Taxes
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(4 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today, as well as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his opening remarks, and the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) for summing up for the Opposition. He was Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for a time under the last Government, and he will know just how busy the period two weeks before a Budget can be for a junior Minister in His Majesty’s Treasury. I imagine that when he was in my position, 14 days out from a Budget or autumn statement, with officials rushing in and out of his office with advice on various measures, and a day full of meetings trying to get the details right, there was nothing more he would have wanted in the world than be called to the House for an Opposition day debate. I thank him and the shadow Chancellor for calling this debate at such a crucial time in the Budget-setting process.
I expect some interventions during my remarks over the next 10 to 15 minutes, and I encourage Members across the House to play what I will call Treasury Minister bingo. If I am asked questions about the upcoming Budget, I intend to respond with, “The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the Budget, and I will not comment on speculation.” We can see how many interventions we get, and how many times we get to play Treasury Minister bingo. That is just to forewarn those who, like me, perhaps enjoy a game of bingo—
Joe Robertson
I appreciate that this is the end of a debate and the Minister is trying to be funny, but a lot of constituents I speak to do not find this period particularly funny, and would like the Minister to confirm that his Government will stick to their manifesto pledge. Please can the Minister not respond with the word “bingo”? This is a really serious matter.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Chancellor will make all decisions on tax and spend at the Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation. I have said that is what I will say if people continue to intervene. We are two weeks out from a Budget, and I will not be commenting on speculation from the Dispatch Box today.
Jerome Mayhew
I have heard what the Minister says and I do not ask him to comment on the Budget, but can he confirm whether he thinks that manifesto pledges are important?
Dan Tomlinson
If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask questions about the manifesto, I am glad that he is interested in the change that this Government are bringing through their manifesto. We have invested in our NHS and introduced new taxes on non-doms. We have introduced free breakfast clubs, and invested in HMRC to reduce tax avoidance—we will come on to talk about that, after the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We have set up Great British Energy, and we are implementing the National Wealth Fund.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Tomlinson
Let me make a bit of progress if I may—I will happily take a further intervention in good time. It is a sorry fact, but it is true that Conservative Members squandered their time in power, just as they squandered much taxpayer money. After 14 years of failure they left people paying more for less, and enforced a policy of austerity for too long, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) spoke about in his contribution. That policy brought public services to their knees—something we needed to fix—and saddled us with so much debt that we now pay £1 in every £10 of public money in debt interest payments alone. I agree with the contribution from a Conservative Member who said that that is not a morally acceptable situation, but that is the situation we inherited, and one that we intend to change. Over the course of this Parliament the international comparisons bear out, and we are on track to reduce the deficit that we inherited faster than any other G7 economy. That is the stability that the Chancellor is returning to the public finances.
Laurence Turner
The Minister has just spoken about public services and touched on productivity. At the start of the debate, the shadow Chancellor talked about the importance of timely public sector pay settlements to productivity increases. Having been a union official in the aftermath of the strikes by ambulance workers, I have some insight into this issue. Ministers in the previous Government said that they wanted productivity increases, but negotiators for the Government had nothing to suggest on productivity links and they were asking the trade union for ideas.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his years of work and experience supporting public sector workers and our proud trade unionists.
Conservative Members have mentioned the statistics that have been published of late. There is much that we need to do to ensure that the investment that we make in the NHS comes with improvements in productivity and output. The Health Secretary was talking about that today in reference to our reforms to NHS England, and about ensuring that we are not duplicating spending in both the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England. I thought that Conservative Members were against quangos, but it turns out that they are against that reform.
Jerome Mayhew
I am encouraged to hear that the Minister wants to link increased funding with productivity increases. In that spirit, why was the resident doctors’ pay rise not linked to any productivity increases?
Dan Tomlinson
In the end, in order to sort out the strikes we needed to give public sector workers a fair deal. The situation that they were left in was not fair, with their wages going up significantly less than prices over the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power. The Health Secretary has been clear about not wanting to go as far the pay settlement demanded, but the situation that we reached last year is right and proportionate, and we hope that we can continue to invest in reform of our NHS.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Tomlinson
Let me make a bit more progress—I am only on page 2 of a six page speech—[Interruption.] I am taking many interventions, but I will take fewer.
The previous Government saddled us with much debt, as we have talked about, with £1 in every £10 of public money going towards debt interest payments, perpetuating a stop-start cycle of public investments that left us with roads full of potholes, train lines that cannot even make it between London and the north of England, and an unpredictable business environment, with business taxation going up and down all the time. All that gave us an incredibly narrow base for regional growth, with few parts of the country forging ahead, while too many in the rest of the country fell behind.
Levelling up was a Conservative slogan, not a solution. Instead, this Labour Government are growing the economy and lifting living standards in all parts of the country, investing in infrastructure to get Britain building again, and working with local leaders and Members of Parliament to build pride in place and revitalise communities. That is the change that we are bringing. The Conservatives had the opportunity to invest in our public services, to upgrade rail, roads and connectivity, and to protect our NHS, but instead they threw money around with little regard for its value.
A key factor in our stalled productivity is that, time and again, the Conservatives had the option to choose economic responsibility, but they chose political convenience instead. The austerity that they pursued after the financial crisis, when interest rates were at record lows, was a sledgehammer to our economy, gutting public services and cutting the essential flows of investment that would have aided a faster recovery. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) said, and as Liberal Democrat Members are wont to mention, they then went ahead and implemented a rushed and ill-conceived Brexit deal that brought extra costs to businesses and extra disruption to trade. When the pandemic arrived, our country was not ready. Our public services and our economy have been severely weakened.
Gregory Stafford
As I told the hon. Member yesterday, he has the second worst job in Government, which I think he is feeling today. Even if what he has just said is true—I do not agree with him—after the Budget last year, the Chancellor said that the slate was wiped clean and that no more tax rises or borrowing would be needed. What has changed between then and now?
Dan Tomlinson
I was glad to attend the hon. Member’s Westminster Hall debate last night on wine producers across the UK. I am impressed by his close reading of all the words of members of the Cabinet; I hope one day to be as diligent as him in following the utterances of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all Ministers.
When it comes to the inheritance that this Government and the British people are dealing with, let me say that if wage growth since the financial crisis continued at the pace that it had before, it is not that families in my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and across the country would be £1,000 or £2,000 a year better off; they would be £12,000 a year better off. Imagine the difference that that would make to the businesses and communities across our country if we had not had that productivity stagnation.
In the end, we will see at the Budget that the OBR is implementing its review of productivity. I will not pre-empt that review, but it is right and proper that we ensure our fiscal forecasts are based on accurate understandings of what has happened in the past to our productivity, because the past is a guide to the future. I hope that this Government will continue to beat the outcomes that happened under the previous Government, when productivity almost flatlined, and that is exactly what this Budget will be about.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) asked the Minister a specific question. In October last year, the Chancellor said, “We are not coming back for more. We have wiped the slate clean. From now on, it is on us.” What has happened between then and now? What has changed?
Dan Tomlinson
One of the things that has changed is that Conservative Members seem to have found £47 billion down the back of the sofa and are coming forward with plans that are not deliverable, just like they did when they were in government. They have done the job of a losing Opposition—we have been there in the past—whereby numbers used in opposition are not serious or credible. We all know where that ends up.
The Conservatives said recently that they would slash taxes and pay for it with £47 billion of fairyland spending cuts. For context, that is the equivalent of firing every police officer in the country. Of course, I am not saying that they will do that or that they have joined the “defund the police” brigade, but what would they do? We do not really know, because all we have is a menu without a price list.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
One unexplored area we could look at to raise some of the money we need is selling the brass neck of the Conservatives on the commodities market. Having cheered when Liz Truss delivered her mini-Budget, they now have the gall to lecture us about fiscal responsibility.
