Inheritance Tax

Debate between James Murray and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As the right hon. Lady will know, I have been in a position in the Treasury previously in this Government, and I have had a large number of conversations with people affected by, and worried about, this tax policy. The tax policy introduced in April this year has a £2.5 million threshold for the 100% relief, and we are confident that that balances raising revenue for the public finances with giving the right protection to family farms, which we think is so important.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister; he is being very generous. If he was a farmer with a relatively small farm—probably pretty marginal at, say, 300 acres and worth about £3 million—would he consider improving his farm and investing in capital to upgrade it, with the expensive kit now necessary to produce any sort of return on the land these days, or would he think, particularly if he was getting on in years, that that money would simply be top-sliced by the Treasury?

[James Murray]

Much like his right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), the right hon. Gentleman refers to a £3 million farm. Again, that makes me confident that the threshold of £2.5 million for the 100% relief would cover a large proportion of those assets. As I said, that £2.5 million of qualifying assets means that a couple can pass on up to £5 million of qualifying assets, and that is in addition to the other existing nil rate bands. It is a similar point that his right hon. Friend made. The fact is that a £3 million farm would be covered by much of the relief and the nil rate bands.

Our responsible approach to the public finances stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by the Conservatives. In government, they crashed the economy while the shadow Chancellor was in the Treasury, and they left us with billions of pounds of unfunded spending commitments. In opposition, they are showing that they have learned nothing from their general election defeat. They claim their changes to inheritance tax would cost £6 billion and that they know how they would pay for them, but when they say they would make savings to welfare and asylum, no one can believe a word they say when everyone knows the cost of both soared when they were in power. What is more, independent analysis by tax expert Dan Neidle suggests that the true cost of their changes would reach £10.8 billion a year once behavioural effects are taken into account. That is almost double the number the shadow Chancellor has been bandying around.

Let’s face it: with the Conservatives’ policies costing double what they say and their so-called savings failing to materialise, they would either push up borrowing or do what Tories do best: make cuts to schools, prison places and our NHS. Let’s be clear: this policy would fail to help ordinary families across the country. That independent analysis has shown that 90% of the benefit would go to the wealthiest 20% of pensioner households; 40% would go to the wealthiest 5%; and 70% of the benefits would go to households in London and the south-east.

The Conservatives’ policy stands in contrast to the fair decisions that this Government will always take. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will of course set out any future tax measures in the Budget in two weeks’ time. But let me remind the House of the decisions this Government have already taken to provide breathing space to families and businesses. For families rightly concerned about the cost of energy, we have removed VAT from electricity bills, taking around £45 off the price cap, and that is on top of the £150 removed from bills at the last Budget. For those paying business rates, the Government have introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion, with a further announcement in July taking an extra 20% off bills for pubs, social clubs and live music venues.

These are some of our choices to help families and businesses across the country. Rather than helping ordinary families struggling with the cost of living, the Tories instead are prioritising some of those with the greatest wealth. In a world of difficult choices, they are choosing to direct billions of pounds towards some of those with the largest assets, while everyone else is asked to pick up the bill.

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Debate between James Murray and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman had a very long time to comment earlier in this debate—I may give way to him later.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister is a reasonable man, and I imagine that he would subscribe to the Government’s much-vaunted duty of candour that they are selling in their Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is currently in Committee. The Bill is so important to the Government that the Prime Minister himself had to introduce it on Second Reading. Will the Minister examine what has happened over the past couple of months? Does he really believe that the Treasury, and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can truly be said to have discharged that duty of candour in their dealings?

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Debate between James Murray and Andrew Murrison

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The right hon. Lady is attempting to bring some humour to the Chamber by pretending that the Opposition have some kind of a plan for their proposal. To call their motion half-baked would be not to go far enough. In fact, it shows the recklessness in their approach to the economy. It may be Halloween on Friday, but the ghost of Liz Truss is here today, because the economic recklessness that the former Prime Minister embodied is back in front of us in this Chamber. We have a half-baked motion from the Opposition, built on the wholly unworkable premise of more unfunded tax cuts. Three years on from their disastrous mini-Budget, they have learned precisely nothing.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[James Murray]

I will be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s link.

[Dr Murrison]

I will be interested to hear what the Minister intends to do to un-gum the housing market. I think he will accept that it is an important part of our economy and he says that he is very keen on growth, so what will he do to un-gum it? And what does he say to those legions of tradespeople—electricians, plumbers and kitchen fitters—who are all looking to the Government to provide them with some relief in the months ahead?

