to fund our future.

Does the hon. Gentleman have a model of a wealth tax from another country that has been successful in raising the amount of money he claims it would have raised?

I thank the hon. Member for that question—I always enjoy her contributions. Later in my speech I will talk about a specific model that I would propose, one that I put forward in the general election and that has the support of a number of researchers and academics. There are lots of models out there, including those that look at examples from other countries.

I am glad that the Government are taking steps to close the unfairness gap in the tax system, whereby income from working is taxed at a higher level than income from wealth or assets. Reforming capital gains tax has been a major policy priority for the Greens for some time; it is long overdue, and I commend the Chancellor for grasping that particular nettle. However, the Finance Bill could and should go even further, focusing on the very wealthiest in society. Over the past 10 years, the UK has become an increasingly unequal country. Between 2020 and 2022 alone, billionaire wealth in the UK increased by almost £150 billion. The five richest families in the UK are wealthier than the bottom 20% of the entire population. That last stat can be replaced with a more recent one: according to the Equality Trust, the UK’s five richest families now own more wealth than the bottom 13 million do. Both are startling facts.

To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), a wealth tax of 1% annually on assets above £10 million, and of 2% on assets above £1 billion, would demonstrate that this Government are serious about fairness. Figures that are backed up by researchers and academics suggest that such a wealth tax could raise tens of billions during this Parliament—much bigger than a number of the figures quoted by other Members today. It would show that the Government are serious about fairness, about transforming the economy and about investing for a better future.

If the hon. Member is so concerned about inequality and poverty in this country, why does he refuse to support the building of pylons, thereby adding about £4 billion to the cost of increasing electricity production in this country? Those costs will, above all, go on to the bills of working people. Is that not a measure to reduce inequality and poverty in this country that the hon. Member would support?

If the hon. Gentleman is aware of my campaigning background, he will know that I have been one of the strongest advocates for accelerating to move to renewable energy for decades, with all the benefits that brings for reducing bills. If he heard the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, he will know that we need to combine speed on renewables with bringing communities with us and assessing all the options available, and we had cross-party support in arguing for that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would let me make a little more progress first, please.

A wealth tax would go a long way towards funding the public services that our economy relies on and to delivering nature and climate-friendly policies that will benefit us all. For example, by maintaining the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, while investing in the roll-out of the street-by-street insulation programme, we could bring down household bills and carbon emissions and at the same time support the most vulnerable households with energy bills over the winter months, preventing hundreds of avoidable deaths. There are also nature-based solutions that would help to protect against the flooding chaos and misery caused, for example, by Storm Bert recently. Preparedness or adaptation is often neglected when it comes to climate action, yet this week has demonstrated what a difference it can make.

A wealth tax could see charities and not-for-profit health and social care providers, for example, exempted from the planned increases in national insurance contributions for employers, in recognition of the significant work they do in our communities and the significant further strain that this planned change will put them under. As Community Action Suffolk has warned, this financial challenge may be a step too far for some organisations that

“deliver vital services keeping Suffolk residents safe and well”,

and reduce pressure on other public sector systems, including the NHS.

The Government have taken, or have sought to take, some steps towards taxing wealth in addressing the real problem of very wealthy people investing in farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax. However, the way in which they have gone about doing so is resulting in huge problems. It is clumsy because it is impacting on small farms that may, on paper, have assets worth several million, but if the farmer is not actually earning any income, or very little, they never actually see the benefit of that.

The Exchequer Secretary is back in the Chamber, and I would ask him whether, in considering the agricultural property relief—I know it is planned for a further year’s Budget, so there is time for the Government to look at this—he will look at the work of tax analyst Dan Neidle. Dan Neidle has highlighted that the Government’s own intentions of rightly clamping down on tax avoidance will not be met under the current plans, which will impact far more small, ordinary farms than the Government have admitted. His proposals include an alternative suggestion for meeting the Government’s stated aim of clamping down on tax avoidance, not affecting ordinary farmers.

Too often we find that the Greens talk a good game, but when it comes to making decisions, whether on pylons or inheritance tax, they begin to get a little bit nervous, so I would be interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s view. While he may have concerns about the threshold that has been set for inheritance tax for farms, where does he think it should be set?