Dan Tomlinson
And the Conservatives have the gall to lecture us about managing the public finances well. They say that they want to cut civil service numbers. Between 2016 and when the Conservatives left office, there were 130,000 more civil servants. The former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and former Prime Minister said that he would cut civil service numbers by 91,000; they then went up. In October ’23—when the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), was in my role—the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) unveiled an immediate cap on civil service numbers and pledged to cut them by 66,000; they then went up. Between May 2022 and July 2024, the numbers went up in every single quarter. I am not sure that the public would leave the Conservatives’ restaurant at all satisfied if they bought the items on their menu, because everything they have promised does not seem to turn into reality.
I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dan Tomlinson
Hon. Members want more! Okay.
If this debate has taught us anything, it is simply this: not only do the Conservatives need to stay in opposition for longer, but I am sure that they will do so. So far, they have learned nothing from their time on the Government Benches. There is no humility for their mini-Budget, no plan for giving Britain a brighter future, and no grasp of the realities that the country and the world face. They also have no will to face up to reality, to show leadership or to make choices that will support our public services, businesses and citizens.
Meanwhile, this Government have given the country the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of the year. We have raised wages and living standards, and the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times because of the economic stability we have brought, which has reduced mortgage payments and lowered the cost of borrowing. This Government have increased public investment in capital spending by over £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, building for the future—something that the Conservative party failed to do. That is the difference that a Government with British values at their heart can make. At this month’s Budget, we will put those values into practice again, with fairness and opportunity for all so that we can secure our economy, strengthen our public services and lift living standards for the British people.
Question put.
Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I am glad to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate, and for speaking so eloquently in support of the UK wine sector. It is fantastic to hear him speak about the sector’s growth, as well as its continuing progress on exports, which is a really good thing. The irony is not lost on me, though, that he said that Treasury Wine Estates has some reservations about the Treasury’s tax policy—I will look into that.
I heartily echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the UK wine industry’s significant contribution to our economy, culture and tourism. As he mentioned, the statistics speak for themselves: we are the world’s second largest wine importer, bringing in 1.7 billion bottles in 2024. Sales of both imported and home-grown wine support hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in hospitality and retail. In recent years, as many Members have mentioned, more and more people have taken up work in the UK’s domestic wine sector, which is much like a dessert wine—small, but strong.
Industry figures suggest that more than 1,000 vineyards and 200 wineries contribute to our rural economy, with land under vine growing fivefold since 2005. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) listed many of the wineries in her patch; one of the challenges of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), is that they do not always get to speak in these debates. However, I have been reliably informed by note that the two Members have the same number of vineyards in their constituencies—there may have to be a little Kent-based competition.
It is great to see that the number of home-grown products is increasing, with production exceeding 10 million bottles last year, and with sales rising too. This Government are committed to fostering an environment in which the wine industry, like its vines, can thrive and grow.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, as well as other Opposition Members, made important points about the UK’s alcohol duty system. Before I turn to those points, I will first acknowledge the Government’s wider work to support the wine industry through agricultural grants and export promotion. The Government have committed at least £200 million to the farming innovation programme through to 2030, and we champion domestically produced wines on the international stage. For example, we showcased English sparkling wine at the Osaka expo earlier this year.
As I have mentioned English sparkling wine, it is important that I also mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked about Scotland’s growing wine industry and the impact it is having on high streets. He also said that, in designing a sensible tax system, it is important that it takes account of the impact on the health of the population, which I think is reflected in the current system.
Members have spoken about the previous Government’s reform of the alcohol duty system. I am a Labour MP, so it is not lost on me that I am defending an alcohol duty system implemented by Conservative MPs, and that Conservative MPs are opposed to a system implemented by their own Government. We learned in opposition that it is not always wise to oppose the decisions made by our party when it was previously in government. Indeed, I think that one of the reasons we won the last election is because we were able to talk proudly and confidently of the achievements of previous Labour Governments. Anyway, it is up to Opposition Members to choose which aspects of previous Government policy they wish to support, or not.
As others have mentioned, the alcohol duty system is now based on the principle of taxing alcohol by strength, which means that alcohol duty increases with a product’s ABV. Although it is true that some higher-strength wines have faced increases in duty, that has been balanced by reductions in duty for lower-ABV wines, including some British wines. Prior to the reforms, wines with 11% ABV and wines with 14% ABV both paid the same duty per bottle. Now, there is a difference: wines with 11% ABV pay £2.43 in duty and wines with 14% ABV pay £3.10.
I am interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent about the extent to which British wine companies are producing wine with an ABV below 8.5%. I will consider that point. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading up on this topic earlier today. However, I know the changes were introduced alongside conversations with industry representatives, and those conversations will continue as the changes bed in.
In recognition of the big changes that were implemented, it is right to assess their impacts after they have had time to take effect. We have said that will take place at least three years after their introduction in 2023. I will take that work forward next year with officials from HMRC, and I would welcome evidence from Members in this Chamber, including representations from the businesses and communities they represent, and of course I will engage with the wine industry.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said he had three points, but I think he had four in the end, including on the cumulative impact—I will try to address all four. On his third point, yes, we will consider in the round all aspects of the system’s current design. I do not want this review to be one that does not properly interrogate the design of the system, and I also do not want to pre-empt where it will get to, but in my role overseeing that review, I want us to look carefully at the design of the system as a whole. I think the system is sensible and fair, but I also know there are challenges that have been raised by Members today.
On the hon. Member’s big point about cuts or freezes to alcohol duty, it is worth realising that any such cuts or freezes would come at a cost to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility produces the costings for any changes to taxation policy.
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman might think that some of the OBR’s assumptions are wrong. I encourage Members, if they have evidence, facts or figures that they want to put to the OBR on the elasticities—as I believe it is called when a tax rate is changed and has an impact on consumption—to send them in. The Government are confident in the OBR’s independence, but I will always want to ensure that we are putting forward accurate costings. In this instance, I believe that the OBR is in the right place when it comes to the elasticities, but Members should feel free to send in their own representations.
It is worth noting that freezing alcohol duty this year, if inflation was around 4%, would be equivalent to a 3.85% duty cut. Using HMRC’s published ready reckoner, this would cost the Exchequer roughly £440 million a year. It is right, therefore, that any decision on alcohol duty weighs the impact on overall revenues carefully. That is what I am confident that the Chancellor will do when she makes a decision in the Budget in just a few weeks.
I will try to run through some of the points made by Members in this debate. The hon. Members for Bridgwater, for Weald of Kent and for Farnham and Bordon, and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised the issue of small producer relief for wine. That question was considered in detail as part of the previous Government’s review into alcohol duty, and as I have said, we will look to review it three years after the implementation that took place on 1 August 2023. We want to gather data and really look at the impact of the reforms. If Members want to come forward with proposals for change, then they should do so.
Dan Tomlinson
Of course. I was looking forward to my first intervention, and will happily give way.
Charlie Maynard
I am just going to make a plea. HMRC is losing nearly £1 billion a year, which is incredibly bad news, and there are massive frictions and admin costs on business. Why would we not just go back to the easement? We can stand looking at this massive problem, or we can face facts and deal with it—and actually get money for the Exchequer.
Dan Tomlinson
We will look in the round at the changes that were implemented in 2023. I do not want to rush to implement something that does not work for the alcohol industry as a whole and is not fair or proportionate. But I understand the points that have been raised—they are well made and I have been listening.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon also raised the cumulative impact on the wine industry of various changes that have been made by previous Governments, and the current Government, including around packaging. That does go to a big-picture point that is contested in this place about the tax rises implemented in the Budget last year. It is my view, and the view of the Chancellor and the Government, that in the round we had to make those decisions to raise revenue. I understand that it led to additional taxation on businesses, but that was on the largest businesses—around half of businesses, those with the fewest employees, are not paying any additional national insurance as a result of the changes last year. But I understand that there was an impact on those firms that had to absorb those additional taxation levels.
The Government think that it was the right decision in order to raise revenue to fund our public services and ensure that borrowing was not increased more than is sustainable. It is right that the Government ensure that we borrow to invest in the future of this country, something I wish the previous Government had done when interest rates were down at 0.5%. On a serious point, as the Minister with responsibility for taxation policy and the Treasury, I am looking closely at the impact of all the changes that have been introduced in previous years that require compliance and burden for business. We have to look carefully at them, because we want to see businesses growing, thriving and being able to hire more people and expand.
