Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brian Leishman and James Murray

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The OBR’s spring forecast will take place on 26 March and be accompanied by a statement to Parliament from the Chancellor. Ahead of the statement, the Government will not give a running commentary responding to forecasts and economic developments, but I reassure the hon. Member that the Chancellor’s commitment —indeed, the whole Government’s commitment—to our fiscal rules is non-negotiable.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It should not be working people who pay more tax, because wealth inequality is growing in the UK and improving living standards is ultimately what the Government will be judged on. Does the Minister see the merit in introducing an annual wealth tax of 2% on people with over £10 million-worth of assets, which would go an awful long way to raising £26 billion per annum to equalise society?

[James Murray]

I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the £200 million investment in the Grangemouth facility, which has already been spoken about today. I hope he will also support the Government’s decision to restore fiscal responsibility to public finances within the tough fiscal rules that the Chancellor set out at the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brian Leishman and James Murray

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

During the passage of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, we set out clearly how the scheme would work to reimburse costs for public departments or local government. That measure is in line with what the previous Government attempted to do with the health and social care levy. Where third-party private contractors are engaged, those costs will be considered by local government or other public sector organisations in the round.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

T4. The previous Conservative Government decided to back an INEOS project in Antwerp, with a £600 million loan guarantee. I have spoken with the current the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) about that, and I have been told that the Government have no plans to stop that money, even though INEOS plans to close the Grangemouth refinery, with the loss of thousands of jobs. Why is there £600 million for Antwerp and not Grangemouth, and why would the Government allow that to happen and not use the £600 million as leverage with INEOS, to avoid Scottish job losses?