First, I have welcomed the measures in this Budget on non-doms and capital gains tax, and I have argued for the Government to go much further and be much bolder with a genuine wealth tax on the very richest. I am very happy to set out the measures I want, which are bolder than the Government’s, to raise capital. On farms, as I say, I would urge the hon. Member and the Minister to look at the work of people such as Dan Neidle, which suggests ways in which the Government could better achieve their own stated aim of rightly preventing people who often have no interest in farming from investing in farmland in order to avoid inheritance tax.

I spoke to many farmers last week, as I am sure did Members across the Chamber, and those with ordinary farms in my constituency told me that typical Suffolk farms of 320 acres may be worth £3 million to £5 million on paper, but if they are always in the family—if they are never sold and those farmers are earning very little income—they are not realising the benefit of that. The farmers I spoke to were extremely distressed about how much pressure they are under for generating very little income, with all the work they do and want to do for our natural environment. We need to look at the detail of what is being proposed, while welcoming the main aim of clamping down on tax avoidance that the Government are setting out.

I make these points conscious that the Government chose to table an income tax charge motion on Budget day, thereby restricting scope for amendments to the Bill today. I wish to put on record my disappointment at that decision, because an “amendment of the law” motion would have demonstrated a commitment to a much broader debate, greater scrutiny, and a healthy willingness to engage with alterative views. I expected better on that, as I know did my constituents. Although I will seek to amend the Bill to take account of the compelling case for a wealth tax, the scope for doing so has been deliberately and unnecessarily constrained by the Government in what Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society called a decision to prioritise

“ministerial control and convenience over robust parliamentary scrutiny.”

Before concluding my remarks, I wish to mention one other aspect of the Bill that relates to the urgent climate action we need to take. That must be about scaling up renewables, but it is also about the transition away from fossil fuels. Hidden in the Bill and the Budget is the Government’s intension to subsidise carbon capture and storage—a fig leaf for new fossil fuel projects—and failing to end the obscene subsidies, including tax reliefs, that are handed out to the oil and gas sector. I hope to pick that up further, and for it to get more scrutiny as the Bill progresses.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am about to finish.

In conclusion, Green MPs will vote for the Bill on the basis that we welcome a number of improvements and investments. We are constructive in supporting improvements that move in the right direction and the investment that has started in the NHS, and I want to see that committed to and expanded for the NHS and social care in further years. We look forward to further debates about how that can be strengthened to deliver a coherent vision of a greener, fairer future for all.

I wish first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for her fantastic maiden speech. Knowing that I had the graveyard spot—or, as we call it in this place, the “Jim Shannon spot”—I took a moment to pop to the Tea Room to have a cup of tea, and I visited southderbyshire.co.uk. I own a dog named after a previous Labour Prime Minister, and I am looking forward to taking him to South Derbyshire—

Which one?

I don’t really want to give away my dog’s name—I don’t know why.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill. This is not just another piece of legislation; it is a crucial step towards boosting growth in some of our most dynamic industries, from the creative sector to financial services. It is aimed at repairing our public finances and bringing much-needed economic and fiscal stability, and it considers every person from every walk of life to create a fairer future for everyone. Last week the Chancellor outlined the Government’s plans for growth, focusing on high-growth sectors that will drive our economy forward. The Bill is a key part of that vision, introducing important tax changes to support the UK’s creative industries, speed up our shift to clean energy and enhance our financial markets.

For too long the burden of taxation has fallen disproportionately on working people. The Bill addresses that imbalance—it finds that balance and the fairest way to do it. By choosing not to extend the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds, the Government are ensuring that personal tax thresholds will rise with inflation from April 2028. That protects hard-working families from what I would consider stealth tax increases. The Bill also delivers on the promise to maintain the fuel duty freeze and a temporary 5p cut. I know that is welcome for residents and motorists in Harlow, as they have suffered for many years with the appalling state of the roads. We all know about the dreaded potholes, and the Government are doing what they can on that as well.

I will not go on too much about the removal of the VAT exemption on private schools, because I spent a lot of time talking about that on Monday. However, I am delighted that it will generate additional revenue to invest in our public services, including our schools. A number of schools in Harlow have suffered with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and one school—Sir Frederick Gibberd college—is having to be completely rebuilt because of the previous Government’s failings.