[James Murray]

I would say to everyone who works in building homes that Labour is the party that is getting on with building: we are making changes to the planning system to get those homes build. Despite his attempt to make a link to my previous comment, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not address that fact that this motion is entirely half-baked. It is a genuine shame for British politics that we have an Opposition who think that they can put forward a motion like this for serious debate in the House of Commons. To be fair, the Conservative party is steeped in centuries of being in Opposition and in Government, but it has become deeply unserious by putting forward motions such as the one today. The motion simply says that the Conservatives’ plan to abolish stamp duty is “to reduce public expenditure”; that it is—that is the sum of their plan.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between James Murray and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that some of the features of the current inheritance tax relief system mean that it is an attractive vehicle for tax planning to reduce inheritance tax liability. People who have wealth who have never been farmers and do not intend to become farmers have been using it as a way to avoid inheritance tax. In fact, reducing that should take some of the pressure out of agricultural land values and, I would hope, help to make a more sustainable farming sector in the future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is important to get the facts right and to get the right number of farms in frame. The Minister must know that the CAAV has said that the Government estimate is down by a factor of five. According to its impartial independent review, 75,000 farms will be in frame for this tax, not the figure the Minister is relying on.

[James Murray]

My response to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as that to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I believe he is looking at the data for the total value of farms, rather than for inheritance tax claims. The two are different things. For instance, a farm worth £5 million owned in equal shares by five individuals would have no inheritance tax liability because of the way claims work. That is where I think some of the confusion has come from. There is different data around the value of farms and around the value of inheritance tax claims. For the purpose of today’s debate, it is the inheritance tax claims that are the right data to focus on.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Murray and Andrew Murrison

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will come to the energy profits levy in a moment, but we have engaged with the oil and gas industry to ensure that we raise the money we need for the clean energy transition while supporting investment and jobs in that industry. We recognise that oil and gas will play a part in the energy mix for years to come, but we also recognise that the industry must contribute to this essential transition.

This Bill maintains the 25% cap on corporation tax that we set out in our manifesto. It also makes no changes to the permanent full expensing regime or the annual investment allowance.

Before turning to other measures in the Bill, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has already committed to reversing several of them. If Conservative Members disagree with the difficult but necessary choices that this Government have had to make to repair the public finances and protect working people, they have every right to oppose our plans, but they must explain what choices they would make instead. So far, their new leadership has fallen at the very first hurdle of being a credible Opposition by trying to have it both ways. [Interruption.] They make plenty of noise, but I do not hear any alternatives.

The Leader of the Opposition has said that she opposes the measures in this Bill, but she also claims to support the investment that those measures fund. She says that reintroducing the VAT tax break for private school fees would be the very first thing she does if she became Prime Minister, yet she also appears to support the extra £2.3 billion that our Budget puts into state education. In fact, we have calculated that she has made unfunded pledges worth £12 million for every hour since she was appointed. By my reckoning, that is £1 million-worth of pledges since I began speaking five minutes ago.

By behaving this way, the Conservatives simply remind people how very far away they are from being a credible Opposition, and they are getting further away by the day.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

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?

[James Murray]

Every business knows that we can make investment decisions only on the basis of secure public finances and economic stability, which is why this Government’s first priority has been to wipe the slate clean of the mess we inherited from the Conservative party, to deliver economic stability and to provide the environment for businesses to make the investments on which we will grow the economy. That remains our No. 1 mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the lack of funding that the previous Government put into the state sector has implications. It takes a toll on children if schools are not properly funded. If the capital budgets for schools are not properly funded, as well as their revenue budgets, that has an impact on children’s lives. That is why the funding that we are putting into schools is something for which I will make no apology. The fact that we are having to take difficult decisions to fund it is the nature of government. I note that Conservative Members are happy to support our investment in state schools, but they refuse to support the difficult decisions necessary to generate that funding. Frankly, that underscores how far away they are from even being a credible Opposition.

[Dr Murrison]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman, so I will make some progress.

Within the policy, provision for pupils with special educational needs is an important matter that a several right hon. and hon. Members have raised with me. The Government recognise the importance of that too, and I am glad to confirm that where pupils have special educational needs that can only be met in private schools, as determined by an education, health and care plan in England or its equivalent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, local authorities and devolved Governments that fund those places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees.

Fourthly, this Government are delivering on the manifesto commitments to increase the energy profits levy by three percentage points, from 35% to 38%, and to extend the period over which the levy applies by one year. The Government are also ending unjustifiably generous allowances by removing the levy’s core investment allowance, which was unique to oil and gas taxation and not available to any other sector of the economy. We are, however, providing stability within other features of the system, by maintaining the level of tax relief available for decarbonisation investment, by setting the rate of the allowance at 66% and by maintaining the availability of 100% first-year allowances.