Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to make a statement to the House on two separate but related matters. The first is regarding communication with the public in the lead-up to the Budget. I understand that this is a topic that has held much interest and speculation over the weekend and I would like to take this opportunity to give a formal statement to the House on the Government’s position. Secondly, the Government have also today received the results of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s investigation into the early release of the “Economic and fiscal outlook” at the Budget last week. I know that the House will be concerned to know the findings of that report, and I will turn to that in a moment.

On the first point, the Chancellor has been consistent and up front with the public about her considerations in the lead-up to the Budget last week. First, she was clear on her priorities at the Budget, which were to cut NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living and to cut our debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered on those priorities. Secondly, she was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of the reduced productivity forecast.

Thirdly, the Chancellor was clear on 4 November that she intended to build more headroom. She has done that, with headroom against the stability rule of £21.7 billion. Fourthly, she was clear in the summer that the policy decisions we took on welfare would need to be paid for at the Budget, and the Budget document shows those decisions costing £6.9 billion in 2029-30. Finally, the OBR has now confirmed that the Chancellor knew on 4 November that she had only £4.2 billion of headroom against her fiscal rules, meaning that once the cost of those policy decisions was accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion against the stability rule.

The combined effect of this information is that on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that the Government would be in deficit against the stability rule before any of this Government’s priorities for the Budget had been delivered, or any additional headroom built. In the light of that information, and knowing about the OBR’s productivity downgrade, the Chancellor knew on 4 November that challenging decisions would be required on tax and spend. The subsequent decision to freeze personal tax thresholds for a further three years shows that this was correct.

The Chancellor took the step of delivering a speech before the Budget, precisely so that she could be up front about the circumstances that she was facing and the decisions that she would need to take. She has been honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said.

Last Wednesday, before the Chancellor began her Budget speech, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its entire “Economic and fiscal outlook” online. Let me be clear: this is a very serious breach of highly sensitive information. It is a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility; it is a discourtesy to this House, and it should never have happened. The OBR rightly took full responsibility and issued an apology to the Chancellor later that day. It has conducted an investigation into how the report came to be published prematurely, and it sent its report, including its findings, to the Treasury and the Treasury Committee today at 12.30 pm. The report states:

“We are in no doubt that this failure to protect information prior to publication has inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation. It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR.”

It adds that the

“responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests, over the years, with the leadership of the OBR.”

The report notes that this has

“inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation”,

and caused significant disruption on Budget day,

“to the Chancellor’s disadvantage”.

The report goes on to make it clear that a significant and long-standing issue has allowed external users to gain early access to the OBR’s publication, which contains full details of its forecasts and the Chancellor’s Budget.

In the days since the Budget, there has been speculation about the kind of error that led to the “Economic and fiscal outlook” being published early. The report today confirms that the cause was not

“simply a matter of pressing the publication button on a locally managed website too early.”

The report concludes that the cause of the OBR’s error was “systemic issues”, and that the investigation has made it clear that

“the problem exposed last week was not a new one.”

Indeed, the report reveals that the OBR’s EFO in March was accessed before the Chancellor delivered the spring statement to the House. That underlines just how serious the situation is. Let me underline that as a Government, we take seriously the need to ensure that the OBR never allows this to happen again.

The report notes that common and fairly basic protections to prevent early access, including passwords and random-character URLs, were not used. It further notes that two configuration errors, which were not understood by the OBR’s online publishing function, prevented the safeguards in its online publishing software from being effective.

I am also very concerned that the report notes that

“it is very likely that the weaknesses that caused the premature accessing of the November 2025 EFO were pre-existing. Indeed, it appears that the March 2025 EFO was accessed prematurely”.

These findings are very serious indeed. The fact that market-sensitive information was prematurely accessible to a small group of market participants is extremely concerning, and the fact that this may have been the case on more than one occasion makes the situation even more severe. We do not know at this stage the extent to which market behaviour may have been affected on this or other occasions as a result of information being available early.

I want to share one further bit of information from the report with the House. On the morning of the Budget, the first IP address to successfully access the EFO had made 32 prior attempts that day, starting at around 5 am. That volume of requests implies that the person attempting to access the document had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point. Unfortunately, that leads us to consider whether the reason they tried so persistently to access the EFO is because they had been successful at a previous fiscal event. At this time, we do not have answers to all those questions, but the Treasury will make contact with previous Chancellors, to make them aware of developments relating to previous fiscal events. The OBR has rightly conducted its initial investigation as quickly as possible, and it is right that both the Government and the Treasury Committee now take time to consider the report and its findings. The Treasury Committee will have the opportunity to carefully question the OBR tomorrow, at its post-Budget hearing.

Furthermore, in response to paragraph 3.4 of the report, which set out that the problem exposed last week is not new, I can confirm to the House that the Government will work in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of other fiscal events be carried out—although I note that the report finds no evidence of hostile cyber-activity. In addition, the report says that the OBR

“could not, in the time available, carry out a deeper forensic examination of other recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out”.

We will make sure that work is carried out urgently. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk that this incident has uncovered, including the report’s conclusion that the OBR’s information security arrangements

“should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR.”

This Government are committed to the independence of the OBR and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy making. The Chancellor and the whole of the Treasury value the independence of the OBR and our constructive relationship with it over the past 16 months, in challenging economic times. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s economic and fiscal policy making, and we will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands.

[Mr Speaker]

In the light of press reports on this matter, I remind the House of the rules and conventions relating to parliamentary language. As “Erskine May” sets out, unless a discussion is based on a substantive motion, certain personal criticisms, including accusations of lying or deliberately misleading the House, are not permitted. I know that the House will want to be at its best. We take this very seriously.

[Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I begin with the matter of the report on the OBR leak. We will of course study that report in detail, but as the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, “We will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”, I seek immediate reassurance that this will not include scapegoating the OBR to distract from the serious questions surrounding the handling of the Budget by the Chancellor, Ministers, the Treasury and No. 10.

Let me turn to the other matters that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addressed in his statement. We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity, but it is increasingly clear that, in recent weeks, the conduct of people in Government fell short of those standards. That is not just my view; indeed, a member of the Cabinet is quoted in today’s press as saying:

“The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.”

The impression has been given that there was a concerted attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for policy decisions around increases in taxes and welfare spending. On 4 November, the Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street, in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecasts, meaning lower tax receipts. The Chancellor herself says that the statement was meant to set the context relating to the public finances and the need take difficult decisions on tax, but—this is the key point that the right hon. Gentleman did not address—she failed to mention that the net result, in the OBR’s review of the economy, was that there was an increase in tax revenues, not a black hole. To quote the OBR’s Budget report:

“In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion… However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.”

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury argues that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was given before the Budget—although it is effectively an admission that the decision to leave such a small amount of headroom in the previous two fiscal events was irresponsible. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s argument fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions on spending, specifically on welfare.

On 14 November, the media were briefed that income tax rates would not be increased, following the improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply false. As I pointed out in my letter to the OBR before the Budget, the finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before that, on 31 October. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November

“because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”.

That is not true.

Since then, on Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing its estimates for headroom in each of its pre-measures forecast rounds. As a result, we now know that at no point was there a deficit on the scale suggested to the media. Why did the Chancellor claim that she did not know the size of the headroom forecast by the OBR in November, when its final forecast was submitted on 31 October? At what point were the Cabinet informed that the forecast still showed a surplus, and why did the Chancellor suggest that the OBR’s review of the economy had led to a significant deterioration in the public finances?

We now know that the briefings to the press were not just inappropriate but inaccurate. Those briefings can only have come from inside Government. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury finally give us a clear answer: was the Chancellor aware of those briefings, and did she authorise them—yes or no? Will he commit to a full investigation by both the permanent secretary and the Financial Conduct Authority into those briefings, and will he explain why the Chancellor chose to opine repeatedly on the OBR’s forecasts before the Budget, when those forecasts were provided to her in strictest confidence?

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed this morning that the OBR’s publication on Friday was simply responding to a request from the Select Committee, but the OBR’s report on Wednesday said that it had already planned to write that letter. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that it was, in fact, a proactive choice by the OBR to publish that information, which clearly suggests that the OBR was concerned that the record of who knew what, when, would otherwise be less than clear? It is a matter of profound regret that although the Chancellor chose to appear before the media yesterday, she did not see fit to appear here today. Her credibility is in tatters, and to the long list of her failings in respect of these matters should be added that of disrespecting this House.

[James Murray]

I was unclear from what the shadow Chancellor said at the beginning of his comments whether he, like us, values the role of the OBR in the Budget-setting process. We value its independence and we value its integrity. That is why we take what happened last Wednesday with the utmost seriousness, and we are determined to pursue it.

The shadow Chancellor went on to make a series of points, which I will address, but he fails to acknowledge that the productivity downgrade was real. The £16 billion hit to the forecast as a result of the productivity downgrade was real. I wonder why he does not want to acknowledge that. Could it be because the productivity downgrade was the result of things that his Government did over the 14 years that they were in office? Could it be the fact that the productivity downgrade was the result of a review by the OBR of policies including cuts to public investment, the mishandling of Brexit, and the record of the previous Government? That is perhaps why he does not want to acknowledge that point. The productivity downgrade by £16 billion was real. The need to build headroom was crucial. Both were principles that guided the Chancellor going into the Budget, as was the importance of cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists, and cutting Government borrowing.

The shadow Chancellor will remember from when he was in government under the Conservatives that the process involving the OBR and the Treasury is an iterative one that runs until Budget day. When the Chancellor delivered her Budget, the “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which, as we have discussed, was published slightly early, set out the context for the decisions that she took. The shadow Chancellor raised the issue of information security. I am sure that he will have received the letter from the permanent secretary sent on 25 November, which stated:

“As Permanent Secretary, I place the utmost weight on Budget security. I will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.”

Finally, the shadow Chancellor asked where the Chancellor is today. I am very pleased to tell the House that the Chancellor has been at the Wales investment summit today, following the announcement yesterday of £1.4 billion of extra investment into Wales—just the latest in £16 billion of new investments announced since the summit was launched.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I, too, welcome the fact that the OBR has put its report out so quickly, so that it can put its house in order and make sure this never happens again. I have been saddened and troubled by the number of leaks, advertent and inadvertent, during the Budget process. Will the Chief Secretary please assure the House that there will be proper discussion in Government about how to prevent them? I need only point him to the words of the permanent secretary at the Treasury to the Treasury Committee on 12 February this year, when he was very clear that leaks can be market moving and must not happen. Let us be clear that the Debt Management Office was still trading during the Budget process, and was selling gilts at a higher price as a result.

[James Murray]

Mr Speaker, I can reassure my hon. Friend, you and the whole House that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, the permanent secretary has made it clear that the Treasury puts the utmost weight on Budget security. The permanent secretary made it clear in his letter to the shadow Chancellor that he will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I understand that the Minister says he does not have all the answers to the questions about the incredibly serious security failings at the OBR, but has he requested or received any advice on whether the attempts to access the information might have reached a criminal threshold under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a civil level under market abuse regulations? Are there any other arm’s length bodies, related either to the Minister’s Department or to other Departments, that might now need to conduct a similar internal review into their security?

The Budget process has been a mess. There have been leaks on a level that has never been seen before and huge amounts of flip-flopping, which has created uncertainty for households and the markets and has led to businesses putting investment on hold. During the pre-Budget press conference, the Chancellor talked about a reduction in productivity growth, but failed to mention that tax receipts were higher than expected. Why did the Government omit to communicate that information?

Following Sweden’s budget crisis in the early ’90s, its Government changed to a system where the Swedish Parliament saw a draft budget and debated it at length, and Opposition parties could propose alternatives and amendments. Have the Government given any consideration at all to introducing a better system?

On the issue of omissions, on a number of occasions over the past year Ministers have repeated the claim that they would introduce permanently lower business rates for businesses in this country, but they omitted to say that business rates bills would go up because of the higher valuations. Pubs are now saying that their average increase will be £12,000 a year, or 76% over the next three years. Why did the Government omit to mention that?

[James Murray]

I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I made in my statement about how we are going to take forward the recommendations in the report. As I made very clear, this is an incredibly serious incident, and we take it incredibly seriously. We are going to move urgently to take forward the recommendations in the report.

The hon. Lady asks about other arm’s length bodies and Government organisations. We take security, information security and cyber-security incredibly seriously right across Government, and the spending review focused on ensuring that all Departments and all Government bodies are adequately resourced so that they have the right information technology, cyber-security and information security for the future.