This Finance Bill is more than just a collection of tax adjustments; it is a forward-looking plan that lays the foundation for a resilient economy. It reflects the Government’s commitment to supporting key industries that are vital to our nation, investing in sectors that promise sustainable growth, and ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global innovation. It creates a fair and balanced future for all.

I call the shadow Minister.

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It has been a good debate, with more than 20 Members contributing, but I am a little surprised that we did not hear more from Labour Members wanting to defend their first Budget for 14 years. Some have now appeared miraculously in the Chamber, but they were not here for the rest of the debate.

Let me start with the maiden speech from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). I join others in congratulating her on an excellent maiden speech. I was interested to hear about her tech background and the “Samantha spotting” map. She mentioned the influence of her daughter. Family is important in overcoming the instant loathing that some people can take to MPs, which she talked about. In my experience, it is not as bad as some might fear. [Interruption.] That is just me.

You’re special.

Thank you. We all appreciated the kind words from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about Heather Wheeler’s work. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue that manufacturing event with Rolls-Royce and the other world-class businesses in her constituency. I know from personal experience that she will enjoy taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the RAF.

There was a familiar theme in the speeches of other Government Members, which the Whips will have been pleased to hear, with lots about fixing the foundations and black holes, although the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca)—I cannot see him at the moment—did concede that it was not a perfect Budget. Perhaps he has been taken away by the Whips to reflect.

I turn to Opposition Members’ speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who spoke powerfully about the impact of the Bill and the damaging impact of the Budget on high streets, hospitality and family firms in her constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), in a masterly contribution, took us back in his time machine to the time when cast-iron promises were made. He focused on what is happening in reality and the importance of enterprise. He also highlighted that economic shocks may come, as they have done in the last few years, for example through covid and energy prices, and that the Chancellor may have already boxed herself in.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) displayed his considerable knowledge as a former Education Secretary. He talked about caring for 100% of pupils, and about the damaging impact that the education tax will have. There will be serious consequences for smaller schools, religious schools and parents and pupils involved with them. That theme was also drawn on by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who talked about his constituents and put us in the footsteps of the pupils who will be affected, as well as their parents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) returned to her consistent theme of the real-world consequences for energy firms of the energy profits tax, the lost revenue, and the self-defeating nature of that measure. Finally, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) focused on young people’s employment prospects, which will take a hit as a result of the Bill.

There were two very different takes in the debate. Unlike some, I would not claim to be an economist, but the OBR is full of them, and its verdict on the Budget and the Finance Bill is clear: they mean lower growth, higher inflation and higher borrowing. As the Shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), put it, the British people put their trust in Labour to stay true to its promises. What did they get in response? A Finance Bill that is stuffed full of tax increases and breaks trust with the British people. It has £40 billion of annual tax rises. It is the biggest tax-raising Budget in modern history, and it is working families and businesses who will pay the price.

As we heard, the Government have said that their priority is growth. We will not let them forget that they inherited an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7. Following the Budget, the OBR has downgraded its growth forecasts for the period by 0.7%. Inflation, which went up to 2.3% last week, is now expected to be higher in every year of the forecast period. The tax burden will increase to the highest level since records began. Borrowing will increase by an additional £140 billion over the Parliament. It is little wonder that business confidence is plummeting. The Labour party has consistently talked our economy down. The consequences are clear. The latest purchasing manager’s index output data shows that private sector activity has shrunk for the first time in more than a year. Businesses are rightly blaming the Chancellor and this anti-aspiration, anti-enterprise Government.

Let me turn to some of the parts of this broken promises Budget that were covered in the debate. First, the Bill deliberately undermines incentives for investors, entrepreneurs and people willing to take a risk and back enterprise. It hikes the main and lower rates of capital gains tax. The Treasury states that this measure alone will hit over a quarter of a million people, who will pay more tax as a result. It puts up tax rates on investor relief. It is little wonder that experts have warned that this Government risk stymieing the very investment that they seek to stimulate.

Secondly, the Bill continues the fundamentalism of the Government’s energy policy, which fails to put our energy security first. It will increase the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%. The Exchequer Secretary could not name a country that had a higher rate. I am sure that Denis Healey would approve. It extends the rate by a year and removes investment allowances. On the real-world consequences, Offshore Energies UK has said that the hike will choke off investment and put 35,000 jobs at risk. We should be maximising our home-grown energy, not undermining domestic production and relying on imports that have a higher carbon footprint.

