Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Debate between Harriet Cross and Mel Stride

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

That is a rather unfortunate example of doubling down or continuing to dig, if I may say so. Also, the hon. Lady’s comments pale in comparison with Andy Burnham’s comments in the New Statesman, where he said:

“We’ve got to go beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”.

He also suggested that defence spending should lie outside the fiscal rules, as if spending and borrowing to defend our country were a different form of borrowing from any other borrowing that this Government might entertain. He is not so much the king of the north; he is more like King Canute, sitting in his chair on the sand, dressed in his football kit, trying to push back the tide of the bond markets and saying things like, “You’ve got to fall in line” as the waters lap at his ankles and we all ultimately get swept away. It is ludicrous.

The King’s Speech included a holiday tax that will increase the cost of the most budget holidays in this country, clobbering people who have saved up hard and just want to make some memories with their children. We also have the nationalisation of steel, which seems to be just some kind of political sop to the left on the Labour Benches.

The Government are also going to put a stop to new oil and gas exploration. This is lunacy, when we are importing gas from Norway that is extracted from the same basin. We are also importing liquefied natural gas, formerly from Qatar and now predominantly from the United States, which has four times the carbon footprint compared with if we had extracted it ourselves using our own resources. All that energy security blown, all those jobs destroyed and all that tax revenue forgone, simply because of the ideological madness of the Labour party.

[Harriet Cross]

The shadow Chancellor is completely right to reflect on the plight of the oil and gas sector under this Labour Government: 1,000 jobs are being lost in the sector every single month, which is affecting all our constituents, not just those in the north-east of Scotland. Does he share my dismay that a Labour Government do not take that more seriously?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I do indeed. I have been up to Aberdeen, met my hon. Friend and heard at first hand about the economic effect this is having. It is utter madness. If we have an opportunity in government, we will put that right.

I have already mentioned benefits. There was nothing of any substance about welfare in this King’s Speech. There was nothing about the defence investment plan. Where is it? It was promised back in September.

Then we have the regulating for growth Bill—an oxymoron if ever there was one. “Regulating for growth” says all we need to know about this Labour Government. They know nothing about the economy, nothing about job creation and nothing about businesses.

Property Taxes

Debate between Harriet Cross and Mel Stride

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeing high inflation, anaemic growth, high gilt yields and a pound that has been plummeting in recent times. All those are signals flashing red on the dashboard.

Instead of getting a grip on spending and getting taxes down, the Government have been out there pitch-rolling yet more taxes. Over the summer, we have seen briefings to the press suggesting tax rises on property. The Labour party has an opportunity this afternoon to rule out those possibilities, and the Minister should do just that when he responds.

First, there has been a suggestion that there will be changes to the private residence relief under the capital gains tax regime. That would strike at the heart of our country as a property-owning democracy. People would be penalised simply for selling up and moving home. It would have clear implications by bunging up the property market, and clear economic implications by causing friction in the process of people moving from one part of the country to another, often in search of work. It would discourage downsizing, even though that would be beneficial in providing more homes for people to live in. Before the election, the Prime Minister said that there never was a policy of that type so it did not need to be ruled out, but let us rule it out just in case anyone pretends that there was such a policy. When he responds, will the Minister confirm that he stands by the words of the Prime Minister?

Secondly, there has been a suggestion of an annual tax on homes. What a tax on aspiration! What a tax on people who have saved hard and managed to get on the property ladder, but who will then be stuck with annual taxes. What about those who are asset-rich but income-poor and cannot afford to pay—are they expected to sell up? Will the Minister rule out that possibility and put people’s minds at rest?

If that was not enough, we hear that the Government may be considering changes to the gifting regime in inheritance tax. They are not content just to pulverise farmers and family businesses, and to see those businesses and farms broken up when they are passed on from one generation to another, because of the imposition of tax. In fact, it was a Labour Government in the 1970s who brought in the reliefs that this Government have chosen to abolish. The inheritance tax yield will double over this Parliament. The Opposition say, “Enough is enough.” We should not punish parents who wish to pass something on to their children. Socialists do not understand that we do not all stand as atomised individuals; we work together as families and communities. We care about each other, we care about the people we love, and it is right that we have the opportunity to pass something on to them.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the shadow Chancellor for introducing this debate on such an important issue. Properties and assets are vital to the country and to people. On the lifetime limit for inheritance tax, over the past year everyone will have heard the Government telling farmers and family businesses to get their affairs in order and to plan. Not having a limit on the lifetime cap was what allowed them to plan. If that is cut or the cap is not in the right place, it will negate every argument that the Government have made in the past year to justify their family farm and family business tax. Will the Minister please acknowledge that and rule out any change to the cap, which would penalise family farms and businesses?

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend has put it brilliantly and succinctly, and she is absolutely right. In their horror—in their recoil from the inheritance tax changes—that is exactly what farmers and family business owners have been doing: thinking about alternatives. The seven-year rule has been one of those alternatives, and it would be a really heartless and extraordinarily cruel moment if the Government were to shut that down as well.