The hon. Lady referred to the Chancellor’s speech on 4 November, where the Chancellor set out the challenges we are facing and the principles that would guide her going into the Budget: cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living and cutting Government borrowing. That is exactly what she delivered in her Budget last week. On business rates—I suspect this is a debate for another day, rather than for this statement—I point anyone concerned about increases in their valuations towards the generous transitional relief, which will cap the increase in bills at 15% or less for most small businesses next year.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Having spent the past 18 months arguing that this Government have mismanaged the public finances, the Conservatives have now come to the House to argue that the public finances are fine after all. Their position is patently absurd. Due to the OBR’s productivity downgrade, which was a direct result of the Conservative Government’s decisions, the headroom available to the Government had been cut by 57%. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives are right to be angry about the state of the public finances, but that they are on the Opposition Benches because they are responsible for it? The Chancellor is on our Benches, making decisions in the national interest.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Murphy, I brought you in to ask a short question, not to give a full-blown statement. Please do not test the Chair too often.

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the Conservatives want to completely distance themselves from their record in government. We have seen their record in government laid bare in the OBR’s productivity downgrade. That investigation by the OBR resulted in a hit to the public finances to the tune of £16 billion. That was a real consequence for our economy, and we had to take real decisions to correct it.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, you described the chaos and leaks in the run-up to the Budget as a “hokey-cokey”. Just today, the House had to be suspended because the statement arrived so late, on a Budget that was delivered so early that the Chancellor had not actually given it. That was a few hours after the Prime Minister had had to do a second launch to try to explain the Budget, a day after the Chancellor had toured the studios trying to say that she did not mislead people over it. Would it not have been clearer for the Prime Minister just to say that he was hiking tax to put up welfare?

[James Murray]

What is clear is that we delivered a Budget to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is it not the case that after 14 years of the Conservatives telling the country that politics cannot make positive change, this Government have delivered answers on the two-child limit, apprenticeships, the future economy and decent public services? That is why the Conservatives’ response is as it seems to be. However, this incident has not covered the OBR in glory. I hear Ministers expressing confidence in the OBR and faith in the role that it has to play in the future. Surely, though, this is the moment to say that it is on its last warning.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the OBR plays a critical role in the Budget process and an important role in the robust and transparent fiscal framework that underpins our approach in government. Indeed, the first Bill passed by this Government included the fiscal lock, which prevents the sidelining of the OBR that the previous Government did, causing chaos for people across this country.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and financial forecasts on Wednesday was obviously shocking, and it has rightly come up with a swift and complete report on how that happened. The partial information and the leaks from the Treasury over the many months in the run-up to the Budget were, in my opinion, equally shocking, and they caused real-life choices to be made in the economy and dampened confidence. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury therefore commit to an equally thorough and equally rapid leak report to be presented to this House?

[James Murray]

As I said earlier, the Government take the Budget process and our responsibilities to this House very seriously. As the hon. Lady is aware, the permanent secretary has committed to keeping all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

As others have said, given that the “Economic and fiscal outlook” contains highly sensitive information on which billions of pounds can be traded, and given that the investigation report makes it clear that this was not the first time that confidential information had been released before a fiscal event, does the Minister agree that there might be a role for the National Crime Agency, alongside the National Cyber Security Centre, in looking into whether something untoward has taken place?

[James Murray]

As I set out in my earlier remarks, we will be taking forward the recommendations of the report. In particular, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we will be working with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation of a forensic examination of other fiscal events. The truth is that because of the early publication of the EFO last week, it has come to light from the initial analysis of the OBR that that also happened in March, but we do not yet know if it happened at previous fiscal events, including for previous Chancellors.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

While the detail of whether the Treasury was dealing with a fiscal black hole or a fiscal lack of headroom will be rather lost on most of my Bath constituents, does the Minister agree that the weeks of speculation leading up to the Budget were very damaging, particularly to businesses, and that his Department could have done more to avoid that?

[James Murray]

I recognise that there was a lot of speculation in the media in the run-up to the Budget. From the Government’s point of view, the Chancellor took a decision to set out her priorities and the challenges going into that Budget on 4 November. We set out the context around the productivity downgrade, the importance of building fiscal headroom, and the importance of cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living and cutting Government borrowing.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

It is very worrying to hear about the repeated attempts to access the statement before it was given, and I wonder why Conservative Members are not a little more concerned, given that the same situation may have affected them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a Government left themselves with only £4 billion of headroom, they would be taking unacceptable risks with the UK’s fiscal stability?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: imagine if I were trying to defend a Budget to the House that was delivered with just a few billion pounds of headroom—what message would that send about the UK economy? The headroom is there to reduce the cost of Government borrowing and to give us protection against future shocks that might come our way.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

On the process failure of the premature publication of the document, I think there is consensus across the House that it is damaging to the reputations of the UK, the OBR and the Treasury. I welcome the fact that the report says there are issues for the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the OBR in respect of how documents are hosted. However, on the substantive issue of what the OBR had told the Treasury and the net overall effect of that, there can be no doubt. There may be a dispute about whether £4.2 billion was sufficient or not, but we know for certain that the OBR did not say there was a significant black hole that required a 2p increase in income tax, which was the consequence of the Chancellor’s press conference. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the material distinction between those two issues must not be lost, and that he must face up to the reality of the overall net effect and the impression that was left?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman is a former Treasury Minister, so he will know the importance of the OBR’s productivity downgrade and the impact that that has had on the forecasts. He will know that £16 billion is a significant downgrade to have had as a result of that productivity review, and he will know that were I here defending a Budget with just a few billion pounds of headroom, that would not be a position that any of us would want to be in.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary quoted the OBR review, which said:

“The ultimate responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred”

was

“with the leadership of the OBR.”

Has anyone in the OBR leadership offered their resignation, or has that gone out of fashion?

[James Murray]

That is a matter for the leadership of the OBR. Let me emphasise how important the OBR is as an institution for this Government in providing a robust and transparent fiscal framework that underpins the stability we have returned to the economy.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Two weeks ago, from the Dispatch Box, the Minister said with a straight face to me that he would not take lessons on credibility. I understand the error of my ways now; I should have given those lessons to the Chancellor, because since then we have seen that she has not been entirely truthful with the public—as one of my constituents said to me today while I was travelling down from Aberdeen, she lied to the public. While she was doing that, my constituents were fearing for their jobs through the Government’s punitive energy profits levy. Some 100 more jobs are being lost at Harbour Energy as a result of the Minister’s policies. Why is it okay for them to lose their jobs, yet she keeps hers?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the right hon. Gentleman means the Chancellor.

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the energy profits levy. Let me be clear: we know that oil and gas have a role to play in our energy mix for many years to come. We want to support that industry while we make the transition to clean power, and that is the role that the energy profits levy will play. We set out at the Budget how the energy profits levy will come to an end in 2030, or sooner if the price floor is triggered.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will acknowledge, as he already has done, the importance of stability for families and businesses across this country. What we have called fiscal headroom is frankly money for a rainy day, and it is fundamental to being able to maintain that stability—something that was a failure of the Conservative Government for some time. Will he also acknowledge the importance of the way in which the bond markets responded positively to the Budget, for exactly the reason that it delivers us the stability we all need?

[James Murray]

While the Government do not comment on movements in the bond market, it was very important to us to create that extra headroom in order to bring down the cost of Government borrowing and ensure that we have that buffer for the future.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I have been here a few years and have seen the run to different Budgets. In line with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I have to say that this Budget has been utterly chaotic and appallingly dangerous. The reality is that the Minister said there was plenty of speculation in the media. It was not speculation; it was informed statements by the media of what they had been briefed from the Government. The Government know full well the damage that that has done to our reputation, and the unprecedented requirement of the OBR to publish its advice to them demonstrates the damage that they have done. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box in all decency and say, “The Government apologise for the mess that they have made”?

[James Murray]

I will come to the Dispatch Box and say that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously. As the permanent secretary has set out, he places the utmost weight on Budget security. As I have said to several hon. and right hon. Members, the permanent secretary will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the real-world and market impacts we saw last week underscore the importance of following proper process with the OBR? We saw the evidence to the contrary just three years ago, when the then Government chose to ignore and bypass the OBR entirely, causing interest rates and mortgage costs to soar.

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing a comparison between the way in which we as a Government interact with the OBR and the way in which the Liz Truss Government interacted with the OBR. We value the independence of the OBR and the constructive relationship that we have had with it over the past 16 months. That is in stark contrast with the previous Government, who sidelined the OBR and caused economic chaos for families across the country.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Government will not apologise for this sorry and tangled affair, but will they at least learn a couple of lessons, such as the fact that there have always been very good reasons for observing total secrecy until Budget day and, secondly, when not in a financial black hole, do not start digging oneself into one?

[James Murray]

As the Budget documents and as the EFO makes clear, the downgrade in productivity was real. That was a £16 billion hit to economic forecasts, and it was a challenge that we inherited as a result of what the right hon. Member’s Government did when they were in power. We took the right and necessary decisions to fix the public finances, making sure that we could do so without going down the route of uncontrolled borrowing—like his Government did—or the route of slashing public investment.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, you were rightly furious last week when this OBR report was prematurely leaked to the public and the markets. It is clear from the independent report that this was an accident waiting to happen due to pre-existing cyber-security failures—pre-existing failures that may well have laid open previous Budgets to this kind of access, which should concern the Conservative party as much as any other party. This is about the integrity of the OBR.

The non-executive directors of the OBR, Baroness Hogg—who is totally independent—and Dame Susan Rice, both conclude that

“ultimate responsibility…rests…with the leadership of the OBR.”

I would not expect the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say whether he has confidence in the chair of the OBR, but is it not clear that those non-executive directors lack that confidence?

[James Murray]

It is clear that this is a very serious matter, and it is right that the Government respond to it with the seriousness it demands. As my hon. Friend made clear, this is not—to quote the OBR again—

“simply a matter of pressing”

the wrong button

“on a locally managed website too early.”

This is a systemic issue and a far more serious one, and it deserves our serious attention.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Under the last Conservative Government, we saw years of chaos, incompetence and mismanagement, and very often a lack of transparency and honesty with the British public. The Government promised change, and had a responsibility to deliver a clean break from the Conservatives’ approach to government. Will the Minister acknowledge the damage that has been done to those efforts, and what steps will the Government take to rectify it?

[James Murray]

One of the reasons we take this matter so seriously is precisely the value that we place on the OBR. We see it as having a vital role in a robust and transparent fiscal framework, which is why we take last week’s breach of information so very seriously.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is really concerning that these leaks have happened before. I understand that the investigation is still under way, but could the OBR tell who was trying to access this information, and can my right hon. Friend confirm that this will be investigated fully? Can he also confirm when last there was headroom as low as £4 billion?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend asks what the OBR report was able to conclude. It said that

“We could not, in the time available, carry out deeper forensic examination of other recent EFO events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out.”

That is exactly what the Government will be doing.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I think it should be recognised that events such as these allow Ministers and the wider Government to reflect on current circumstances. I am not seeking to scapegoat the OBR, but it is not the messiah—sometimes, it can be a very naughty boy—and it does have to revise its predictions at all times. Is it too traditional to suggest to this Government that the Treasury should be the office of budget responsibility, and that there are good brains in the Bank that could be tapped into? Is now not a good opportunity to reflect on what advice the Government need, whether the OBR is fit for purpose, and whether it should be disbanded?

[James Murray]

I have a great deal of personal respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I take a different view of the OBR. We value the role of the OBR in a robust and transparent fiscal framework, and it is precisely because we value that role that we take last week’s breach of information so seriously.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

To bring to a conclusion the ensuing debate about who knew what and when, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should publish a detailed timetable of the economic information that the Chancellor was in receipt of, including the return on tax receipts and the impact on wage growth?

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend knows, the OBR has already published its forecasts at various rounds during the Budget process. The process is iterative between the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that in the Budget, we cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Government have had a lucky break with the coincidence of the OBR’s confession and report on its leak of the Budget details, which has given the Minister an opportunity to use the shame of the OBR to deflect from the real criticism that should lie with the Chancellor, who, weeks before, was using selective information and distorting the forecasts to cover up the fact that she was taking money from those who work to pay those who do not work. Is that not the real shame of what we are discussing?