Having highlighted the Government’s broken promises, I turn to a single promise that they are actually keeping, unfortunately—the education tax. For some who do not seem to understand, the Labour party is not ending a relief, but bringing in a new tax. It is a vindictive tax, being imposed partway through the academic year, deliberately designed to disrupt the education of thousands of children. Putting VAT on independent schools will particularly hurt parents on modest incomes who choose to save and send their children to a school that they think is best for them. More than 100,000 children with special needs who are without an education, health and care plan, and are in independent schools, will be hit by this charge—something that Government Members who are not in their place at the moment did not seem to understand, but really should. This is an attack on aspiration, pure and simple, and we oppose it.

Other hon. Members have referred to the family farm tax. Next week, every Member will have the opportunity to vote and show whether they stand with their farmers or with Labour’s family farm tax, which will do so much damage to our countryside and food security.

As I mentioned, the consistent theme in this debate from Government Members has been blaming a fantasy black hole for this tax-increasing Bill. Those claims were thoroughly debunked by the OBR, and by the shadow Chancellor in his opening remarks. Before the election, the Chancellor said that she would not pretend to have not known the state of public finances in order to justify tax rises. Then she did just that. Let us hope that she meant what she said to the Treasury Committee on 6 November:

“We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases or, indeed, with more borrowing.”

There we have it. Read her lips: no more tax increases. That was the commitment, not to the Confederation of British Industry, but to this House; but at Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister failed to repeat that pledge. He hung the Chancellor out to dry. If the Chancellor breaks that promise, how can she credibly continue in post?

Labour inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, inflation at target, unemployment halved and the deficit halved. Labour Members may not like it, but it is true. [Interruption.] It is absolutely true. The measures in the Bill do not boost growth but target working people, pupils and parents, small businesses, and the wealth creators we need to grow the economy. Many Government Members have loyally clung to the idea that the Government are fixing the foundations of the economy. Not many would agree—not Tesco, Lidl or the other retailers who have warned that the £25-billion-a-year jobs tax will mean job losses and people’s weekly food shop going up; not the two thirds of firms who say that they will scale back on taking on new people; not the pubs, bars, restaurants and hospitality sector, which is hit by an extra £1 billion of costs.

The Prime Minister has found someone who agrees with him, although he did have to go to Rio to do so. However, while President Xi is so well practised in parroting meaningless slogans that he could be a Labour MP, the British public and British businesses are not buying it. They know that this Government do not back enterprise and do not keep their promises. The difference could not be clearer: we stand with working people, people taking a risk to start businesses and take people on, and people investing in companies. Unlike the Labour party, we are on their side. I urge Members to support our amendment tonight.

Just as it was an honour to close the Budget debate on behalf of the Government, it is an honour to close the debate on Second Reading of the Finance Bill—the first Finance Bill by a Labour Government in 14 years. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and look forward to hearing further contributions during the Committee of the whole House and the Bill’s remaining passages, alongside the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

Before I address the numerous points raised in the debate, it is worth reflecting briefly on the points made by the Exchequer Secretary in his opening remarks on what the Bill will achieve. The Bill legislates for key measures in the Budget—a Budget in which we took tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare to restore Britain’s economic stability. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments and starts the work of moving to a fairer, more sustainable tax system while raising the revenue needed to adequately fund our public services. The Government have taken a balanced approach that will create a fairer system while still promoting growth and wealth creation.

We are adjusting the rate of capital gains tax, for example —a tax paid by fewer than 1% of adults every year—to raise some of that revenue. Although rates have increased, the Government will maintain the UK’s position as having the lowest CGT of any European G7 economy. There are no changes to CGT rates on property or the annual exempt allowance, and there is a phased increase to business asset disposal relief, to give entrepreneurs time to adjust. That is just one of the many measures in the Bill that will move us to a fairer system, where those who can pay do pay. [Interruption.] I will get on to farmers, hon. Members will be pleased to know.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on an excellent maiden speech. She is absolutely an inspiration to her teenage daughter, but also to young women across the country, including my daughter. I thank her for that. We are very pleased to have her. We need more people with careers in tech in the House. She is very welcome.

We also heard powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for Makerfield (Josh Simons) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his play on words—as an English graduate, I always enjoy that, and I thought he was excellent.