On business rates specifically, the Chancellor will come forward at the Budget with the permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure. That policy was set out in our manifesto and we will announce the detail at the Budget.
Let me turn to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). I was glad to hear a shout-out for my hometown of Witney—I went to Wood Green school in his constituency; it is a wonderful part of the world. He, too, raised the point that one of the challenges with the move to the new system is the additional bands. If we look at it on a chart, the line is flat because the rate is the same, but of course I am aware that, depending on the ABV, producers are at different points on that line. That is something they have to deal with, and he is right that it is maybe more of a challenge for those who are producing wine and growing products. I do understand that; the point was well made, and there will be a review of the tax three years after implementation.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned Scotch whisky and was interested to hear from me about the support that the Government are providing to the industry. I would say that the industry is set to be one of the biggest beneficiaries from the trade deal with India, which is set to reduce tariffs from 150% to 75% initially and then to 40% over time.
I do not think I have reached every single question that Members raised, but I hope they feel that I have covered the points that were made. To conclude, our Government are dedicated to supporting the UK wine industry through a range of measures, including ensuring an alcohol duty system that is fair and proportionate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon for securing the debate. I share his pride in this growing British success story and look forward to further discussions, including with WineGB and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association—tomorrow, in fact—about how we can build a prosperous and sustainable future for UK wine.
Oral Answers to Questions
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Ministers from Government Departments have met organisations including the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, and the NFU in Scotland and Wales. I also met farmers in the north-east of England only last month. After listening and considering the independent Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report, the Government believe that the approach we have set out is an appropriate one.
David Smith
I am proud to support a Government who believe in progressive taxation, as I am sure the Minister does—that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Under the CenTax minimum share rule proposal, farm estates where at least 60% of the estate is used for farming would receive relief of up to £5 million per person. This would reduce the risk of family farms being broken up, place a greater burden on very large estates and those gaming the system, and double the forecast tax take. Will the Minister direct Treasury officials to take another look at the CenTax proposals on APR prior to the Budget?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—he is a strong advocate in this place for his constituency and for farming communities. Just last week, he made the point to me that our farmers and farming communities are crucial to economic and social and cultural life. Along with other Labour colleagues from rural constituencies, he has been working hard to raise the points that matter to farmers, and this Government are doing all we can to support our farming industry.
On the specific point about CenTax’s proposals on minimum share, I do not need to direct officials to look at them, because I have read the proposals. It is worth noting that the number of losers from the proposed policy would be more than double the number of people affected by the changes that this Government are making. Over 1,000 estates would be affected by the proposals put forward by CenTax.
Sarah Dyke
A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request revealed that the Treasury recently had plans to review the family farm tax. Farmers across the country are fed up with bickering and infighting from a Government who just do not understand them, but there is still time to act and end months of confusion and misery. Will the Chancellor and her Ministers meet farmers from Glastonbury and Somerton, and me, to provide some clarity and reveal the full extent of the Government’s discussions on revoking this damaging family farm tax?
Dan Tomlinson
Just a few weeks ago, I met farmers to discuss this and other important issues. The Government believe that even though this tax is a difficult change—I do not shy away from that fact—it is the right change to make, because it is a method of raising revenue in a fair way that helps contribute to restoring the public finances.
Ben Maguire
I kindly ask the Chancellor to please respond to my joint letter on Cornwall’s future funding, sent last week, which asks her to meet all Cornish MPs without delay. Alternative proposals to this damaging family farm tax—such as a clawback scheme, as proposed by the NFU, or increasing the threshold to £5 million—would raise more in revenue than the Government’s current plans. In contrast to her speech this morning, the Chancellor now has the opportunity to do both the right thing and the popular thing. The mental health toll on farmers is becoming completely unsustainable, so please, Chancellor, rethink this damaging policy.
Dan Tomlinson
I would be happy to meet the hon. Member and Members from across Cornwall to discuss the issues raised in the letter to the Chancellor.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
As the Minister has just highlighted, the main argument against the CenTax proposals for APR now seems to be a fear that more people will be subject to inheritance tax under those proposals, even though most of those extra people are essentially private homeowners with agricultural fields. Does he agree that Labour values call for supporting hard-working farmers, who are the backbone of this country, over millionaire homeowners who have money in their wider estate to pay the inheritance tax?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her time last week—it was good to meet her to talk about important issues affecting farmers and rural communities. On balance, the Government believe that the policy position that was set out at last year’s Budget is the right one, and we will be continuing with it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This morning the Chancellor failed to take responsibility for her poor choices in a Budget that whacked up taxes, borrowing and spending, and made it clear that she would once again break her promises on tax. The farmers whom I have met have been in tears about the family farm tax, not because they are worried about losing their jobs but because the Chancellor is putting generations of farming at risk. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Chancellor has actually met any farmers, the NFU or other farming organisations to understand the impact of her policy and why she should scrap the family farm tax?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government have assessed the impact of this policy. According to the estimates that we issued at the time of last year’s Budget, about 500 farms would pay additional tax as a result of the changes; those numbers were contested by all Opposition Members, but the CenTax report—which the hon. Member has said that he and others are interested in reading—backs them up and confirms the Government’s estimates.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On Friday I sat with farmers and their families in Brecon and Radnor, and they are desperate. If they are 65 or over, they have no time to plan for the family farm tax, they cannot get insurance, and they will be put in an impossible position if the Government go ahead with the tax unamended. The CenTax report sets out options that could extend extra protection for family farms while rightly raising funds from people who are currently exploiting the tax loopholes in APR. Those farmers asked me to put a question to the Chancellor. They asked, “Can the Chancellor please say precisely which parts of the CenTax report the Government disagree with, and why?”
Dan Tomlinson
I have already answered the question about the CenTax proposals, but it is clear from its analysis that the number of estates that would pay more inheritance tax would be more than double the number contained in the proposals that the Government have put on the table. I understand that changes in inheritance tax are always difficult, but last year the Government had to make the decision to raise more revenue to ensure that we could fund our public services adequately, and this change raises half a billion pounds in a fair way.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
HMRC is committed to improving day-to-day performance and the customer experience. Call waiting times in the first quarter of this year were half as long as in the same period last year, which is good news for customers. At the 2025 spending review, the Government allocated £500 million to make HMRC a digital-first organisation, and that transformation is well under way.
Shaun Davies
I welcome the Government’s £20 million investment in relocating and upgrading Telford’s HMRC office, with 1,000 members of staff working hard to deliver the best service possible. Will the Minister meet me and Telford and Wrekin council to discuss how the new HMRC campus can be at the forefront of improving the customer experience, including by harnessing the potential of AI and tech, as well as partnering with the start-up sector?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a very strong advocate for Telford, both for jobs in the private sector and for those in the public sector that we are able to support in his community. I am glad to hear that he, like me, is proud of HMRC’s Telford campus and wants to see it play a key role in improving customer experience through innovation, AI and digital technology. I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Chancellor has justified her lack of a licence for renting out her house as an “inadvertent error”, but HMRC is never prepared to accept that people make inadvertent errors. Will this now change, or does the Chancellor expect to be treated differently from everyone else who makes an inadvertent error?