[James Murray]

The real focus of the Chancellor has been on cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting Government borrowing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, like all Members of this House, values the importance of the Office for Budget Responsibility and takes this matter with the same seriousness that we in government do.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Like many other Members, I have been shocked by the early release of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, as this kind of error risks compromising the integrity of the Budget process in moving markets. The evidence that has now emerged that this was not the first time that the OBR forecast was accessed prematurely owing to systematic failures in its own cyber-security, is simply unforgivable. Given this appalling failure, which the chair of the OBR himself acknowledges is the worst failure in the organisation’s history, can the Minister tell the House what he thinks it would take for the chair of the OBR to resign?

[James Murray]

Obviously, the questions about what is done by the leadership of the OBR are for the leadership of the OBR, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government take last week’s information breach incredibly seriously. The fact that it was not simply a case of the wrong button being pressed on a locally managed website, the fact that it was a systemic issue and the fact that it had happened at least once before, in March this year—and who knows whether it had happened at previous events—underscore just how serious a matter it is, and just what a failing it represents.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

We know that the Chief Secretary is a very thoughtful, intelligent man, and he will know that the press were being briefed extensively about what the Budget was going to say. They were not making it up. Where does the Chief Secretary believe that that briefing was coming from? Does he believe that it was coming from special advisers, does he believe that it was coming from Treasury officials, does he believe that it was coming from No. 10—or does he think that a Christmas elf had a hand in all this?

[James Murray]

I know that journalists from all publications need no encouragement to speculate on the contents of a Budget. Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to my earlier remarks: this Government take the Budget process, and our responsibility to the House, very seriously.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Like other Members on both sides of the House—I hope—I am deeply concerned and shocked by the fact that the OBR has leaked not just the autumn Budget but previous fiscal events: it is hugely concerning. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor’s decision to more than double fiscal headroom has been welcomed by markets and will strengthen UK resilience?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that not only doubling the headroom but getting it to £21.7 billion is a crucial step in strengthening the resilience of the UK economy and the public finances, helping to bring down Government borrowing and protect us from future shocks.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It concerns me that the Minister has today, in this House, misled the House—inadvertently—on three separate occasions, as the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the British people this morning. Cutting borrowing is simply not the case. The OBR’s numbers show clearly that over the next five years Government borrowing will increase by a net £504 billion, which is £60 billion more than was forecast by the OBR back in March. The Minister cannot even claim that it is a percentage of net debt, because all those numbers are increasing, so will he please correct the record?

[James Murray]

Borrowing falls in every year of this forecast.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am shocked to be picked so early, but I appreciate it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The premature publishing of the OBR report is very disappointing; I think Members across the House can agree on that. It is particularly disappointing for me and for residents in Harlow, because it detracts from a Budget that makes a real difference to families in my constituency by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, lowering waiting times for the NHS and—as the House knows, an area I am particularly concerned about—tackling tax evasion.

[James Murray]

Not only is my hon. Friend an excellent advocate for tackling tax avoidance and evasion, but he is absolutely right to point to the fact that what is important for people across this country is that this Budget cuts the cost of living, cuts NHS waiting lists and cuts Government borrowing.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is deeply damaging and, dare I say, unprecedented that we find ourselves here today, listening to this statement about OBR forecasts, midway through the debate on the Budget. It raises more questions, not least because the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer those questions. Why?

[James Murray]

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady missed my explanation of where the Chancellor was, but I am pleased to announce to the House that the Chancellor is in Wales today, at the Wales investment summit. She is there following yesterday’s announcement of £1.4 billion of extra investment into Wales, and that is just the latest tranche of the £16 billion of new investment announced since the summit was launched.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement. The integrity of fiscal forecasting depends not only on technical expertise, but on the public’s confidence in the people who deliver it. Clearly, that confidence has been shaken in the past few days. Can he outline what governance changes he and the Department are thinking about enacting so that those overseeing the fiscal process meet the highest standards of conduct and scrutiny? Does he have confidence in the head of the OBR delivering them?

[James Murray]

I emphasise to my hon. Friend and all Members of this House that the Chancellor and all of us in the Treasury value the independence of the OBR and the constructive relationship we have had with it over the past 16 months, in challenging times. Obviously, the matter that we are discussing today—the early publication of the report last Wednesday—is incredibly serious. The reason we as a Government are taking it so seriously is that we want to preserve the integrity and independence of the OBR in the future.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am very interested to learn that the Chancellor is in Wales today. Amid all the message manipulation, she leaves the Minister to explain exactly why the continued freeze on income tax thresholds will hit Wales badly: an estimated five times more Welsh workers will be pulled into the basic rate compared with in the UK as a whole. I can only presume that the Treasury consulted the Labour Welsh Government. Will he release their response specifically in relation to confidence and a cost of living hit?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not welcome the fact that the Chancellor is in Wales today to promote investment in Wales, but I can point her to the fact that the decision to lift the two-child benefit cap will benefit children in Wales, that the money off energy bills will benefit people in Wales, and that the changes to the fiscal framework will benefit people in Wales. The decisions that this Government took will cut the cost of living and make sure that we cut Government borrowing, which will benefit people right across the UK.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The OBR is a valuable institution, and the “Economic and fiscal outlook” is by far the most important document that it produces. Today’s report makes it clear that the OBR’s IT infrastructure was a point of critical failure that should have been identified as far back as 2013. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the OBR now cannot credibly lead the investigatory and reconstruction work, and that he should resign?

[James Murray]

Events are moving quickly, and I understand that the chair of the OBR has resigned. That is what I understand from messages passed to me.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Through the morass of leaks, one thing is crystal clear: this Labour Government broke their manifesto commitment. The Chancellor said:

“I am asking everyone to make a contribution”,—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.]

then went around the studios at the weekend saying,

“I am asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more”.

She is not asking; she is telling the public. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that if my constituents say they will not pay their taxes, they will not face any criminal or financial repercussions?

[James Murray]

The Chancellor was clear at the Budget last week that we were taking the fair and necessary taxation decisions to ensure that everyone makes a contribution, but that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible thanks to the other choices made. Increasing tax on property income, increasing tax on properties worth more than £2 million and reforming gambling taxation all mean that we can keep taxes on working people as low as possible.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

The report on the OBR leak makes deeply worrying reading. I welcome the resignation of the chair of the OBR, because leadership on these issues matters. It turns out that the leak was not unprecedented as we thought last week. It has leaked other documents, and it may need to go back further to look at that. Such leaks could have led to speculation and costs running into millions. Does my right hon. Friend know how many times this has happened before, and if not, does he know when we will know that information? More importantly, does he know how many times the OBR Budget report was viewed externally before the Chancellor delivered the Budget last week?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of what happened last week. The initial report by the OBR sets out just how many times the report was accessed and shared before the Chancellor had given her Budget speech. There were 32 attempts to access it, starting at about 5 am that day, and it was then shared multiple times before the Chancellor had delivered her Budget speech. We do not have all of the answers to his questions, and the OBR has acknowledged that in the limited time available it has not done forensic analysis of what happened at all previous fiscal events. We know that the EFO for the March 2025 spring statement was certainly accessed. What we will do as a Government is work to make sure we have full information, and urgently find out what was shared—or rather what was inadvertently shared—at previous fiscal events.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

We have had plenty of disagreement today, but I think it is clear that there is consensus that truth and accountability matter. I draw the attention of the House to the campaign by Compassion in Politics for a targeted legal measure that would make it an offence for any politician or candidate to mislead the public deliberately on a matter of verifiable fact. This is being taken forward in Wales, and it has long-standing cross-party support in this House. Will the Government support those of us who are campaigning for a political truthfulness Bill to rebuild trust in politics?

[James Murray]

This Government take the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards incredibly seriously and abide by his rulings. We know what damage the previous Government did to trust in politics. It would be foolish to suggest that no Government at any point in the future will ever face difficulties, but it is how the Government respond to those difficulties that matters. This Government have shown that we respond in a way that is transparent, fair and brings an end to any sense that people have behaved improperly.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

On 3 September, the shadow Chancellor stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and claimed that the hole in the public finances could be as much as £40 billion. As it happens, that was not the case, not least because of the Chancellor’s steadfast commitment to stabilising our economy. Does the Minister not agree that it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to go around claiming that people are talking down the economy and talking up the gap in our public finances, when the only people doing that are them?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right. I do not hold out any hope that the Conservatives will speak with any consistency or do anything other than try to talk down the British economy. In stark contrast, we are cutting Government borrowing, increasing the headroom, and making sure we have stable public finances and a stable economy, because it is on that basis that we can boost investment and growth.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The demeanour of a good Chancellor should be somewhere between an undertaker and an oncologist—a reassuring presence and no words wasted—not a party entertainer trialling a few tricks before they go on stage, which is what this Chancellor did before the Budget. In seizing back control from the OBR—which is unaccountable and unelected, and should never have been set up in the first place—will the Minister recognise that, unless the Treasury and Ministers are straight with the public, no one will be trusted?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the role of the OBR. We value its role in a transparent and robust fiscal framework. Madam Deputy Speaker, during this debate Richard Hughes has offered his resignation. May I put on record, on behalf of the Government, our thanks to him for his dedication to public service?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It strikes me that much of the criticism from the Opposition Benches is rooted in the decision to increase funds to raise the headroom. I know that forecasts are a job for the OBR, but given that it is busy at the moment, could my right hon. Friend advise me on what the likely impact on the markets would have been of having headroom of just £4 billion?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, had I been here today defending a headroom of £4 billion or less, it would have been a completely impossible task. This Government are determined to ensure that we increase headroom to give us greater stability. By increasing it to £21.7 billion, we have done just that.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

If the Chancellor really takes the integrity of the Budget as seriously as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, she would not have leaked so much of it to the media beforehand. There is speculation and then there is being spoon-fed. The only principle guiding the Chancellor was keeping her Back Benchers happy and the only cuts were to confidence. Will the Chief Secretary set out exactly what steps the Chancellor will take to clear up this mess? Will she come back before this House, and will she refer herself to the Financial Conduct Authority?

[James Murray]

I do not quite understand the hon. Lady’s question. When we got into office in July last year, our task was to fix the mess of the public finances that the Conservatives had left. At this Budget, the OBR’s productivity downgrade revealed further damage—deep scars—that her Government’s actions caused to our economy as a result of slashing public investment and mishandling Brexit, so if anyone wants to come to this Chamber and apologise, might it be her?

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

First, I express my concern about the findings of the leak report, which are completely unacceptable, especially as they are apparently so systemic. The OBR productivity downgrade reduced revenues by £16 billion. Why does my right hon. Friend think productivity growth has, since 2010, so consistently underperformed against forecasts—and in other countries too?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question on the OBR productivity downgrade, which has clearly played a really important and difficult role in this Budget process. What the OBR’s review of productivity made clear is that under the previous Government the decision to cut public services and cut public investment, and the mishandling of Brexit, left deep scars on our economy. Those are deep scars that we had to take decisions at this Budget to correct.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

At last year’s autumn Budget, the Chancellor claimed that 75% of farms would be unaffected by agricultural property relief and business property relief, a figure that has been widely disputed. This year there is yet more confusion over the figures, with the Chancellor implying that public finances were significantly worse than the OBR assessment suggested. After years of being ignored and taken for granted by the Conservatives, how can rural businesses have confidence in this Government’s economic strategy if key figures are inaccurate or misrepresented?

[James Murray]

I have taken part in a number of debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall on the changes to APR and BPR that the Government introduced at the Budget last year. We have debated the figures extensively. Some of the difference in people’s figures stems from the fact that we are talking about estates, which is the right measure when we are talking about inheritance tax, rather than the value of farms themselves. I also hope that the hon. Lady will have seen the change we made to the system at this Budget through the spousal transfer.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, the “Ministerial Code” requires Ministers to be

“as open as possible with Parliament and the public”.

Exactly when did the Chief Secretary learn that the Chancellor did not face the shortfall that the Treasury was briefing to the press?

[James Murray]

As a Treasury Minister, I have obviously been involved in discussions with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister’s team throughout the Budget process. We developed these policies collectively to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister said this morning that politics is about choices. The Chancellor chose not to disclose the improved tax outlook from the OBR when she addressed the country on 4 November; the Chancellor chose to overstate the challenges with the public finances; the Chancellor chose to withhold the more positive forecasts from her Cabinet colleagues; and the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer questions on her conduct in office. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s position is untenable and that she should now choose to resign?

[James Murray]

The Chancellor chose on 4 November to be up front with people about the challenges we face. At the Budget, she chose to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I feel I should declare at the start of this question that I am one of the few people in the Chamber who apparently is not shocked at what has been going on this week. I am also not shocked that a Labour Cabinet member has said:

“The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish”.