Hon. Members have extensively discussed the agricultural property relief changes announced in the Budget, and will note that they are not included in the Bill. That is because the Government are committed to technical consultation on tax legislation. We feel it is important to get complex legislation right, and to give businesses and those affected by tax changes the certainty that they need ahead of the measures coming into force. The Government will publish draft legislation on this measure before legislating for it in a future Finance Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. Is there a timetable attached to that that she could set out to this House? Many businesses will have listened to that statement, and will want to know exactly when they need to make their business decisions.

We will set out plans in due course. The Bill does, however, extend the scope of agricultural property relief from 6 April 2025 to land managed under certain environmental agreements. That supports the UK Government’s wider environmental objective of supporting farmers and land managers so that they can deliver, alongside food production, significant and important outcomes for the climate and environment. The measure is intended to prevent the loss of APR being a barrier to the involvement of agricultural landowners and farmers in land use change under environmental agreements including, but not limited to, the environmental land management schemes in England and equivalent schemes elsewhere in the UK.

I want to address something the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about: family farms. This is not in the Finance Bill, but I will still refer to it. Individuals can pass on a sum of up to £325,000 inheritance tax-free; £500,000 if that includes a residence being passed to a direct descendent; and £1 million when a tax-free allowance is passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner. There is also a full exemption from inheritance tax when passing assets to a spouse or civil partner.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg for your patience as I retread some of the remarks I made earlier. It is my view that the family farm tax gives us the worst of both worlds at the moment. It does not prevent equity companies from buying up land, but it does treat family farms as collateral damage. I urge her to think again on this measure and think about introducing a genuine family farm test. If she were to do that, she would certainly have the Liberal Democrats’ support.

It was a difficult decision, and I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, but the reforms to agricultural property relief mean that farmers can access 100% relief for the first £1 million and 50% relief thereafter, meaning an effective 20% tax rate. It was a difficult decision, but we had to do it to fund public services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about tax avoidance and fraud. To stop people taking unfair advantage of our system, the Government announced in the Budget the most ambitious ever package to close the tax gap, raising £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30.

Will the Minister give way?

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken enough times in the debate, so I will not be taking yet another intervention from him.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) raised questions about SMEs and high streets. The Government have been absolutely clear that we need to take difficult decisions to deliver long-term stability and growth, and that stabilising public finances is the only way to create long-term stability in which businesses can thrive. But we recognise the need to protect small employers, which is why we have more than doubled employment allowance—she may like to know that—meaning that half of businesses with mixed liabilities will either gain or see no change at all next year.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised questions about VAT on private schools hitting SEND pupils. To protect pupils with special educational needs and disabilities who can only have their needs met in a private school, the local authorities and devolved Governments that fund those places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees. I hope that reassures him.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised a point about faith schools. Of course the Government value parental choice and recognise that some people want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith ethos. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary met the Partnerships for Jewish Schools and the Association of Muslim Schools during the consultation period on this policy. To ensure fairness and consistency between all schools that charge fees, faith schools will remain in the scope of the policy. It is worth noting for the right hon. Member that some faith schools are likely to be less impacted by the policy if some of their income is derived from voluntary donations from the community, because donations that are freely given and for which there is no obligation are outside the scope of VAT. As such, not all the income that small faith schools receive will necessarily be subject to VAT. I hope that reassures him a bit.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to ask her specifically about what she just said about special schools still getting funding. Is she aware that many parents of children with special educational needs choose to send their children to special schools even though they do not have education, health and care plans, so do not have funding through local authorities and so will still be affected by this measure? I wonder what she thinks about that.

My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary says that he will write to the hon. Lady about this, but we note the points that she has made, and we are looking into them.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about oil and gas investment. We recognise that oil and gas will continue to have a role in the energy mix during the transition, but we need to drive public and private investment towards cleaner energy. The money raised by these changes will contribute to public investment while the sector continues to benefit from £84.25 in relief for every £100 of private investment. To reflect our commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy, the Government have confirmed that the sector will continue to benefit from a decarbonisation investment allowance with a value similar to the relief that it received prior to the November energy profits levy rate increases.

I end by saying that the Bill delivers on key manifesto commitments from this Labour Government. It provides stability, it supports businesses, and it moves us to a fairer, more sustainable tax system. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.