Dan Tomlinson
I am not sure that the matter that the right hon. Member just raised has much to do with HMRC.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Treasury Committee looks at HMRC’s customer service. We have recently seen people having their child benefit stopped, ostensibly on the basis of travel data. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to resolve this issue and what data HMRC based its information on?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her service on the Treasury Committee; she is doing a sterling job as its Chair. This is a really important issue. Last year HMRC undertook a pilot to try to find a way to reduce fraud in the child benefit system. That measure is expected to save £350 million over the next five years, and we have already managed to prevent £17 million in wrongful payments, but my hon. Friend is right to say that a very small number of claimants had their child benefit incorrectly removed. I am really sorry that that happened. HMRC is writing to those who have been affected and ensuring that people who should get their child benefit payments do receive them.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent Hollie from Wimborne applied for a self-assessment refund of just £300 in April. When she chased it in June, she was told it had gone to a specialist tax team, with no reason and no time frame given. She complained in August, but it is now November, and she has heard nothing. While she may be owed only £300, this is happening around the country. Can the Minister tell me whether he thinks seven months is a reasonable time within which to receive a basic refund, and what the Department is doing to speed things up?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising her constituent’s issue, and I would be happy for her to write to the Department about it. Even though it is not appropriate for me to get involved in an individual taxpayer’s affairs, I hope the Department can improve on that service. We have improved the response rates for both people making phone calls and people getting in touch via the post, but of course there is always more we can do.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The Government value our world-leading distilling industry and recognise that the spirits sector has found recent economic conditions challenging because of both tariff uncertainty and high energy costs. The Scotch industry is set to be among the biggest beneficiaries from the landmark trade deal that this Government secured with India, which is set to reduce tariffs from 150% to 75% initially, and then to 40% over time.
Maureen Burke
Scotch whisky is one of Scotland’s greatest products, with high demand at home and across the globe, but many are worried about the challenges facing the industry. The Scotch Whisky Association is calling for a multi-year freeze on excise duty for spirits to relieve some of those pressures and to back the wider hospitality sector. Will the Minister join me, GMB Scotland and others by committing to freeze spirits duty in the Budget later this month?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for the businesses and industry in her constituency and in the areas nearby. As she is aware, the vast majority of Scotch is exported, so it is not subject to UK excise taxes. Nevertheless, the Government appreciate the importance of the domestic market to Scotch producers, and I do acknowledge the wider pressures facing the industry. On her specific question, the Government’s baseline assumption remains that alcohol duties will be increased with inflation each year to maintain their real-terms values, which means that any cut or freeze would come at a cost to the Exchequer. Of course, as with all taxes, the Chancellor—not a junior Treasury Minister—will confirm her decisions on alcohol duty as part of the Budget process in the normal way.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I remind him of the landmark trade deal that this Government secured with India. He criticises the Government for not doing enough, but we have secured a trade deal with India, the EU and the US. We are also reducing tariffs to support industry and investing in Scotland with a record-breaking Budget to support jobs, investment and growth, and the public sector across the whole of Scotland.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
We consulted on measures to simplify gambling duty and improve compliance. The responses from the consultation have now been analysed, and a response will be set out at the autumn Budget. We recognise the social and cultural value of horseracing, which is why we are listening to the horseracing sector as we consider our response to the consultation.
Sally Jameson
In Doncaster we have historic links to the horseracing industry, and we know at first hand the economic value it brings to our community and the country. Will the Minister agree to meet the British Horseracing Authority to discuss the potential impact on harmonisation and the impact that an increase in betting duties will have on the viability of racecourses, jobs and levy payments that support horseracing and the wider sporting industry?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for the horseracing industry and the jobs and economic activity in her constituency. I was glad to meet her just last week to discuss the topic she raises. As part of the consultation, there has been engagement with the horseracing industry to identify any potential unintended consequences for the sector and consider how they might be mitigated. As I said, the Government will respond to the consultation at the Budget. In response to her question, yes, I will happily meet with the BHA.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Both Ascot and Royal Windsor racecourses are incredibly important to my constituency. I have visited both, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On this issue, I urge the Minister to heed warnings from across the House and, more importantly, the industry. I cautiously welcome the briefing to The Telegraph at the weekend. Racing should be treated very differently from online casinos and gaming. Can he assure the House that taxes on horse and greyhound race flutters will not increase?
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The House will be aware that the 5p cut to fuel duty is set to expire in March 2026, and as with other tax policies, the Chancellor will make a final decision on fuel duty rates at the Budget in the context of the public finances.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Dan Tomlinson
Under the last Government, time and again, council tax went up and up and the funding for local councils went down and down. We have left councils on their knees, struggling when it comes to special educational needs, temporary accommodation and funding for homelessness and adult social care. This Government will make the right decisions when it comes to funding our councils and having a fair property taxation system.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Government are fully committed to doing all they can to supporting the UK car industry to grow, invest and provide employment in constituencies such as his and in other important sites across the country. Specifically on the employee car ownership scheme, we should be clear that private use of a company car is a valuable benefit to an employee but it is also right that company car tax is paid on it, ensuring fairness with other taxpayers who pay tax on cars provided by their employers. That said, I would be happy to meet—
Mr Speaker
Order. Members are meant to shorten their questions for topicals.
Dan Tomlinson
We will be introducing permanently lower rates for those businesses in the Budget.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Economists have told the Chancellor that stamp duty is a terrible tax because it damages growth. The Government’s response is to double stamp duty on a £300,000 house. Why?
Dan Tomlinson
In the end, when it comes to property taxation, we have to make sure that we have a fair and sustainable system that brings in revenues from a range of sources. Scrapping individual taxes without any realistic and plausible plan to fund them is the road to economic ruin in this country. We have seen what happened in the past when Conservative Governments came forward with plans to cut taxes without the means to afford it. We on this side of the House will not be making that mistake.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Charities, trade unions, academics and industry are united in their view that replacing the energy profits levy is not just an economic imperative, but a moral one. How many more of my constituents need to lose their jobs before the Government do just that?
Dan Tomlinson
At the Budget we will set out clearly our proposals for the future of the energy profits levy and the oil and gas mechanism. We will ensure that we can provide the certainty to business on the future regime as soon as we can.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
People in Crook and Tow Law are excited by the £20 million that the Chancellor is investing in our area through the pride in place scheme. After years of decline under the previous Government, which failed to spend most of the levelling-up money that they promised our community, what assurance can she give me that this time it will be local people in the driving seat and that we can spend the funds?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Chancellor consider in her Budget closing the loophole in small business rates relief that allows wealthy second homeowners to have their homes on the rental market for 72 nights a year and therefore avoid paying any tax whatsoever? My constituents working the minimum wage are having to subsidise them. That is not fair, is it?
Dan Tomlinson
We will set out the changes that we will make to business rates at the Budget.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Government’s pride in place programme presents a welcome opportunity for communities across the country to once again feel proud of where they live, especially after years of austerity and neglect under successive Conservative Governments. However, the Isle of Wight received none of that funding, which feels like an oversight, given the challenges our island faces, not least with cross-Solent transport. Will the Chancellor assure me that she is doing everything possible to ensure that islanders are not left behind and that they, too, can benefit from this programme and feel pride in our island once again?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In the past few weeks, I have visited two incredible local businesses: Saragusta Spirits, a local gin distillery, and Williams Family Wines, an award-winning winery. However, such entrepreneurial success is being hampered by small producer relief adding significant additional duty cost and preventing businesses from growing. With English viticulture and wines enjoying a surge in popularity, will the Chancellor consider extending small producer relief to drinks above 8.5% ABV, and if not, why not?
Dan Tomlinson
All decisions relating to tax will be made at the Budget in late November.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Claire founded Little Foxes Play Town in my constituency. It caters for and is enjoyed by children and parents in the community. However, Claire’s business has struggled with the cost of business rates and now with the requirement to pay VAT. Will the Minister assure me that the change in business rates will benefit small business owners such as Claire and ensure that they can continue to serve their local areas?
Dan Tomlinson
One important thing about the business rate reforms that the Government will undertake is that we support small businesses in growing and investing. They are the backbone of our communities and our country. The reforms that we will set out at the Budget—and on which we will continue to have conversations with Members across the House and with businesses—will, I hope, continue to support and enable investment in our small businesses.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This morning the Chancellor spoke of difficult decisions for everybody but the ultra-rich. With billionaire wealth soaring while living standards for most people fall, does she agree that it is time to double down on gross inequality in our country and tax extreme wealth fairly, so that we can tackle the cost of living crisis, end child poverty and invest in our public services?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
So often the farm is the very core of a rural economy. Could my hon. Friend confirm what assessment has been made about the impact of proposed changes to agricultural property relief on growth opportunities in rural areas and the viability of rural communities?