Can the Chief Secretary tell us which Labour Cabinet member said that, and can they have a bigger role in the next Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why he backed Liz Truss for leader?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Chancellor announced that her plans aim to fund public services, avoid austerity and invest for the future, portraying a positive future and spending that seems manageable. Meanwhile, the OBR forecasts that if borrowing increases in the short term, it could have a potential impact on future spending in terms of welfare and debt interest, which could erode the economy. What steps will the Treasury take after the Budget to ensure that, through the Chancellor’s plans, we are not sacrificing long-term stability?

[James Murray]

Long-term stability is at the heart of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at the Budget last year, which were met at the spring statement earlier this year and were met again at the Budget last week. As many hon. Members have mentioned today, the fact that we are meeting those fiscal rules with far greater headroom—£21.7 billion in this Budget—gives us greater stability, helps to bring down the costs of Government borrowing and protects us from future shocks.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist, has said that the Government’s “repeated mistakes” and misinformation about the public finances have sucked all the energy from the economy. Chief Secretary, the former chief economist is correct, isn’t he?

[James Murray]

As we said at the Budget, not only were we setting out to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing; we were also focusing on growth through public investment in transport, energy, roads, railways and all the infrastructure that businesses need to invest to boost jobs and growth across the country. We invested in every part of the country, with a focus on Wylfa in Wales, Grangemouth in Scotland, the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the northern growth corridor, because we know that growth has to happen right across the country to benefit people in every part of the UK.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

There has been too much obfuscation today between what the Office for Budget Responsibility did in leaking its report early and the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility told the Chancellor before she made her statement about there not being the fiscal black hole that she made out. There were leaks to the press, and Mr Speaker stood in this Chamber and admonished the Government for leaking. It was not speculation in the press; this has been nothing but “Jackanory”. How can this Government start to rebuild trust with the public when they are simply trying to do smoke and mirrors and not face up to the fact that they kept leaking to the press?

[James Murray]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier when I underscored how importantly Ministers in this Government take the Budget process and how importantly we take our responsibilities to this House. I referred earlier to the words of the permanent secretary at the Treasury about the fact that he will

“continue to keep all aspects”

of Budget security

“under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.”

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

The forecasts are meant to help the Government to decide what to do, but there was nothing in this forecast of oil and gas revenues, which explains why the energy profits levy was kept. We have seen a £6.2 billion downgrade in the expected revenue from oil and gas to the end of the Budget period—a 40% decrease in just a year from what it was bringing in—while production is down 55% and 33% for gas and oil over the period. None of that is to do with the size of the basin; it is all to do with the fiscal and regulatory regime that this Government are imposing on the North sea. It was announced today that 100 jobs are going at Harbour Energy, and there will be more to come. Every job loss from now on is on this Government, because they know exactly what the oil and gas sector has been saying to them—it has been saying exactly the same to me, too, but I have chosen to listen. Why have the Government decided on the back of the OBR forecast to keep the EPL, when they know the impact it is having on jobs, investment and production and the future of the North sea?

[James Murray]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that since we won the election I have spent many hours with the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen. It is exactly why we confirmed in the Budget last week that we will end the energy profits levy in 2030, or sooner if a price floor is triggered.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When did the Chancellor first brief her Cabinet colleagues on the realities of the OBR forecast?

[James Murray]

The Chancellor obviously spoke to Cabinet on the day of the Budget, as is the normal process, to let them know what was coming in the Budget later that day.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury failed to answer a critical question raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and a similar question raised by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), so I will ask the question in a slightly different way. Does the Minister agree that the FCA must urgently investigate whether conduct has fallen short of, in particular, part 7 of the Financial Services Act 2012 and article 12(1)(c) of the UK market abuse regulation, and does he agree that no stone should be left unturned in that investigation?

[James Murray]

The Chancellor has now delivered her Budget, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has published its figures. We have been clear that we were focused on cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting Government borrowing.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It has been dragged out of the Government that there was no black hole of £20 billion to £30 billion in the run-up to the Budget. In fact, there was a surplus. That means that Treasury insiders were deliberately misleading the press, the markets and our constituents in the run-up to the Budget, when they intended all along to raise taxes on working people to fund increased welfare. Why is the Minister continuing to take the public—our constituents—for fools?

[James Murray]

I cannot work out if the hon. Gentleman is implying that he thinks a few billion pounds of headroom is acceptable, because the Government certainly do not think it is. We think that having £4.2 billion or less of headroom is not an acceptable position for our economy to be in. We had the result of the OBR productivity downgrade, which had hit revenues by £16 billion, and that is why decisions were necessary to restore the public finances and meet our priorities going into Budget.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The British public are, by nature, a forgiving people. However, does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not recognise that obfuscation of the kind we have seen over the weekend deeply damages public confidence?

[James Murray]

I hate to break it to the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt the British people will forgive the Tories for Liz Truss’s record in office.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

According to the latest House of Commons Library briefing and the economic forecasts, the freeze on the income tax threshold is projected to raise over £38 billion per year by 2029-30. For comparison, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that by 2030 the freeze will raise approximately £8 billion annually, which is similar to adding 1p to the basic rate of income tax. Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor’s statement that she met Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise income taxes, and does he agree that she misled the public and this House?

[James Murray]

No. The Chancellor—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I believe that the hon. Member was trying to say that the Chancellor inadvertently misled the House, but he did not say the word “inadvertently”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Noted, but we need to be mindful of our language at all times.

[James Murray]

At the Budget, the decisions the Chancellor took on tax were fair and necessary. Yes, we are asking everyone to make a contribution, but we have also taken decisions on increasing property income taxation, asked people with properties worth over £2 million to contribute more, and changed the way that gambling companies are taxed. All those decisions meant that we were able to keep the tax burden on working people as low as possible.

Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance: Uprating

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Written Statements

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

The Tax Credits Act 2002 and Social Security Administration Act 1992 place a statutory duty on His Majesty’s Treasury to review the rates of child benefit each year in line with the general level of prices. There is a further statutory duty on the Treasury to increase guardian’s allowance in line with price growth. I have now concluded the review for the tax year 2026-27.

I have decided to increase child benefit rates in line with the consumer prices index for the year to September 2025, which is 3.8%. Guardian’s allowance will also increase by the same rate. This means that, from 6 April 2026:

the child benefit rate for the eldest child will increase from £26.05 to £27.05 per week;

the child benefit rate for other children will increase from £17.25 to £17.90 per week;

guardian’s allowance will increase from £22.10 to £22.95 per week.

I have determined that there will be no need for changes to tax credits rates in the tax year 2026-27, as there are no tax credits awards after 5 April 2025. The new rates will apply across the United Kingdom. I will deposit the full list of these rates in the House Libraries shortly.

[HCWS1100]

Budget: Press Briefings

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on briefings to the press about the contents of the Budget.

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

Every Minister in this Government takes their obligations to this House very seriously. There has been much speculation, as is usual ahead of a Budget, but the Chancellor will come to this House on 26 November and deliver a Budget that will protect the NHS and public services. It will support growth and enable businesses to create jobs and innovate. It will support those struggling with the cost of living, protect families from high inflation and interest rates, and get debt falling, because the less we spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people.

As you would rightly expect, Mr Speaker, I will not comment on individual measures today. The Chancellor has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a forecast. The OBR and the Treasury exchange information throughout the forecast process, which is the usual practice, established over many years. The Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast, and we will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget next week in the usual way. The OBR is making an assessment of the productivity performance of the previous Government, and we will not allow the mistakes of the previous Government to determine our country’s future. The Budget next week will be guided by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity, and will be focused entirely on the priorities of the British people.

Stability remains at the heart of our approach. By building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence, we will give businesses the confidence to invest, and leave Government more free to act, when the situation calls for it. We will continue to meet our iron-clad fiscal rules, which allow the Government to invest in homes, transport, energy security and infrastructure. Taking this action means that we can continue to build strong foundations for our economy, because that is the route to securing Britain’s future.

[Sir Mel Stride]

Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package.

The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House. In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room.

Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings? Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place?

Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House.

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, it is not normal for a Budget to have been put in the press. This is the hokey-cokey Budget: one minute something is in, the next minute it is out. I am very worried. The previous Government also had to be reprimanded for leaking. It is not good policy. At one time, a Minister would have resigned if anything was released. This House should be sacrosanct, and all decisions should be heard here first. Please do pass on the message.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I can reassure you that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.

I will not engage with speculation or comment on the ongoing Budget process, but everyone in this House and beyond can be very clear of what the Chancellor’s priorities are going into the Budget. We will meet the iron-clad fiscal rules, we will make the public finances more resilient, we will reduce inflationary pressures and we will get the costs of borrowing down, because that is the way to focus on the priorities of the British people, which are to protect the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and reduce the national debt.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

There has been either a leak or wild speculation about the Budget, and it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us which it is. In doing so, could he outline—as he will obviously not go into detail, quite rightly, a week before the Budget—what this Budget’s strategic objectives are for the country?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Regrettably, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to comment on that speculation. As the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month, although we face challenges going into the Budget, we are very clear about the priorities of this Government, which are to make the public finances more resilient, to reduce inflationary pressures and to bring down the costs of borrowing, because that is the way we can focus on the priorities of the British people—the NHS, the cost of living and getting debt down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that the time limit is one minute, not one minute and 50 seconds.

[James Murray]

Like the hon. Member, I regret the fact that there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to add to that speculation here in the Chamber today. Our focus as a Government is to build the strong foundations that our economy needs, because that is the way to secure Britain’s future.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am often put in mind of that scene in “Casablanca” where the official expresses surprise at gambling taking place in the casino when I hear Conservative Members say that briefing might have taken place. Perhaps in 2017, when the key stamp duty measure in that Budget was leaked, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) was equally surprised, as he was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. While there is always briefing, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the job of the Chancellor is to get the best deal for this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As the Minister will know, leaks of market sensitive data obviously carry a much higher premium than other leaks that may occur in Government. Again, could he address the shadow Chancellor’s question as to why the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary have not been asked to launch an inquiry into these leaks?

[James Murray]

As I said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, but what the markets know is that the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules is iron-clad. They have been met at every fiscal event since this Parliament began, and they will be met next Wednesday.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

The problem that we have is an insatiable 24/7 media who want stories and will sometimes generate their own. All this speculation has created uncertainty that has hampered investment, which I know is not what the Treasury wants. Will the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box that any further speculation we read about will not have been authorised by anyone in Government?

[James Murray]

Mr Speaker, as I made clear, every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously and I am not going to engage in further speculation today, but what we are seeking to achieve in the Budget next week is to ensure that, in meeting her iron-clad fiscal rules that the Chancellor has committed to, we provide extra headroom to give more resilience to the public finances, reduce inflationary pressures and get the cost of borrowing down.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Two weeks ago, the Chancellor held a press conference from which everyone inferred that income tax was going to go up. On Friday, every newspaper said that income tax was not going to go up. It is plainly obvious to the general public and anyone who reads any of the papers that everything is being briefed from the Treasury or No. 11. Surely the Minister needs to come to terms with that and face up to the fact that it has a horrendous effect on business and consumer confidence, which is doing the economy a lot of damage.

[James Murray]

As I said earlier, regrettably there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget. In reference to the Chancellor’s speech earlier this month, the reason she set out the challenges we face as a country was to be straightforward with the British people about the challenges we face and clear about her priorities, which are to protect on the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and get national debt down.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Tories are still as irresponsible as they were under Liz Truss, blindly promising £47 billion of cuts to justify their wacky fiscal policies? Does he agree that that is back of the fag packet territory? Does he agree that the Chancellor will deliver an excellent Budget next week?

[James Murray]

I agree entirely that the Conservative party has learned nothing, and nor has it apologised at all for what happened under the short-lived Government of Liz Truss. For the Conservatives to talk about the savings they have apparently identified recently, including welfare savings, is frankly not credible when the shadow Chancellor is the man who presided over the biggest increase in the welfare bill in decades.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

On one level, this is all just a bit embarrassing, is it not? But on another level, this is having a real impact on business confidence and the ability of local businesses to make decisions about investment and their future. Does the Minister agree that this is all just a bit self-defeating?

