Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Burghart and Mel Stride

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

9. What fiscal steps he is taking to support the high street.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

As my hon. Friends will know, in the Budget, we allocated £1.5 billion to supporting our high streets, including £675 million for our future high streets fund, and reduced business rates for smaller retailers by one third for the next two years.

[Alex Burghart]

Businesses in my constituency are giddy with excitement at this huge reduction in business rates. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what proportion of businesses on the high street are going to benefit from this?

[Mel Stride]

I am also giddy with excitement about this, and giddy with excitement to be able to inform my hon. Friend that up to 90% of smaller retailers, many of them in our high streets, will benefit from this package. That is in complete contrast to Labour’s policy of putting up taxes on small businesses. That is no way to support our high streets; it is Labour’s way to destroy business and jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Burghart and Mel Stride

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Perhaps this is something that I could take up with her offline so that I fully comprehend the exact point she is raising.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Last year, more businesses were created in the UK than in any other developed economy. Does that not show that the Government’s policy towards businesses is working, and what will the Treasury do to build on that success?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Alex Burghart and Mel Stride

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Bank of England carries out stress tests on our banking system. In the latest round, the banks came through very strongly—not a single one failed. The tests stress the system to a greater extent than the effect of the last financial crash in 2008, so we can be certain that the measures the Government have put in place, the operation of the independence of the Bank of England and carrying those things through are having the desired effect that he rightly seeks.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

After 2008, a bank levy was needed because there was not much profitability in the banks to enable their assets to be taxed, but as we have improved regulation it is now worth moving to tax their profitability. Does the Minister agree that this is the right time to make this shift in raising revenue?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government since 2015, and the coalition Government, oversaw the restoration of the banking sector to a healthy central part of our economy. He is absolutely right. The shift from the bank levy to the taxation of profits which was introduced on 1 January 2016 indicated that the risks themselves were diminishing under our stewardship, and that our banking sector was profitable enough to bring in considerably more tax revenue. Since 2010, under Conservative Chancellors, we have secured more than £44 billion in additional tax—I stress the word “additional”—from the banks, over and above the tax that we would be applying to them were they non-financial businesses.

Paradise Papers

Debate between Alex Burghart and Mel Stride

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the trust arrangements for those who become deemed domiciled as a consequence of this Government deciding to put an end to permanent non-dom status—something that his party never did in its 13 years in office—he will know that all is not quite as the Labour party presents it. Any funds coming out of such trusts will, when they are remitted, fall due to tax by the deemed domiciled individual exactly as they would for any other UK citizen.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Is it not the case that, with the Criminal Finances Act 2017, the Government have created a new criminal offence for firms that do not stop staff facilitating tax evasion?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is just another example of the 35 additional measures the Government are taking between now and the end of this Parliament to ensure we clamp down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.

Finance Bill

Debate between Alex Burghart and Mel Stride

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is crucial, perhaps now more than ever, that this country is entirely open to money, to investment and to good business practice from around the world. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that they create an environment that will bring jobs and investment into his constituency and mine, and indeed into all parts of our country. I also want to voice my wholehearted support for Government amendment 17—a fine amendment if ever there was one—which sets the Treasury record straight, as ever it should be.

[Mel Stride]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his interesting and informative contribution. Alas, I am going to have to disappoint him and say that I will urge the House to reject new clause 1, but I thank him most sincerely for the generosity with which he gave way to the wave upon wave of Government Members who wanted to challenge him—it was a veritable intervention-fest. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) mentioned the “The Morecambe & Wise Show” but in the hon. Gentleman’s case, I was reminded more of the 1980s show “Game for a Laugh”—[Interruption.] Perhaps that was unkind, but we had some fun along the way.