Dan Tomlinson
As I said earlier, the proposals made by CenTax and others in relation to agricultural property relief would result in twice as many farms paying more tax as are planned to do under the Government’s proposals. We think our proposals are right and fair.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Asylum accommodation costs are set to quadruple in Northern Ireland, from £100 million to £400 million, and across the UK to £15.3 billion in the next decade. Before hiking taxes again, should the Chancellor not look at where the waste really lies, when we are funding an asylum system that is failed, chaotic and expensive? This is not racist or far-right; it is looking after our own citizens who cannot pay their bills.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Between 2010 and 2020, the personal tax allowance threshold went up by 9.2% on average per year. However, it was frozen by the previous Government in 2021, and the freeze has continued under this Government. Will the Chancellor consider unfreezing the personal tax allowance and adjusting the additional rate and higher rate bands to compensate, to ensure that tax receipts are maintained?
Dan Tomlinson
It is important to realise that changes to taxation, if they are unfunded, will mean additional borrowing. This Government will ensure that we do not return to austerity, as the Conservatives did, but nor will we return to additional borrowing, which causes interest rates to rise, causes the cost of mortgages for families to go up and leads to economic chaos. That is not the approach this Government will take.
Bill Presented
Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Dyke presented a Bill to make provision to require the Secretary of State, in any negotiation relating to an international trade agreement, to seek to ensure that the agreement does not result in any detriment to UK dairy farmers; to make provision about the labelling of dairy products imported from outside the UK; to make provision about fair dealing between dairy farmers, processors and retailers, including in relation to pricing; to provide for certain additional contractual protections for dairy farmers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 323).
Family Farming in Northern Ireland
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, for my first time speaking from this position in this fantastic Westminster Hall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing the debate, and she spoke with passion and with personal insight from her own family farming background. She spoke clearly about the impact on jobs and employment and on communal life in Northern Ireland, about how essential farmers are to so many of the villages, towns and communities in Northern Ireland and across the whole country, and of course about the importance of farming to family life.
The decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief from next April was not one the Government took lightly. Over the past 12 months, the Government have listened to the concerns of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, of other hon. Members and of external organisations. The Government and I recognise the strength of feeling on this topic in Northern Ireland and elsewhere across the country. But having listened and discussed the question with a range of stakeholders, the Government believe that the approach set out at the Budget last year is the appropriate one.
I recognise and deeply respect the contribution that small businesses and farms make to the economy in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, but I and the Government also recognise the need to restore economic stability, fix our public finances and contribute to funding our public services. As well as all this, we need to make sure we raise taxes in a way that is fair for all of us.
Tim Farron
Will the Minister take a look at the University of Cumbria report that shows that upland farmers in all four corners of the United Kingdom will, at the end of the transition, will be earning only on average 55% of the national minimum wage—barely half the living wage? Those are the same farms, often worth £2 million or £3 million on paper, that may have to spend £20,000 a year to pay off the tax. How does he think that is fair and how does it raise money for the Government coffers in a sustainable way?
Dan Tomlinson
I will happily look at any report any Member recommends I read, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to send it my way.
Since we took office, the Government have taken a range of decisions to seek to restore economic stability and raise revenue to help support our public services, because it was vital to attempt to sort out the mess we inherited, so that we can invest again in the future. The decision to reform APR and BPR was one of the decisions that enabled us to do that.
Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the very wealthiest estates. According to data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 2021-22, almost half of agricultural property relief across the UK—40%—was claimed by just 7% of the estates that made claims. That is £219 million in tax foregone from just over 100 estates.
It is a similar picture for business property relief, which is linked and is treated in the same way under the reforms, with more than 50% of business property relief claimed by just 4% of estates. That is £558 million in tax foregone from just 158 estates. That contributes to the very largest estates paying much lower tax rates than smaller estates and everyday people up and down the country.
Jim Allister
In that context, does the CenTax report not make evident sense? If we impose the full-blooded inheritance tax on the top end—on those above £10 million—are we not reaping the same tax return, while at the same time not punishing and driving out of existence those at the bottom end? Is that not logical, and is that not right?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. and learned Member raises the CenTax report, and it is worth noting some points about the analysis in that report. First, the Government have consistently said that around 520 farms would be paying additional inheritance tax as a result of the reforms announced at the Budget last year.
Members from all parties have been turning to the CenTax report as an independent analysis of the Government’s reforms. That report agrees with us on the number of farms that will be affected. That independent analysis conducted separately from the Government comes out with the same conclusion on the number of farms that will be affected and it says that its proposal—the minimum share proposal, which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentions—would more than double the number of estates that would pay additional inheritance tax. I do not think the right way forward is to have the number of estates that would be affected increase from about 500 to, I think, about 1,200. I have looked at the report, which has been raised by Members from all parties, but I do not think it is the silver bullet that others have concluded it could be.
The context I just set out is why we are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April next year. We are doing so in a way that maintains a significant relief for estates, including smaller farms and businesses. Individuals will still get 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. I know that Members know this, but it is worth setting out the position again. On top of that amount, there will be a 50% relief. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a rate of up to 20% rather than the standard 40%.
Robbie Moore
A £1 million threshold is nothing when we take into account the value of farmland, a cottage, a farmhouse, growing crops, stocks in store, livestock and machinery valuations—all of which will be taken into account at the valuation of an estate on death. A £1 million threshold is nothing before a 20% IHT liability is put on that estate. I urge the Minister to look at this again. Farmland values are significantly higher in Northern Ireland, and I reiterate my point that Northern Ireland farmers will see a greater impact from the £1 million threshold.
Dan Tomlinson
I do not agree that £1 million is nothing. It is a significant increase and a significantly higher threshold than that for anyone who does not have access to APR or BPR. I understand the point about land values in Northern Ireland, but at the same time, as far as I am aware, farms in Northern Ireland are smaller than those elsewhere. It is also worth bearing in mind that the £1 million relief comes on top of the spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands, so, depending on individual circumstance, up to £3 million can be passed on by two people, free of inheritance tax, and, as has been mentioned, the payment can be spread over 10 years, interest free. That policy design is not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister is certainly sticking to the script, but can he give us even an opening through the door of the Treasury? Will he open that door and speak with the farming unions across the nation?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and hope that today we have been able to have that open and public discussion to share the different views on this policy. I would be happy to continue the discussion with her and others who think that the issue is important. Just last week, I made sure to speak to individual farmers to understand their perspectives on the policy. I will continue to engage with people who will be affected by the changes, and with Members in this place. I hope that we can continue those conversations across the aisle.
Let me make progress—I can see the time is slipping away from us. Overall, the reforms are expected to result in up to around 520 estates claiming UK agricultural property relief, including those also claiming BPR, paying more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Almost three quarters of such estates will not pay any more tax as a result of the changes, based on the data. As I have already mentioned, CenTax has looked at the Government’s figures and has reached a similar conclusion. Its work concludes that of the estates that are affected, half will see an increase in their effective inheritance tax rate of less than 5 percentage points, and 86% of those estates could pay their entire inheritance tax bill out of non-farm assets.
Ben Goldsborough
I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance in Westminster Hall. My question is about that 5 percentage point change. This year has been a terrible year for yields, especially in South Norfolk with the droughts. That hits the profitability of farming, which is non-existent—there is not enough profitability in farming. Will the Minister share what investigations the Treasury has done on that fluctuation in profitability and the ability of our farmers to pay the 5 percentage point increase he mentioned?
Dan Tomlinson
The figures that I raised were from research carried out by an independent organisation, CenTax. Profitability and incomes change from year to year, of course, and can change for different types of farms—we can see that beef prices, for example, are higher this year than they have been in the past, and the Government are aware of that.
Overall, we understand that the reforms to inheritance tax generate strong views from Members from Northern Ireland and from all over the country, who are here to represent their constituents. I understand that, and I respect and admire the work of Members on both sides of the House in bringing their residents’ concerns to this place.
I know that the questions about inheritance and family businesses are deeply personal, and I do not pretend that such changes are not difficult, but I believe that the reforms get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses and funding our public services. They mean that assets will be taxed at a lower rate than most others, and, in this tough context, I think that the Government have made the right decision. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann again, as well as all the Members who have intervened today.