[James Murray]

I am not quite sure what I am supposed to say in response to that question. I would rather this urgent question had not been asked today—there are other things that we could be doing—but it is important to underline to you, Mr Speaker, that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I was astonished to hear those on the Opposition Benches cheer and jeer as the Chief Secretary made his statement. If I remember correctly, when we first took office after the election, we were told about how they had mishandled the economy, mishandled Brexit, mishandled the pandemic, spent the reserves three times over and promised money for sensitive schemes when they did not have the money, just to try and win the election. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House how decisions are made in the Budget process, and what we were left with when we first took office?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our priority is to take the right decisions to provide stability and secure foundations for the long-term future of this country. It is true that we inherited a mess from the Conservative party. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility is now looking at the previous Government’s record on productivity. We have been clear that we will not let the mistakes of the previous Government determine this country’s future. We will take the right decisions for the future of this country.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The speculation was inflamed by the Chancellor herself giving a speech at the press conference. Surely one of the most damaging pieces of speculation in the media was that there might be an exit tax on wealthy people fleeing the country. That has only just been ruled out, but many, many people have fled in the interim. There has been a real cost to the Exchequer from all the speculation, so will the Minister confirm that there will be a leak inquiry?

[James Murray]

As I made clear, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, nor am I going to engage in speculation about Budget measures. I note that this urgent question is about speculation, which I am not engaging with. It is actually Conservative Members who seem to be fanning the speculation, and I would discourage them from doing that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that we have had leak inquiries previously when major statements have come out? The reports may be contradicted within days, but they are obviously coming from somewhere. It is worth while thinking about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The Minister said in his response that the Treasury and the OBR are exchanging information, but that did not happen in the period immediately before the last election, when spending pressures were withheld from the OBR in a way that the chair said may have broken the law. Will the Minister confirm that that failure is being corrected under this Government?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to point out that the process between the OBR and the Treasury has been strengthened to be more robust and transparent under this Government. Of course, it is an iterative process whereby the OBR shares its forecasts with us and we share with it our proposed measures. It iterates throughout the Budget process, culminating in the Budget itself on 26 November.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

There is no doubt that the chaos and uncertainty of this Budget process is having enormous consequences for the credibility of the Labour party, and maybe even for the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am, surprisingly, less interested in that and more interested in the damage that the Government’s policies are having on my constituents and their livelihoods. I am not asking him to speculate but to clarify: does he acknowledge that if the energy profits levy continues in its current form, more of my constituents will lose their jobs?

[James Murray]

I am not going to take lessons on credibility from the right hon. Gentleman. What I will say is that he is inviting me to speculate on Budget measures, and I will not do so.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Can the Chief Secretary confirm that this will be a Budget that prioritises economic growth?

[James Murray]

I can absolutely confirm that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can I ask the Minister whether I have got this right? The Chancellor made a speech to try to reassure the markets that she was going to plug the enormous black hole in the Government’s finances. It reassured the markets to an extent, and the forecasted borrowing costs fell. The OBR adjusted its forecasts, and then the Chancellor decided that she did not need to take the measures she had announced in her speech, and the markets have now reacted adversely. This is all against the background of the cost of borrowing being higher today, as it has been all year, than the peak under the supposedly disastrous Budget of Liz Truss. What sort of confidence is that going to give the British economy?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that the Chancellor announced measures in her speech earlier this month. All measures are announced on Budget day. What the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month were the challenges we are facing as a country and the priorities that will guide her—those are to make the public finances more resilient, with more headroom, to reduce inflationary pressures and to get the cost of borrowing down.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary will be aware of the vital role that beer and pubs play in my constituency, the beer capital of Britain. As the Chancellor finalises the Budget, will she ensure that this sector, which faces significant pressure, receives the support that it deserves in order that it can thrive and continue serving our communities?

[James Murray]

While I have made it clear that I will not speculate on what will be in the Budget, I note my hon. Friend’s passionate case for support for the pub sector, which is so important to all of us and our constituents.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Does the Minister have any understanding at all of the impact of this incontinent briefing and leaking—the contradictory rumours about pensions, inheritance tax and housing—which is enraging so many of my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Does he not agree that normally an omnishambles happens once the Budget speech has been delivered, not while it is still being crafted?

[James Murray]

As I have said, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I will not engage in speculation about what the Chancellor will announce on 26 November, because that is when she will set it all out.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I promise the Chamber that I will not repeat any of the stories about my mum’s career in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. However, the Minister will know that I take tax evasion very seriously. He will be aware that it costs the Treasury billions of pounds each year. I appreciate that he cannot speculate on what will be in the Budget, but will he commit his Department to looking seriously at how we tackle tax evasion, with serious investment in HMRC?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right that I cannot speculate on the contents of the Budget, but I can thank his mother for her years of service to HMRC. I can also reassure her, him and the whole House that tackling tax avoidance and evasion and closing the tax gap is a top priority for the Government.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Minister is right to point out that speculation ahead of a Budget is not abnormal, but we have had speculation throughout most of this year. I wonder whether he will accept that part of the reason for that is how the Chancellor has both constructed and applied her fiscal rules. She set them up, with good intentions—we do need fiscal rules in place—but left herself with minimal headroom in a pretty volatile global economy, which has driven speculation all year round about how she would fill the gaps that have emerged throughout the year. Does he think that was a mistake?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of fiscal headroom to ensure that public finances are resilient. That is exactly why the Chancellor set out that one of her priorities in the Budget, in meeting the iron-clad fiscal rules, is to ensure that we have more resilient public finances so that the Government are freer to act when the situation calls for it.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Given the blatant breach of pre-Budget purdah, will the Chancellor follow the proper example set by Hugh Dalton?

[James Murray]

I fear that my history is not good enough to know exactly what that question means. [Interruption.] I am embarrassed to admit it. I am not entirely clear, but I suspect that I do not agree with the right hon. Member, whatever it was. I will leave it at that.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Given the chaos around the Budget, none of us would be at all surprised if the date itself changed. Nevertheless, is the Treasury aware how incompetent it looks in the eyes of the markets, which are utterly aghast, and in the eyes of businesses, which have stopped investing and stopped hiring?

[James Murray]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Budget is next week, on Wednesday 26 November. I can also reassure him that businesses are welcoming the Chancellor’s iron-clad commitment to her fiscal rules.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor recognise that her trailing of a mansion tax for houses that are nothing of the sort has caused deep anxiety for thousands of people, including many pensioners in my constituency, who could not afford a potential doubling of their council tax?

[James Murray]

As I made clear earlier, the level of noise and speculation ahead of the Budget is regrettable, but I will not engage in further speculation on these measures today.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am disappointed that the Minister does not know of the example of the Chancellor who resigned from Attlee’s Government for inadvertently or otherwise leaking details of the Budget. Does he at least appreciate that there is a difference between speculating about the contents of a Budget and leaking a Budget, and does he think that there should be any punishment for people who leak a Budget, irrespective of whatever the details were?

[James Murray]

I repeat what I said about the approach of Ministers—every Minister in the Government takes their responsibility to the House seriously—and I will not engage in further speculation about the contents of the Budget.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I have had meetings with businesses and constituents in Surrey Heath who tell me that they have changed their decisions based on the speculation they have heard in recent weeks and months. We have heard about the rage that some people have felt; in my constituency, I have heard anxiety from people who have drawn down their pension pots and perhaps not pursued the house purchase that they were looking at. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the reality—whether speculation or leaks—this situation is deeply regrettable? If he can do anything at all, will he please ensure that this never happens again?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not adding to the speculation around the Budget. It is regrettable that there is noise and speculation around the Budget, because the right way for Budgets to be conducted is for those measures to be iterated with the Office for Budget Responsibility in the normal way, with the forecasts and measures being exchanged between the Treasury and the OBR, and for the package of measures in full to be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In some ways at least, this Chancellor is improving: her Budget last year unravelled within a day, and this year the Budget has unravelled before it has been announced. We know why the Chief Secretary is refusing to answer the question about the leak inquiry. It is because the Chancellor knows exactly who leaked the details of the Budget, because she sees that face every day in the mirror. This all goes back to last year’s Budget. Labour said in its manifesto that it would limit spending increases by the year 2028-29 to £9.5 billion a year. In the Budget, the Government increased spending by £76 billion a year. That is eight times higher. Before the Chief Secretary starts spouting about the £22 billion fiction, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion equals a lot less than £76 billion, doesn’t it?

[James Murray]

At the Budget last year we took the right decisions to fix the public finances and to get the NHS and public services back on their feet. We could not carry on with public services as they were when we inherited them. We could not carry on with public finances as they were when we inherited them. We have restored stability because that is a prerequisite for functioning public services, for investment and for growth.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Leaks, unauthorised briefing and speculation—or maybe not speculation—are creating instability, chaos, volatility and uncertainty for the markets, for businesses and for households in my constituency, so why will the Minister not answer the shadow Chancellor’s question about having an inquiry into what has actually happened? Let us get to the bottom of this.

[James Murray]

As I have said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process. However, the right hon. Lady mentioned stability, and stability is at the heart of our approach, which is why building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence is so important in giving businesses the confidence to invest.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

There appears to have been a lot of speculation about this Budget, and it seems to have been the same measures that have been speculated on by a number of different news sources, which leads to suspicions of a leak. The Minister must surely recognise that there was a possibility of a leak, in which case either he knows who the leak was and that is why he does not want to investigate, or he does not know who the leak was, in which case he should want to investigate. I am not asking him to speculate on the contents of the Budget, so he should please not give me that answer again. Why will he not institute a leak inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

A number of the hon. Lady’s colleagues have asked the same question today, and my answer has been consistent throughout, which is that I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The chaos and confusion at the heart of this Government are deeply damaging to Scotland, to its economy and to its public services. The constant leaks, briefings and U-turns flowing from the Treasury make the Scottish Government’s task all the more difficult, and this is worsened by the Chancellor’s refusal, to date, to meet the Scottish Secretary for Finance. Can the Minister succeed in persuading the Chancellor to have this meeting, please?

[James Murray]

In my role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I have met Ministers in the Scottish Government to discuss the fiscal situation. We have a fiscal forum every quarter, with representatives from the Scottish Government as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is the right way for us to have routine discussions about matters of shared interest.

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

The Government have clearly lost control of this Budget process. While they have been flying kites, businesses across the UK have been sending up distress flares. The £40 billion of tax from them in the last Budget saw hiring down, confidence down and investments down, and we are now seeing the same again. If any business in this country went to find backing and made as many U-turns as this Government are producing, it would not have a chance of finding an investor, so how can any business across the country have confidence in this Government?

[James Murray]

Businesses can have confidence in this Government because when we say we are going to stick to our fiscal rules, we mean it. When we say we are going to have more headroom to make our economy and our public finances more resilient, we mean it. And when we say we are going to get national debt down, we mean it—unlike the Conservatives when they were in government.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I host a regular business forum with Cheltenham constituents, who tell me that the late date of the Budget and the speculation around it have undermined their ability to make decisions, in particular on investment. They also note that there has been nearly no speculation about pro-business measures for those trying to start or grow a business. Might the Chief Secretary to the Treasury take this opportunity to speculate on something that might be useful for the small and medium-sized enterprises and larger businesses in my constituency?

[James Murray]

While the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate on details, I can reassure him that our Budget will support growth by enabling businesses to create jobs, innovate, invest and grow.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

This urgent question is about Budget press briefings. The Minister has repeatedly said that he takes his responsibilities very seriously. He was asked by the shadow Chancellor whether he could rule out any of the ministerial team or special advisers having leaked any of the information out to the press. Will he do so from this Dispatch Box in honour of what he has been saying in his answers this afternoon?

[James Murray]

I did not say just that I take my responsibility to this House very seriously; I said that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously. I am not going to engage in further speculation ahead of the Budget.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

In the past year, a record £70 billion has been withdrawn from pension schemes through the tax-free lump sum as a result of the fear driven by the uncertainty of recent months. Does the Minister understand that the constant leaks and policy kite flying are leading to this adverse effect on pensioners’ savings?

[James Murray]

As I have said already today, there is, regrettably, always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget, but I am not going to contribute toward that speculation.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Businesses in Maidenhead tell me that what they want to see in the Budget—the one bit of speculation that they want to hear at the moment—is for the Chancellor to just leave them alone. That is an outrageous thing for them to have to think, and it is because of what they think the Chancellor will do at the Budget. Given the damage that has been caused by our current Brexit deal, does the Minister understand that we could look to generate £25 billion a year for our economy by negotiating a new EU-UK customs union? It is very simple.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government’s red lines on not rejoining the customs union. I can reassure him that, in approaching this Budget, the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules will ensure that we prioritise having extra resilience in terms of headroom, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing done.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Last week, VAT was to increase; this week, it is not. Pensions increases were to feature in the Budget; then they were not. Income tax was to feature; then it was not, and then it was again. The one thing that we are sure of is that retailers faced £7 billion in extra costs from the 2024 Budget, with employers responding by increasing prices and slashing jobs. How are the Government and the Chancellor going to breathe life into our high street and not sound the death knell for struggling small businesses? There is a very real fear that this Budget will bring a different kind of Black Friday for businesses across the UK in the form of closing down sales, which can never be allowed to happen.

