Reeves says protections remain for ‘working people' amid wealth tax speculation
But she said promises not to increase income tax, national insurance and value added tax (VAT) remained in place, along with her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules.
The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multi-billion black hole to fill, fuelling speculation she might target the assets of the wealthy.
Asked to rule that out, Ms Reeves told reporters: 'We haven't even set the date for the budget yet, so please forgive me if I'm not going to speculate about what might happen at an event that we haven't even decided a date on yet.
'But we've been really clear in our manifesto about the taxes that we won't increase, and we're not going to increase the taxes that working people pay, their income tax, their national insurance and their VAT, because I do recognise the struggle that ordinary working people have faced these last few years with the cost of living.'
She added that her fiscal rules were 'non-negotiable' as 'they are what give working people security, around interest rates for example'.
The narrow margin by which the Chancellor is on course to meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through revenues rather than borrowing means she is vulnerable to any increase in debt interest costs or reductions in planned savings, such as on welfare.
Ms Reeves said: 'Interest rates have come down four times in the last year under this Labour Government because of the stability that we've managed to return to the economy, which is underpinned by those fiscal rules, which have enabled the Bank of England to cut interest rates.'
The Bank's governor Andrew Bailey has suggested there could be larger cuts if the jobs market shows signs of weakness, pointing to the impact of Ms Reeves' decision to hike employers' national insurance contributions (NICs).
Businesses are 'adjusting employment' as a result of the NICs increase and workers are 'also having pay rises that are possibly less than they would have been if the NICs change hadn't happened', he said.
In an interview with The Times, the governor said the British economy was growing behind its potential.
This could open up 'slack' to bring down inflation, he said, meaning prices on goods would rise less swiftly compared with earnings in future.
Mr Bailey said he believes the base rate set by the Bank of England would be lowered in future, after it was held in June.
The current Bank rate of 4.25%, which has a bearing on all lending in the UK – including mortgages – will be reviewed again on August 7 by the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee.
'I really do believe the path is downward,' Mr Bailey told The Times.
He added: 'But we continue to use the words 'gradual and careful' because… some people say to me 'why are you cutting when inflation's above target?''
Treasury Chief Secretary Darren Jones said it was entirely normal for firms to adjust their business plans because of a tax hike.
He told Times Radio: 'We've also seen the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs across the country, and it's normal for business to make adjustments to their plans, depending on the cost of business, in the normal way.
'But we're really focused as a Government in supporting business to create more jobs.'
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Labour are going to raise your taxes, again, to pay for their mistakes.
'Britain doesn't need more taxes. People are taxed too high already.
'It needs a government committed to bringing down spending so we live within our means. Only the Conservative Party believes this.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
Leader Live
33 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
The Herald Scotland
42 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse (Geoff Pugh/PA) The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Jonathan Brady/PA) The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