Question put and agreed to.
UK-Portugal Double Taxation Convention
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
A double taxation convention with Portugal was signed in London on 15 September 2025. The text of the convention is available on the HM Revenue and Customs pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text of the convention will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS993]
Post Office Capture Redress Scheme: Tax Exemptions
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
On 19 June 2025, the Department for Business and Trade announced a new compensation scheme that offers redress to postmasters affected by errors in the Capture software, which predates the use of the Horizon software. DBT has set up the capture redress scheme to compensate postmasters.
The Government are committed to ensuring that postmasters are treated fairly and will legislate to formalise tax exemptions shortly, ensuring that no income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax, corporation tax, where applicable, or inheritance tax will be payable for redress received under this scheme.
[HCWS994]
Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions so far; I am sure there will be more interventions in the coming 15 minutes. I say to the hon. Member that it is clear how strongly and firmly she seeks to represent her constituents and those of her neighbour, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), as a resident in north-east Scotland. That comes across clearly in the House.
The UK oil and gas industry plays a significant role in our country, just as it has for more than half a century. Alongside its contribution to our energy supply, it has provided more than £400 billion in production taxes since the late 1960s and created thousands of jobs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and in many constituencies in that part of Scotland and across the country.
As we head towards a net zero future, the industry and the region will continue to play a vital role in the energy transition, with which I know the sector is keenly engaged. Between 2018 and 2024, the sector has acted to reduce its emissions by 34%, and we are seeing oil and gas companies make record investments in carbon capture, usage and storage on land and in offshore wind at sea. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan that it is not an either/or; we must have a managed transition in which we do all that we can to protect jobs and industry, and to grow new jobs and industry too. We are all pulling in the same direction; Government and industry are committed to a fair, orderly and prosperous transition for the region, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about that today.
The aim of our tax regime for the exploration and production of oil and gas in the North sea is to support investment in this vital resource, while ensuring that the country obtains a fair return in exchange for the use of an important national asset. I am sure the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan will be very familiar with the tax regime, and I am sure that everyone else in the Chamber is, but let me set it out for the benefit of those who may not be. The regime today includes a ring fence corporation tax that is charged at 30%, the supplementary charge at 10% and, yes, the temporary energy profits levy at 38%. As the hon. Member mentioned, that was introduced amid near-record-high prices following the recovery from covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
While we pursue our net zero targets, we must ensure that we meet the country’s energy needs. That involves energy from overseas alongside our own new nuclear, wind and solar, and, of course, domestic oil and gas. With domestic gas production, net of imports, accounting for the equivalent of about a third of UK gas demand, our oil and gas industry supports more than 100,000 jobs, and will continue to play a significant role in our energy mix for decades to come. In supporting those jobs and the important contribution of the sector, our approach to taxation is, in my view, both responsible and proportionate. We believe in the ongoing contribution of the oil and gas industry and its skilled workforce, and the sector continues to benefit from £84.25 in tax relief for every £100 of private investment, with more relief available for decarbonisation-based investments.
The oil and gas sector is expected to contribute about £16 billion in tax receipts between this financial year and 2029-30, which is roughly equivalent to the entire year’s NHS Scotland budget. The energy profits levy alone has already raised more than £11 billion since its introduction. Yes, that is less than was forecast at the time, but in a way that should be welcome news for the hon. Member, because it means lower energy bills for people up and down the country who are affected by the cost of living—families in her constituency, and in mine.
Harriet Cross
What lower revenues from the EPL mean is that oil and gas companies are not investing in the North sea, that production is falling in the North sea, and that, for example, revenues from income tax—which the Scottish Government might quite like—are falling as well. There is nothing welcome about the Government not meeting their forecast. It is complete madness even to believe that.
Dan Tomlinson
If the hon. Member would have preferred energy prices to stay at their pandemic levels, and money to continue to flow in from the EPL rather than more people throughout the country receiving lower energy bills, that is, of course, a view that she is welcome to hold.
As I was saying, the levy has raised more than £11 billion since its introduction, and is forecast to raise a further £11 billion by 2030. That revenue provides vital funding for our public services, creating sustainable jobs, strengthening our energy security and independence, and supporting the energy transition.
The Government are committed to giving the oil and gas industry long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime. The energy security investment mechanism is the price floor within the EPL, and that gives the sector certainty that if oil and gas prices fall for a sustained period, the EPL will cease. That remains Government policy. The hon. Member asked whether the Government intended to de-link, but the Government policy is to stick with ESIM as it stands.
I know that Members have expressed concern about the approach to tax and how it affects investment in the oil and gas sector, but we have seen capital expenditure in the sector rise from around £4 billion in 2022 to around £6 billion last year. That is why we introduced pragmatic reforms to the levy at the autumn Budget 2024 and refrained from going further than abolishing the levy’s investment allowance, helping to support the sector’s competitiveness. I want to restate to the House today that the EPL will end no later than 31 March 2030.
Working with the sector and stakeholders, the Government published the oil and gas price mechanism consultation on 5 March to give long-term certainty on the future fiscal regime, developing an approach for how we respond to unusually high prices once the EPL ends. As the hon. Member knows, the consultation closed earlier this year. The Government are now hard at work analysing submissions and suggestions, and we will publish our response—I will not say “in due course”; I will say “shortly”. I know that the sector wants certainty from the Government as to what will follow on from the EPL. I hear that, and I am meeting members of the sector this week to hear it directly from businesses. I want this to happen as soon as it can, but I hope the hon. Member will understand that it is not quite in my gift unilaterally to announce the dates and the precise timetable on the Floor of the House.
I understand that there is a need for certainty, and the Government understand just how important that is for businesses and workers in the sector. I reassure the House that it is definitely not our intention to wait until the EPL is about to cease before bringing in new legislation to provide that certainty. I want us to bring forward the necessary legislation for the new mechanism as quickly as we reasonably can, to ensure a smooth and orderly transition for the sector. That is hugely important, and for as long as I am in this post I will do all I can to make sure that we can do that; I hear the points made by Members on both sides of the House.
The Government are already delivering a fair and orderly transition in the North sea. Across the country, we are driving growth and securing skilled jobs for future generations, and that is just as true in the North sea, where we have seen unprecedented levels of investment in offshore wind and where this Government have signed contracts for two first-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage clusters. This endeavour also includes Great British Energy, which, from its headquarters in Aberdeen, will create thousands of jobs across the country, invest up to £1 billion in clean energy supply chains and, as a publicly owned energy company, ensure that the clean energy revolution is built in Britain. Alongside that, the Office for Clean Energy Jobs will work to ensure that we have the skilled clean energy workforce to deliver those goals, so that this investment unlocks thousands of new jobs, kick-starts growth in communities and industrial towns, and secures a cleaner and more independent energy future for the UK.
Graham Leadbitter
A number of skilled jobs are going out of the North sea, and many of these workers will go to other countries—that was the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). That is not sustainable for the skills transfer into the offshore renewables sector, and it is denting investor confidence. There is a serious risk that the build-out of offshore renewables will not go fast enough if investor confidence disappears because of skills loss. It is hugely important that the EPL is addressed as quickly as possible to prevent that from continuing.
Dan Tomlinson
As I said just a few moments ago, 100,000 jobs are directly or indirectly linked to the work and activities in this sector, and it is vital that we support people with that transition. In the long-term, carbon capture and storage alone is expected to support 50,000 skilled jobs by 2050 as we move towards a clean energy transition. I am acutely aware—I have heard it from Opposition Members, and I am sure that I will hear it from my hon. Friends in a second—that we must get the balance right between the timing of phasing out and winding down production in the North sea, and ramping up the clean energy and good jobs that we need for the future. We have to do all we can to protect the sector.
Dan Tomlinson
I will first take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for giving way, but I note that he took my intervention second rather than first—I am not offended!
On the position in Scotland, it is worthing remembering that Scotland’s Deputy First Minister said at the SNP party conference at the weekend that the Scottish Government want to scrap the EPL—sorry, I meant they want to replace it with something else. But, of course, she did not say what that something else was; it is slightly cowardly not to define that detail.