[James Murray]

It does not count as me engaging in speculation if I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as we have already preannounced, we will set out our new business rates multipliers at the Budget, with permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, in order to help high streets across the country. That is a really important measure for us to take to support those businesses; more widely, however, it fits within the economic stability that we will provide, which is so important for businesses. That is why, as well as meeting our iron-clad fiscal rules, it is so important that we ensure that the public finances are more resilient, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing down.

Taxes

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the shadow Chancellor for opening today’s debate. It is two weeks until Budget day, and it is just over two weeks since the last motion tabled by the official Opposition that sought to debate the content of the Budget before it is announced. We know that Conservative shadow Ministers want the British people to forget the mess they left from their time in office, but surely shadow Ministers cannot have forgotten how the Budget process works. If indeed that is the case, I am sure shadow Treasury Ministers will recall that we would not reveal any details of the Budget two weeks before the Budget, and that any decisions on the Budget will be revealed by the Chancellor on Budget day.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have a simple question for the Minister: does he think that manifesto promises are important?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As a Treasury Minister, what I am very used to in the run-up to a Budget is members of the media and Opposition Members finding more and more convoluted ways of trying to work out what is going to happen in the Budget. My answer would be the same at every turn: they simply have to wait until 26 November to see what the Chancellor announces in her Budget. The official Opposition are entirely entitled to put forward what they say they would do differently.

[Kit Malthouse]

I hear what the Minister is saying about us waiting for the Budget. Could he reassure the House that he has not discussed anything that might be in the Budget with any journalist, and certainly that he has not authorised any members of his office or anybody within the Treasury press team to brief out some of the kites that have been flown about the Budget in the media over the past few weeks?

[James Murray]

Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation, I am not going to engage in speculation ahead of the Budget. I am not going to feed the speculation that he is trying to wind up. I understand that the Budget is an important day in the parliamentary calendar, and it is an important day for the Government. Rightly, Conservative Members and Members of all parties want to know what is in the Budget, but they simply must wait until 26 November to find out.

[Kit Malthouse]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Minister has said that he is unwilling to discuss what might be in the Budget with the House. He did not, however, deny that he may have done so with journalists, or that he may have authorised others to brief to the media what may or may not be in the Budget. In the absence of that denial, are we within our rights to demand that the House be privy to what those conversations contained, in the same way that the business pages of The Times may have been?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I can calm Members’ nerves by saying that it is not many more sleeps until Budget day.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As somebody who has been around a long time and remembers when Chancellors used to have to resign for leaking things about the Budget in advance, may I ask the Minister to explain how it has been possible for the present Chancellor to make speeches about what may or may not be in her Budget in advance with no consequences forthcoming whatsoever?

[James Murray]

I am very happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman and all Members that what the Chancellor set out in her speech last Tuesday were the values and principles that will guide her in taking the right decisions going into the Budget at the end of the month. The importance of protecting the NHS, bringing down the cost of living and getting debt down—those will be the guiding principles for the Chancellor going into the Budget. That is important, because it sets out to the British people the challenges we face—some of them deep scars in the economy caused by the Conservatives—as well as the values that will guide us and the Chancellor in taking those decisions on 26 November.

The official Opposition is entirely entitled to ask questions and indeed put forward what it would do differently, but the problem with this Opposition is that when it does so, it simply exposes its total lack of any credibility. Remember last year, when we took the difficult decision, referred to earlier, to raise employer national insurance to support the NHS? The Opposition claimed to oppose that tax change but have refused to say whether they would reverse it—or, indeed, whether they would cut the NHS. As the shadow Chancellor pointed out earlier, more recently, at the Conservative party conference, they said that they thought they could find some £47 billion of cuts to public spending.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The Minister just said at the Dispatch Box that national insurance contributions for employers were raised “to support the NHS”. Was that hypothecated or not?

[James Murray]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the way the system works is that national insurance generally supports the NHS and pensions, but, more broadly—

[Dr Spencer]

rose—

[James Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish? More broadly, the revenue that goes into the Treasury is not formally hypothecated. But the point is that if we are going to support public services, get the NHS back on its feet and get waiting lists down, we need to take the difficult decisions to raise the tax revenue to put into that. That was an important principle that we had to take last year in the Budget.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Minister talked about difficult decisions, but what about an obvious one? Two thirds of the British population are now backing wealth taxes. Is it not time for the Treasury to abandon its self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and commit to lifting children out of poverty, to investing in our public services and to future-proofing our communities by transforming the tax system so that it better serves ordinary people and so that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share?

[James Murray]

I point the hon. Lady to last year’s Budget, at which we decided to get rid of the non-dom tax status, to remove the VAT tax rate on private school fees, to increase the air passenger duty on private jets and to change the rate of capital gains tax and inheritance tax—all measures that will raise £8 billion by the end of this Parliament from taxes on assets and the wealthy. That is what a fair tax system looks like.

While our plans are a credible way to settle the public finances, get public services back on their feet and support the economic stability so vital for investment and growth, the Conservatives come up with numbers out of thin air. At least half the £47 billion of fantasy savings they mentioned come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices: they say that the list of measures would raise £23 billion in total, but no breakdown is apparent.

We remember how, in June last year, just as the Conservatives were on their way out of Downing Street, they said that they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they have doubled that, without any explanation whatever. Frankly, however he protests, the shadow Chancellor is not the person to be making that argument about welfare. When he was the Work and Pensions Secretary, he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefits spending in decades.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He wonders why the ability to cut more money from the welfare bill has been identified by the Opposition. Does he not recognise that more than 5,000 people a day are joining long-term disability and incapacity benefits? That is how he can save more money from welfare. Why does he not do it?

[James Murray]

I agree with one of the sentiments in the points that the hon. Gentleman made: we need to ensure that people get into work wherever they can and that the safety net is there for people who can never work or are unable to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is leading that work to ensure that we get young people into work rather than being on a life of benefits and written off as they were by the Conservative party in office.

As I was saying, it was frankly quite some cheek for the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) to lecture about welfare spending, given the enormous increase in welfare spending on his watch when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If the £47 billion came from cuts in public services instead of from some of these fantasy welfare cuts, what would that mean? It would mean 85,700 fewer nurses; cutting every police officer in the country twice; or cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail was mentioned in the shadow Chancellor’s speech.

When we took office, the Chancellor introduced tough new fiscal rules. Those required day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing, while protecting the long-term investment in our country. Now, I realise that fiscal discipline is an alien concept for some Members on the Conservative Benches.

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister has just talked about the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. Who was it who changed the fiscal rules?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman said “the Chancellor’s fiscal rules”, so I suspect that it was the Chancellor who introduced those fiscal rules. He gave it away in how he phrased the question.

The point is that when the Chancellor was setting out her economic strategy at the Budget last year, it was on the basis of the fiscal rules: day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing and debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP, to enable investment in the long-term future of the country. I see that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is struggling to get his head around why that sense of fiscal reality and credibility is important, but we on the Government side believe that having those fiscal rules is crucial to that fiscal stability, to ensuring that we have that responsible attitude in government and to providing the stability for businesses to invest and grow the economy.

[Alex Ballinger]

My constituents, of course, remember Liz Truss’s devastating mini-Budget, when those rules were not followed. That had a massive impact on not just our public services but the mortgages and cost of living that my constituents are still feeling today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that going back to that irresponsible financial management would be a disaster for this country?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the damage that recklessness in public office can cause families right across the country—not just for one day, but for months and years beyond that. The Conservative party is desperate for us to forget what happened when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were in Downing Street. But the British people will not forget, and they have been feeling the impacts for many years.

The Conservative party talks about public spending but its record on public spending is abysmal. It spent years in office with money lining the pockets of dodgy PPE providers as the bill for asylum seekers’ hotels soared. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) just said, no debate on the Conservative record on tax and spend can be complete without mentioning the mini-Budget. Conservative Members are desperate for the British people to forget what happened three years ago and what the Conservative party foisted on the country. They are desperate to forget that their reckless unfunded tax cuts crashed our economy, damaged our international reputation and added hundreds of pounds to families’ mortgage costs. While British homeowners have been living with the consequences of the Conservatives every day, Conservative Members are all too conspicuous in their efforts to sweep their record under the rug.

True leadership is about not ducking the difficult decisions but confronting them head-on with a clear focus on priorities and values. That is what the Chancellor has promised to do in this Budget. As she set out last week, we will secure this country’s future with a Budget for growth led by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity. We will do not what is politically expedient but what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates; to protect and strengthen our public services, rejecting the austerity that Conservative Members seem keen to impose on our country once again; and to ensure that the economy that we leave to future generations is secure, with debt under control.

Our focus on cutting debt is crucial. We inherited a national debt of about 100% of GDP and since the spring the cost of borrowing has risen for Governments around the world. Today one in every £10 of taxpayers’ money in the UK is used to pay the interest on our national debt. That money should be going to our NHS, our schools, our police and our armed forces. Instead, it is going to our creditors. That is not what people pay taxes for.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

The Minister talks about the building up of debt. Does he understand that when Labour was last in power, debt went up from 36% of GDP to about 76% of GDP? That massive increase built the foundation of the debt that we have today.

[James Murray]

I am very aware of the foundation of debt that we inherited at the election last year—of around 100% of GDP. That, combined with global borrowing prices, leaves us in this position. We are determined to change that because we know that the less we have to spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people, the more we can invest in our infrastructure and industry, and the more resilient we can make our public finances, building the headroom to withstand global turbulence while giving businesses the confidence to invest.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Minister seems to be telling us that we can expect debt cutting measures in the Budget. Will he also confirm from the Dispatch Box that there will not be measures to increase national insurance, taxes on hard working people, or VAT?

[James Murray]

We are back to questions about what will be in the Budget. The answer, again, is very straightforward. The Chancellor set out the values that will guide her in taking the decisions at the Budget on 26 November. She set out the challenges that we face, being straight with the British people about that. The details will all be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day in the normal way.

We know that there is much more for us to do as a Government, but we can see the tough choices we made last year showing early signs of progress. We are set to deliver the largest primary deficit reduction in both the G7 and the G20 over the next five years. Our stewardship of the economy has helped the Bank of England cut interest rates five times, meaning lower mortgage payments and cheaper borrowing for families and businesses; real wages rose more in the first 10 months since the election than in the first 10 years of the previous Government; and the average person’s disposable income is now £800 higher in real terms than just before the election, meaning living standards have begun to rise. We have increased public capital investment by £120 billion over the Parliament and supported the NHS to achieve a reduction in the total elective waiting list of more than 206,000 since July 2024.

[Dr Luke Evans]

We on the Conservative Benches have been struggling to get an answer on the question of the 50% reduction in integrated care boards, for which the expected redundancy bill is about £1 billion. Today, the Government have issued a press release that says that they have dealt with that. Yet in response to my written question on the subject, the Health Department said that it could not provide an answer because it does not know the numbers, so I have received a holding answer. How much will the redundancy payments cost, and will it come from the Health budget or the Treasury budget?

[James Murray]

It is for the Health Department to set out the details in response to any questions that the hon. Gentleman has tabled. The point about the merger between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is that it is a way of cutting costs and ensuring that that money is reinvested in frontline services. Rather than having duplicative structures within our system, we want to ensure that we are merging NHS England and the Department of Health to make those savings, which we can reinvest in patient care.

As I said, there are still many challenges ahead and we are impatient to see things improve. Globally, inflation remains high and confidence is low, deterring investment and hindering growth. As geopolitical uncertainty grows, we are also faced with a critical need to invest in our defence spending. Domestically, we must continue to cut NHS waiting lists, lower the cost of living and improve our country’s productivity. We must invest in our roads, transport, housing, infrastructure, public services, towns and cities and the businesses for which the last Government failed so completely to provide.

Conservative Members will see the Budget two weeks from today. They will have plenty of opportunity to scrutinise it and participate in a serious debate about it later this month. We will, of course, oppose today’s motion, which speculates on what the Budget might contain. The effort of rebuilding a country requires the contributions of everyone in that country. Together, we can renew the UK and build an economy that is fair and thriving. That is what this Government were elected to do and that is what the Budget in two weeks’ time will play its crucial part in achieving.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

8. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the affordability of business rates for small and medium-sized enterprises.

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

More than 700,000 small businesses across the UK pay no business rates at all as they receive 100% small business rate relief. We are transforming business rates over this Parliament. We are cutting bureaucracy, too—removing the need for the owners of small businesses such as family-run cafés to submit pages and pages of directors’ reports to Companies House.

[Siân Berry]

Grassroots music venues are a vital part of the heart, soul and economy of Brighton Pavilion. Treasury Ministers have admitted that fairer business rates valuation methods are not currently used for many of these businesses—my local venues are calling the burdens punitive and a threat to viability. Will the Chancellor assure me that she will not forget grassroots music venues in her Budget?

[James Murray]

We very much recognise the role that grassroots music venues play in constituencies right across our country. In our reforms, on which we will set out more detail at the Budget on 26 November, we will have permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure premises, with rateable values below £500,000.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Despite representing only around 9% of the UK’s economic output, the retail and hospitality sectors contribute around a third of all business rates paid. Does the Minister agree that high streets such as that in St Austell are public goods, and will he ensure that independent small businesses such as those he has described, which are central to our communities and economies, are no longer penalised by an arcane business rates system that undervalues their public contribution?

[James Murray]

High streets in St Austell and constituencies right across the country need more support from the business rates system. That is why we are transforming the system to ask larger premises, including the warehouses used by online giants, to pay slightly more in order to cut permanently the business rates payable by smaller premises on high streets across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

When the Chancellor imposed £40 billion of tax rises, she chose to double business rates for leisure, retail and hospital businesses—and she is going to come back for more. It may be in vain, but perhaps I can offer her a policy suggestion: scrap business rates for 250,000 shops, pubs and restaurants. Rather than hike taxes, will she adopt Conservative policy and control welfare spending so that we can back our small businesses?

[James Murray]

That question barely deserves a response. The business rates relief we inherited from the previous Government when we came into office was due to end entirely in April of this year. It is only because of us that it was extended for a year while we put in place permanently lower multipliers for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses. Those are businesses on high streets right across our country, and that will be announced at the Budget on 26 November.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of implementing a flat rate of remote betting and gaming duty on the horseracing industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

11. What fiscal steps she is taking to help increase the incomes of working families in Newcastle.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; I know she is a tireless champion for working families in Newcastle. We know that for too long, people have felt that they are putting too much in and not getting enough back. That is why this Government have increased the national living wage by £1,400 this year for full-time workers, putting more money directly into the pockets of around 3 million working people. The north east combined authority investment zone will benefit from £160 million of investment to deliver £2 billion in private sector investment and 4,000 jobs.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

Under 14 years of Tory misrule, workers in the north-east saw their average annual earnings fall, causing a cost of living crisis for families across the region. We have fantastic, passionate and productive workers. Will the Minister promise to continue to turn back on Tory failure by investing in the industry of the north-east to deliver high-wage, high-quality jobs as part of a Budget for working people?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Conservatives’ record in office, and she is right that in her constituency there are fantastic, passionate and productive workers who need a Government—which they now have—who will invest in good jobs and skills, and who will put workers’ rights on a better footing than they were when we took over from the previous Government. At the Budget, the Chancellor will be led by the Government’s commitment to fairness, and she will be focused on protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and improving the cost of living.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T3. I know that the Chancellor and her team are well aware that families, such as those in my constituency of Lewisham East, are struggling with homelessness and temporary accommodation. Will she consider increasing finance to local councils so that they can better support constituents and improve their wellbeing and security?

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

At the spending review, we enabled better investment in temporary accommodation stock and strengthened local authorities’ financial position. Those changes will support local authorities to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation and drive down day-to-day spend on such accommodation.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T2. In her speech this morning, the Chancellor said that she must make necessary choices ahead of the Budget. Will those choices once again come at the expense of rural communities such as West Dorset, or will she commit to reviewing the funding model to ensure that rurality is a funding metric, alongside deprivation, so that rural communities finally get the support they deserve?

[James Murray]

At the spending review, as announced earlier this year by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), we set out record investment into the farming and rural communities right across this country. That is only possible because of the choices that we have made on taxation and to balance the public finances.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

T4. Will the Chancellor please update the House on progress made with the implementation of the Green Book review and that change, as a result, might better enable investment in small northern towns such as those that make up Rossendale and Darwen?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The work that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have been doing with Europe is all about taking down trade barriers where they get in the way of our national interest and economic growth. That is our priority, as well as cutting bureaucracy for businesses here in the UK.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Chancellor justified at the Dispatch Box what a working person is. Will she reiterate at the Dispatch Box now what she said to the British public during the general election campaign, which is that her forthcoming Budget will not raise taxes on working people?

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

How will the Government help to fund the green infrastructure that we need, as through the coastal energy partnership that I helped to set up in Bournemouth, with Great British Energy taking on early stage project development and the National Wealth Fund making those critical long-term investments?

[James Murray]

Through our investments in the National Wealth Fund, Great British Energy, the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance, we are using every lever the Government have to support businesses to thrive—in stark contrast with the previous Government, which left them high and dry.

[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?

[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?

[James Murray]

I am glad to hear that the people of Crook and Tow Law are already thinking about how to use their pride in place funding to improve their local area. Children at Peases West primary school will be reassured to know that improving local playparks and upgrading community facilities will be possible under this funding.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

From her CV to her tax promises, would the Chancellor know the truth if it stood right in front of her?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[James Murray]

The pride in place funding is going towards 250 communities across the country to ensure that local people are in control of investing in their local areas. I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the community that he represents. Of course, the Government’s wider agenda about driving growth, increasing people’s wages and ensuring that people are better off is central to improving the lives of his constituents and those right across the UK.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Since the Chancellor delivered her speech this morning, the FTSE 100 has dropped by over £22 billion—the real £22 billion rather than the fantasy £22 billion black hole. What can the Chancellor say right now to steady the markets so that all our constituents’ pensions are protected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

Through freedom of information requests, Restore Britain has uncovered unpublished Treasury analysis breaking down contributions by ethnicity. Evidently the data exists, so will the Chancellor commit to going further by publishing the same analysis by nationality, so that we can see which groups are paying their way, and, more importantly, which groups are not?

[James Murray]

Mr Speaker, I am considering how to respond to that question. I will simply leave it at saying that everyone must pay their fair share of tax. That is something that the Labour party are committed to in government.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

On a more constructive note, for the past year I have been campaigning hard for Eden Portland to open in my constituency. If opened, it would be a world-class attraction, rejuvenating Portland, attracting investment, creating well-paid jobs and promoting our coast. The project is a success story waiting to happen, so will the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue to work with me, Dorset council and the team at Eden Portland to deliver that exciting project as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[James Murray]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should reduce the cost of asylum accommodation. Indeed, that is why our commitment to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament is so important.

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

When will the Government lift the two-child cap?

Stamp Duty Land Tax

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the shadow Chancellor for opening today’s debate with characteristic theatricality. I know that Opposition Members are desperate to forget their time in office. They are desperate for us all to forget the damage that they caused to the economy and to public services on their watch. Surely, however, they cannot have forgotten how the Budget process works, so they will know that no Treasury Minister, particularly in the weeks immediately before a Budget, will speculate on tax changes. Any decisions on tax will be taken at the Budget by the Chancellor in the usual way—[Interruption.] I see surprised faces among Opposition Members, but I remind them that that is how the Budget process works. They will know that the OBR produces a forecast, and the Chancellor will take decisions in the round based on that forecast when she presents the Budget to this House on 26 November.

Notwithstanding those limitations on what I, and indeed any Minister, can say, I will seek to address some of the ideas that the Opposition have tried to raise with this motion. First, let us be honest: stamp duty is hardly a popular tax. Moving house and buying a home is a complex and often stressful process, and stamp duty must be paid at a point when most people probably feel they have enough to worry about already. If there was a cost-free way to get rid of stamp duty, I would not expect long queues of people lining up to keep it. But there is, of course, no cost-free way of doing so. Figures show that the tax raised £13.9 billion in 2024-25.

At this Government’s first Budget, we made changes to stamp duty to help to give first-time buyers, and other people who are buying a home to live in, an advantage over those who are buying second, third or further homes. If an Opposition party proposes getting rid of a tax that raises nearly £14 billion a year, it needs a plan for doing so. Being a credible Opposition means proposing things that could actually work. Frankly, the motion exposes the current Conservative party’s total lack of seriousness, and its complete failure to learn any of the lessons of its time in office.

[Wendy Morton]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicated that if there was a plan to fund the proposal, he would back it. The shadow Chancellor has clearly set out that we do have a plan to fund it, so will the Chief Secretary back it?

[James Murray]

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

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[James Murray]

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

[Dr Murrison]

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

[James Murray]

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

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

The Minister is right to say that the Opposition have not been clear about how they would fund this tax cut, but there are some clues. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), told a fringe event at the Tory party conference that we should look at the Australian system of state pensions and “essentially” a means-tested state pension. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that under the Tories the state pension would be under threat?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the state pension would be under threat were the Conservatives to win the next general election. He is also right to draw the House’s attention to comments made by Conservative Members at their party conference. They may think that people are not listening to what they say at those conference fringe meetings, but we get the reports so we know exactly what they said.

From their recent conference, we know that they think that they can find some £47 billion through cuts to public spending, as the shadow Chancellor said, but let us look at the detail. At least half of those fantasy savings come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices: a list of measures that the Conservatives say will raise £23 billion in total, but with no breakdown whatsoever of how. In June last year, just as they were on their way out of Downing Street, they said that they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they have doubled that without explanation. Frankly, if the shadow Chancellor thinks that he has any credibility on this matter, he is sadly mistaken. He is far from the best person to make this argument, given that he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefits spending in decades during his time as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Minister is in no position to lecture on reducing the size of the state, given that when Labour attempted to reduce the welfare bill, it marched all of its MPs up the hill, only to march them down again, when it buckled under the pressure from its own Back Benchers.

[James Murray]

As Members from both sides of the House know, we are determined to get people back into work, because that is the way to bring the welfare and benefits bills down, and to make people better off. What is not the right thing to do for this country is to follow the Conservatives’ plan for £47 billion of cuts, for which they have no plans and that would represent nothing less than a return to austerity. If their £47 billion were to come from cuts to public services, that would mean 85,700 fewer nurses, cutting every police officer in the country twice and cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail is in their motion today.

To have proposed the motion is a shame for British politics, because with the Conservatives’ long history, they really should know better. Were it to be the Greens, Plaid Cymru or Reform proposing policies with little regard for the consequences, I would not be surprised because they have never had a chance to implement them, but to see the party that was in charge for 14 years acting this recklessly shows just how far it has fallen.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Minister is always generous with his time and always has a smile, which is a welcome thing in this Chamber. Government spending this year is approaching £1,300 billion, but Ministers could not save £5 billion because of their own Back Benchers. Is it his complete failure to make even the smallest savings on that monumental budget that makes him find it impossible to believe that others would have the will to do so?

[James Murray]

What I find it impossible to believe from the Conservatives is that they now have a shadow Chancellor who claims to have a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, when he himself presided over the biggest increase in welfare spending in decades when he was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. That is the record that gives him no credibility whatsoever in this debate.

In their motion, the Conservatives also claim that they want

“to get Britain working, to grow the economy and to give people a stronger stake in their communities”.

Yet they spend their whole time trying to claim that Britain is broken. They have joined the ranks of those who are trying to co-opt our flag for their own ends by claiming that it is in tatters. I cannot believe that so many who claim to be proud of our country are so willing to talk it down. Our country is not broken; we are a great country, filled with great people and great businesses. We are willing to roll up our sleeves and work together for a greater future. However, it is clear that many people across our country feel stuck. Under the last Government, our economy stalled, our public services were starved and opportunities dried up.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is always generous with his time—I thank him for giving way—and I am always smiling in the Chamber, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) will know. Conservative Members seem to be suffering from collective amnesia. Will my right hon. Friend remind me if the national debt went up or down under the last Government? [Interruption.]

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the Conservatives’ record. [Interruption.] In 2010, I think the national debt was about 67% of GDP, but it was about 100% by the time that they left office.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members on both sides of the Chamber are having their own conversations on the side. I cannot hear the Minister—and everybody wants to hear the Minister.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was confirming what I think everyone in the Chamber knows about how bad the previous Government’s record on the economy was. We know why that record was so bad. It was because previous Ministers failed to invest, and we know that investment is the fuel for our economic engine. That is why we are taking a different approach.