The Minister was talking about the strength of the renewables sector in the UK and how it is growing under this Government, and we all appreciate and welcome that, but that sector also needs continuity and a stable framework to work within. Does he therefore share my concern about the Opposition taking the decision to ditch the Climate Change Act, which has really unsettled the whole industry?
Dan Tomlinson
I believe the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was slightly quicker in standing up than my hon. Friend.
I do understand my hon. Friend’s points. It is very important not to be cowardly in politics, which is why I will make sure that we come forward as fast as we can to set out the approach after the EPL is set to end. This Government, under the leadership of a whole range of Cabinet Ministers, is making sure that we can provide that long-term certainty, not chopping and changing when it comes to our policies on net zero.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan mentioned energy security, which links to the challenge we have with energy bills. It is worth recognising the truth that, even if we extracted every single drop of oil and gas in the North sea, that would not make any material difference to people’s energy bills or the prices that people pay at the pump. Oil and gas are traded on international markets, and given the declining basin on the UK continental shelf, domestically produced oil and gas do not do anything to reduce prices. In fact, it is our reliance on oil and gas that leaves British consumers exposed to unstable fossil fuel markets.
In closing, this Government are determined to provide a balance—
John Cooper
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point: this is about balance. We need to find a balance in the transition of people coming out of oil and gas and moving into renewables. The difficulty is that we cannot say to these highly-skilled people that there is a great job for them in renewables but it is going to be 10 years down the line. That is no use to them at all: they have bills to pay and families to feed. The balance is out of kilter, and I am afraid that the Government are getting this wrong.
Dan Tomlinson
I disagree that the Government are getting this wrong. We are doing our best to try to find the right balance to support people, industry and jobs.
We will continue to provide a balanced, responsible and predictable regime for the UK oil and gas industry, which I hope will continue to drive growth, support workers and communities, protect our energy security and ensure a prosperous future for the North sea as we make our way towards net zero. Our commitment, and my commitment as a Minister, to the future of the North sea is clear, and I will continue to engage closely with the industry, workers and Members across the House on this important issue.
I again thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan for securing this important discussion, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The immediate task facing the Labour Government was to take action to stabilise the public finances and invest in our public services. On national insurance, we did that in a way that protects the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, and more than half will either gain or see no change.
Wendy Chamberlain
The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget not only increased national insurance, but impacted on part-time workers, many of whom the hospitality industry relies on. Hospitality companies in North East Fife have written to me directly, but they have also started to share with their customers the real impact of the cost increases they are seeing. Does the Minister agree that there has been an impact on hospitality, and will he commit to ensuring that the Chancellor delivers a hospitality-friendly Budget come the autumn?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for being the first parliamentarian today who has not asked me, “Who will you be backing in the Labour deputy leadership contest?” I appreciate that very much.
When it comes to small businesses, in particular those in hospitality, overall employment has increased by 380,000 since the Government came to power. This week, I will be having discussions with members of UKHospitality to think about how we can support the sector more through the changes to business rates announced last year. We will come forward with more details on that in the Budget later this year.
Dr Spencer
I am not particularly interested in who the Minister is backing in the deputy leadership contest, but I welcome him to his place. Lebanese Please is a fantastic restaurant in Weybridge, but like many hospitality companies, it is struggling with the impact of national insurance increases. If the partly new Treasury Front-Bench team are considering going for a team lunch, I recommend the warm hospitality of Runnymede and Weybridge, where they can see for themselves the impact that this horrid, harmful tax is having on local businesses across the country.
Dan Tomlinson
I would not presume to know where the next Treasury ministerial awayday will happen, but perhaps we will have to consider the restaurant in the hon. Member’s constituency. He is a strong advocate for the businesses in his constituency. I hope he knows that I advocated from the Back Benches—and will continue to do so in government—for policies that we can implement to boost economic growth and living standards, so that more people have more money to spend in businesses such as the one he mentions in his constituency.
Clive Jones
I have had many meetings with business owners across Wokingham, whether that is world leaders in the defence industry, GP surgeries, medical manufacturers, farmers, hospitality companies or exporters. It is clear that Labour’s hike to national insurance contributions has created immense financial burdens for those companies. This policy has prevented many from hiring more staff and devastated their profits, and it is stifling growth. What steps is the Minister taking to give businesses like those in Wokingham hope that this Government do have their back?
Dan Tomlinson
The big picture on all three of those questions is that at last year’s Budget, the Government made the decision to increase national insurance in order to raise £20 billion. We have put that money into our public services, making sure that waiting lists have fallen pretty much every single month since the election. That means that we have delivered 4 million more appointments, many more people have been seen, and waiting lists are falling in my constituency and across the country. That is the difference that this Government are making: we are repairing the foundations, and making sure that we can look after people now and in the future.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
This month, we see an expansion of childcare that will benefit families in my constituency to the tune of £7 million, which will go back into their pockets. What assessment has the Minister made of how that spending power will benefit growth across the economy and productivity?
Dan Tomlinson
The investment that this Government are making in childcare, which will increase the number of hours available to families with children aged nine months or older, is the right investment in the future. It is an investment in those children and an investment in making sure that parents can return to work, so that we can improve productivity in our country and have more people who are able to get back to work and enjoy the benefits that that can bring.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
UK business confidence has hit a 12-month high, according to the latest figures from Lloyds Banking Group. Does the Minister agrees that this is due to the work of this Labour Government, not least the five consecutive interest rate cuts and the three new trade deals?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we have had five interest rate cuts since the election. That has reduced the cost of mortgages for families up and down the country, and reduced the cost of borrowing for businesses that are thinking about investing. It is good to see that there is more investment coming both domestically and internationally, particularly as a result of our investment summit that I was pleased to attend last year.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
When I was elected for the first time last year, my constituents told me that they wanted this Labour Government to rebuild our public services, which is what our tax changes are delivering. Does the Minister agree that Opposition parties, of whatever colour, want the benefits of our investment in public services but are not willing to take the tough decisions to deliver them?
Dan Tomlinson
Yes, I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that Opposition Members continue to will the ends—they want the spending on public services—but are not willing to come forward with a plan for the means and the money to invest in our public services so that we can change things for people up and down this country.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The jobs tax has hit small businesses the hardest, with statistics from the Office for National Statistics showing that vacancies among small businesses alone have dropped by 18%. This proves that the jobs tax is not only crushing growth but crushing opportunity, especially in hospitality. Have Treasury Ministers commissioned their officials to look at any of the fairer revenue raisers that we Liberal Democrats have put forward—such as taxes on the banks, the tech companies or the gambling companies—in order that the Treasury could scrap the jobs tax at the next Budget?
Dan Tomlinson
When the Liberal Democrats were last in government, they made the decision to whack up VAT on businesses, whereas this Government are doing all we can to reform business rates so that retail, hospitality and leisure industries can get the support that they need from the business rates system. The national insurance changes that were made last year protect the smallest businesses, with many seeing lower business rates or not seeing increases.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Tax reliefs are an important feature of the UK tax system, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has invested significant resources in improving understanding of their cost and effectiveness. Since 2019, it has produced costings for 350 reliefs, including detailed analysis of the 38 largest non-structural reliefs, which cost more than £500 million a year.
Bobby Dean
The Minister detailed that about 350 reliefs have been assessed, but my understanding is that more than 1,200 tax reliefs are on the books, amounting to hundreds of billions of foregone revenue for the Treasury. Given that the Treasury examined the spending of all Departments in detail over the summer, I wondered whether it was considering applying the same level of scrutiny to itself.
Dan Tomlinson
It is worth noting that some 800 of the 1,200 reliefs the hon. Member mentions ensure that the tax system operates as intended by defining the scope of tax correctly and that it operates fairly and simply. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but I will not be able to comment specifically on any changes that we may or may not make to tax reliefs—any decisions will, of course, be announced at the Budget, which is not today.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
As the sixth richest economy in the world, we should not have 4.5 million children living in poverty. The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has proposed raising £3 billion by looking at reforming gambling taxation. Will the Chancellor consider undertaking those reforms so that we can end the epidemic of child poverty?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The issue of child poverty is incredibly important to this Government, and the child poverty taskforce will report later this year. I would like to add that this is an important personal issue for me: I grew up in family with very little money and I received free school meals as a child. For those children across the country who are living in poverty right now, I hope that they and their parents know that this Government are on their side and that we will do all we can to invest in our welfare system, in our economy and in ensuring that more people can get into work so that we can get poverty down, rather than have it rising as it did under the previous Government.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Hiking excise duty by 14% over the past two years was expected to raise £600 million for the Treasury in duty on spirits, but it has actually cost £600 million. With 70% of spirits produced in Scotland, this is nothing short of a tax on Scotland. The Chancellor has 77 days to back Scotch, support Scotland and sustain growth in this iconic and entrepreneurial sector. Will she therefore commit to reversing the Government’s attacks on a great Scottish success story by bringing down whisky duty in the Budget?
Property Taxes
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for bringing the debate to a close for the Opposition and for the welcome that he has given me as I move down to the Front Bench. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his speech and congratulate him on his promotion to Cabinet. He was a fantastic Exchequer Secretary, and I will do my best to carry out the role with the same diligence and effectiveness.
I also wish to put on record that, although I may be standing at the Dispatch Box for the first time, my respect for this place and for the Members on both sides of this House and on all Benches will remain. The Commons, after all, is the heart of our democracy. The importance of Ministers being held to account and of MPs voting and debating on big issues—and on Opposition Day debates—and, crucially, of the public being able to hold us all to account will never diminish in my mind. I look forward to continuing to work constructively with Members from all parts of the House as we discuss and debate the important and very interesting topic of tax policy.
Under the leadership of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, this Government are turning the page on 14 years of economic mismanagement. We must and we will put an end to the years of sluggish economic growth and squeezed living standards—issues that have typified the past two decades. We must turn this country around and build an economy that works for everyone.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position, which is hugely well deserved. This motion gives the impression that the Conservatives care about homeowners and renters, but does he agree that it is Labour who are giving homeowners greater powers and protections through leasehold reform, giving renters stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer, and building 1.5 million more homes to tackle the terrible housing legacy of the previous Government? They did too little and we are sorting it out.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that very kind intervention. I agree with every word that he said.
The subject of today’s debate is, of course, taxes and which taxes may or may not change in the future. Let me be clear: I will not be writing the Budget today or any day in this role. That is a job for the Chancellor. Just as she delivered a Budget that fixed the foundations for the country last year, I am confident that the Budget this year will showcase the right choices for the country for the long-term health of public and family finances.
Property taxes make a significant contribution to the public finances, raising more than £75 billion a year. That is crucial for funding our schools, our NHS, our emergency services and our armed forces and for filling in potholes too. They help to provide a broad tax base, which underpins good fiscal policy. I know that that is not something to which the previous Government gave much thought. They were happy, it seemed, to run our economy and public finances into the ground, leaving us with a £22 billion black hole, which we of course had to fill.
We believe in a tax system that is fair and sustainable and that supports economic growth. At the autumn Budget in 2024, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took a number of decisions to raise taxes on the wealthy to help fix our public finances and support public services such as the NHS and education. These tax changes included: abolishing the non-domicile tax status; raising the rates of capital gains tax; limiting inheritance tax reliefs; and increasing air passenger duty for private jets. Thanks to the work of my predecessor and the great work of HMRC officials, whom I am looking forward to working with, we are also increasing work to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share of the tax that they owe. These changes and others that we have made demonstrate the fundamental truth of politics in 2025.
Graham Stuart
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. In the Labour manifesto on which he will remember he stood along with his colleagues, it was suggested that there would be tax rises under a Labour Government. I think the figure was £7 billion. In the event, £40 billion-worth of rises came forward in the autumn. Will he commit the Government to being more transparent in future in preparing the markets for tax rises, and, indeed, the people who have to pay them?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I would ask him if I could whether he could identify £40 billion of spending cuts, if he wants to have £40 billion of tax cuts. I do not want to see NHS waiting lists grow in my constituency, in his constituency, or in any of the constituencies that we all have the privilege of representing.
The tax changes that have been introduced demonstrate the fundamental truth of politics in 2025. The bedrock of this Labour Government is fiscal responsibility, while the cornerstone of the Conservatives’ economic plans is fiscal fantasy. It is simply incredible that they have opposed every single one of the tax increases that we have put forward. Willing the ends without having any of the means is coming to define the economic policy of the Conservatives. Frankly, it should concern us all how unserious they have become. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said, it is clear that the Conservatives are enjoying the comfort and ease of opposition. Long may that continue.
I must say, it is surprising that the Conservatives would wish to raise the subject of property, given their abysmal record in that area. There can be no doubt that a big part of the mandate that this Government were given was to build more homes. The public had grown weary of years of sluggish growth, and over-budget projects that were first stalled, and then delayed. The public needed change; they needed us to build for this country’s future, and that is what we are setting about doing.
From infrastructure to planning reforms, which I have been championing for the last year, and our mission to build 1.5 million new homes. The Government have put housing at the heart of our approach, which will create jobs and opportunities for those who build the homes, and give families and individuals the opportunity to call somewhere home. As I said when I gave my maiden speech from a few rows back, housing is central to my politics. The aspiration of everyday families up and down this country is to have a home to call their own, maybe with a garden and a spot to park their car, in a community supported by public services that work. People do not want the world delivered to them on a plate by Government. They just want a good life for themselves and those they love. Building more housing and improving public services are essential ingredients of meeting their aspirations.
I have made many notes on all the fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, but I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker thinks that it is almost time for me to conclude, and I am sure that the Opposition Whip thinks so. [Interruption.] Ah, it turns out that there is more time, so I shall begin with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who made a powerful intervention about the success of Milton Keynes city council, and the importance of this Government investing in public services.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) gave a powerful example of house prices in his constituency, showing how prices have surged in this city—I know that, as I represent a north London seat—but that is why we must build more homes. I hope that he will support all the planning reforms going through this House, and the reforms that will come soon, because we need them to bring down house prices and improve the living standards of people in this country.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) made an interesting and thoughtful intervention about support for pensioners, but he should talk to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who has said that the triple lock is unsustainable—a view with which the Government do not agree. I would like to give a pleasant mention to my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I congratulate them on their marriage over the summer. It is fantastic to see them both contribute to the debate, and they both bring so much to the Labour Benches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) had a very good line on Liz Truss. He said that her dreams became our constituents’ nightmares, which is very true. We know it, and I think the Conservatives do, too. I will certainly be stealing that line for future contributions in this House.
To conclude, as the new Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, I look forward to returning to this Chamber and to Committee corridor on many occasions to discuss tax policy. The people of this country work hard for everything that they earn. They deserve an efficient and fair tax system, whether that tax relates to property or other areas, and for Governments to spend every penny of public money wisely. That is why everything we do is underpinned by fiscal stability, our sticking to our rules, and our managing the public finances well in this uncertain world. We do not turn to more borrowing, as Liz Truss did or the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) would, but put economic stability at the heart of all we do. That is the foundation for what really matters: higher growth for higher living standards in every part of the country. That is what this Government are working every day to deliver.
We are working to lift the crushing burden of the cost of living crisis, to back those who want to invest in the future of this country, and to give as many people as possible a home that they can call their own. That is the future that I fought for on the Back Benches, and that is the future that this Government can and will deliver.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Dan Tomlinson Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I am unclear, given the hon. Lady’s remarks, whether she is opposed to the increase in the national minimum wage, but she should know that we have extended support for businesses in business rates relief this year, which would have been ended entirely under the plans we inherited from the previous Government, and there will be permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure premises on the high street from April 2026.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
Hear, hear. I had better declare an interest as a proud Member of Parliament for Leeds West and Pudsey. West Yorkshire combined authority is receiving £830 million for transport spending through round 1 of the city region sustainable transport settlement. That includes £200 million for the development of a mass transport system. For too long Leeds has lacked this. This Government will put that investment in and get those trams running.