[Saqib Bhatti]

On helping Ministers with amnesia, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there was a pandemic that required a huge amount of intervention, or is he claiming that he would not have supported so many people during that period?

[James Murray]

Speaking of amnesia, a lot of Conservatives have forgotten Liz Truss and are not prepared to talk about the impact she had.

[Sir Mel Stride]

Speaking of amnesia, would the right hon. Gentleman like to remind the House what the deficit was in 2010, when we first formed a Government?

[Mr Speaker]

Were you born by that time, Minister?

[James Murray]

I had definitely been born by that time, Mr Speaker. I was doing my maths very rapidly, but I can be confident in saying that. I seem to have quite lost my way after your intervention, Mr Speaker, but let me return to the main thrust of the argument that I was making a few moments ago.

We are a serious Government who are a serious partner for the private sector, which is why we are investing in things that will get our country moving again. It is early days; the damage that the Tories did will take time to unpick and there will be more difficult decisions ahead, but since we came to power, this Government have announced £250 billion of new investment commitments, creating tens of thousands of jobs. The Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, meaning that someone on a tracker mortgage of just over £200,000 is already around £100 a month better off.

We have cut red tape and changed planning regulations so that we can deliver 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. We have acted to accelerate the construction of nearly 100,000 new homes, which were previously stuck. We were the fastest-growing G7 economy in the first half of this year. Most telling of all, since the general election real wages have risen by more than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government.

The Conservatives’ answer to the nation’s challenges is always the same: austerity. They want to cut spending, increase debt and accept decline. In contrast, we will never accept austerity and we will never gamble with the public finances.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Another term for austerity is “living within your means”. That is what the British public understand, and that is the point we are trying to make in this debate. When the Government have needed to make difficult decisions, they have fallen short. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not living within their means?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor’s fiscal rules say that day-to-day spending must be paid for through tax receipts. That is the definition of living within our means. Those fiscal rules were met at the first Budget last year and at the spring statement this year. They are an iron-clad commitment, and we will continue to meet those fiscal rules next month at the autumn Budget.

Those fiscal rules underpin our approach to the economy and to stronger public finances. We know that fiscal responsibility, which the previous Government abandoned, underpins a stable economy, and we need to secure our country’s renewal through public and private investment. We want to secure rising wages, support for businesses, more jobs, more homes and more opportunities in every corner of our country.

The motion before this House today simply is not serious. It is an admission from Conservative Members that after years in power and countless opportunities to reflect and learn from their mistakes, all they can come up with is the same failed solution: more unfunded tax cuts, more cuts to public services, more failure to invest, more austerity and more pain for the British people. That is what will keep them on the Opposition Benches for a very long time. We reject their recklessness, we reject their lack of ambition for our country and we reject this motion.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister—congratulations.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Through the spending review and the 10-year infrastructure strategy, the Government are funding at least £725 billion of infrastructure over the next decade. That includes investment in critical assets, such as £24 billion over the next four years to maintain and improve motorways and local roads and £7.9 billion over 10 years to maintain existing flood defences and invest in new ones. We have also committed to long-term maintenance budgets for public service infrastructure, with £10 billion of funding per year by 2034-35 to maintain and repair our hospitals, prisons, courts, schools and colleges so that providers can deliver cost savings by planning ahead.

[Claire Young]

The weight limit imposed on the M48 Severn bridge due to the deterioration of its supporting cables is having a big impact on local businesses and farmers who work on both sides of the Severn. National Highways estimates that it would cost up to £600 million to repair the bridge, with restrictions only postponing the inevitable. Will the Chancellor meet me to discuss the impacts and commit to providing the funding to get the bridge repaired and reopened for everyone as soon as possible?

[James Murray]

As was set out in the 10-year infrastructure strategy, £24 billion of capital funding between 2026-27 and 2029-30 has been allocated to National Highways, which is the organisation responsible for maintaining the M48 Severn bridge. The funding includes £1 billion to enhance local road networks and create a new structures fund, which will be used to repair a range of key local structures, such as bridges, flyovers and tunnels.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Constituents in Marylebone want to see improvements to the railway engines that go into Marylebone station. Does the Treasury agree that more work can be done to ensure that the overall investment in those trains is supported by the benefits that accrue across the whole line, all the way down to Aylesbury, as investment in those trains will make a big difference to growth along the whole track?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the critical importance of investment in our railway infrastructure. We know that under the previous Government, we had chronic under-investment in the infrastructure across our country, and the railways bore the brunt of much of that neglect. We are determined to turn that around to ensure that we are investing in railway infrastructure to improve the quality of life for people and drive economic growth right across this country.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

2. What steps she has taken to increase economic growth through the 10-year infrastructure strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

22. If she will meet with representatives of the farming industry to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on that sector.

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

In my former role as the Minister with responsibility for the UK tax system, and on the Chancellor’s behalf, I have met farming representatives and farmers. Those discussions have included the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and the Farmers Union of Wales. After listening, however, the Government continue to believe that the approach we have set out is the right one.

[David Chadwick]

Last weekend I attended the Sennybridge show, where I met young farmers from Brecknockshire who were recruiting new members and fundraising for good causes. There is one question to which they would like to hear an answer from the Chancellor: why are the Government targeting family farms for tax rises rather than going after the big banks, which are closing branches right across my constituency? Why should young farmers have to pay for the mess left behind by the Conservatives?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman talks about good causes. I assume he would agree that the NHS is a good cause, that public services are a good cause, and that a stable economy that encourages investment in our country is a good cause to pursue. As hon. Members have said many times already, the Opposition parties, including the hon. Gentleman’s, are very happy to reap the rewards of spending and investment, but are totally incapable of taking any of the difficult decisions to raise the revenue necessary to support them.

[Damian Hinds]

Given the Prime Minister’s clear commitment to growth that benefits every community in every corner of the UK, his Ministers will no doubt be disturbed at polling showing that four fifths of farmers have postponed or delayed investment since the Budget. Is it not time for a rethink of this policy—if not on grounds of fairness, then on grounds of investment, productivity and economic growth?

[James Murray]

I have been involved in many debates in this House that the right hon. Gentleman has been a part of as well, and we have set out how the decisions we have taken mean the system coming in from April next year will maintain generous tax reliefs within the agricultural property relief and business property relief system, while also raising revenue in a fair way to support the public finances. That money for the public finances, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have said many times today, is crucial to have economic stability and to get our public services back on their feet.

[John Cooper]

The Chancellor elicited much public sympathy with her recent tearful appearance on these Benches, but over the summer I have had Dumfries and Galloway farmers in tears at the loss of the next generation of farming. A new Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report says that HMRC’s own figures indicate that these changes to taxes are unfair and unbalanced. Will the Minister please think again?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The CenTax report he refers to is independent analysis demonstrating that, in its opinion, the reforms improve on the current position and are expected largely to meet the Government’s objective. In fact, the report validates the Government’s position.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats oppose the family farm tax, but in the spirit of constructive opposition, last November I recommended and requested that Ministers look at the idea of a family farm test, such as the ones used in France and Ireland. Such a test would ensure that they could close the loophole on big equity companies exploiting land, but it would not cover family farms in the process. Since I raised that suggestion last November, have Treasury Ministers asked officials to look at it?

[James Murray]

As is the normal process in developing any policy, we consider a range of options, but we have decided that this gets the balance right: raising revenue in a fair way while offering generous reliefs within the agricultural property relief and business property relief system. Let me just say that, when I heard the hon. Lady stand up and begin a sentence with, “We Liberal Democrats oppose”, I was hardly surprised.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of levels of Government debt interest payments on public finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

15. What progress she has made on establishing the better futures fund.

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

In July, the Chancellor announced the better futures fund—the largest social outcomes partnership fund in the world—to break down barriers to opportunity for up to 200,000 vulnerable children and young people. The fund will boost pupil achievement, and could fund programmes to reduce reoffending or provide specialist workers for children struggling with exclusion, mental health or crime. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for the design and implementation of the fund, and it is engaging extensively with other Government Departments, the impact economy, civil society sectors and local government partners over the coming months.

[Patrick Hurley]

The better futures fund is a big step forward in working with the impact economy; as the chair of the social, co-operative and community economy all-party parliamentary group for the social enterprise sector, I am really pleased to see how it can unlock extra resources from social investors, private businesses and philanthropy to tackle the country’s urgent problems. Will the Chief Secretary ensure that the principles behind the fund are matched with the targeted approach advocated by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, to make sure that the money goes where it is best needed?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support of what we are seeking to achieve through the better futures fund. He is absolutely right that the fund will be designed to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed and where it will have the biggest impact—principles I think we can all agree on. As I mentioned earlier, DCMS will be working extensively with other Departments, local partners and others to design the scheme and as it gets established.

[Liz Twist]

Our North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, is taking child poverty seriously, with the recent announcement of £28.6 million for the north-east child poverty action plan, including funding for a local pilot to expand specialist youth provision and support to open up pathways to future employment opportunities. How will the Chancellor work with Mayor McGuinness from the earliest stages of development of the better futures fund to ensure that it meets the needs of children and young people in my constituency of Blaydon and Consett and across the north-east?

[James Murray]

I was pleased to meet Kim McGuinness just last week and to hear about the excellent work she is doing to champion the north-east. On the better futures fund more broadly, we know that the design must truly be a joint endeavour—it must be built up through an open dialogue with a range of different partners who will be involved in the delivery. I reassure my hon. Friend that DCMS’s stakeholder engagement includes mayoral strategic authorities, as they will be part of that process.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The better futures fund rightly targets the needs of vulnerable children, and one such group are those who are subject to adoption or kinship arrangements. Last week the Department for Education announced that it would renew the adoption and special guardianship support fund for one year, but did not say that it would reverse the 40% cuts in per-child funding that were announced in the spring. Does the Minister agree that reversing those cuts is vital for protecting families and keeping children in adoption arrangements, and will he meet adoptive families from Mid Sussex so that he can better understand the benefits to the Treasury that investing in adoptive families will bring?

[James Murray]

The hon. Member asks about an important matter. As a constituency MP, I have met families who have an interest in the fund and who are in the process of adoption themselves, so I know on a personal level from my constituency work how important it is. What the Department for Education was able to announce last week was important in confirming the extension of the fund, which will offer some certainty to the affected families. I will continue to work with colleagues in the DFE to ensure that we are doing all we can to support those families, who are playing such an important role for their children and for society.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for a very positive answer and for that commitment. What steps are being taken and what discussions have taken place to ensure that vulnerable young people in Northern Ireland can benefit fully from the better futures fund, particularly in the areas most affected by educational disadvantage?

[James Murray]

We want to ensure that the better futures fund is targeted where it is most needed and that the investment is spent in a way that really improves life chances, in particular for young people and children who face some of the biggest challenges ahead. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the area he represents and the part of the UK he comes from; it is something we will consider as we develop the details of the fund.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

9. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of undertaking a zero-based review of all tax reliefs before the autumn Budget 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

T4. Last Friday, I visited Demelza children’s hospice, which does amazing work for children and their families, but it needs certainty and sustainable funding to survive. Will the Chancellor consider extending the children’s hospice grant for the next five years, increasing it in line with inflation, to help it to plan and deliver those vital services?

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

The Government are investing £100 million to improve hospice facilities and a further £26 million of revenue funding to support children and young people’s hospices this year. That is the biggest investment in hospices in a generation. Details about the funding arrangements for 2026-27 will be set out by the Department of Health and Social Care in due course.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

T2. Pubs are at the heart of the community in North Shropshire, whether community-owned pubs such as the White Lion in Ash and the Horse and Jockey at Northwood, the Bailey Head in Oswestry, which was the Campaign for Real Ale’s pub of the year, or attached to a microbrewery like the Stonehouse brewery in Morda. But all those hospitality businesses are buckling under the strain of higher business rates, the national insurance increase and higher energy costs. May I add my plea to those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues and ask the Chancellor that, in the upcoming Budget, measures are put in place to support our struggling hospitality industry?

[James Murray]

As set out at the last Budget, we will introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with rateable values below £500,000. The relief that we inherited from the previous Government was due to end entirely in April of this year. We extended it for one year to give us time to legislate for permanently lower tax cuts for pubs across this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I have been campaigning for a long time on the reinstatement of tax-free shopping for foreign visitors, particularly those from Europe. Recent evidence from business suggests that we are losing £6 billion of income from this potential change, and £500 million in extra VAT generated from those tourists. Will the Chancellor undertake to look at this matter again? The potential exists for those high-spending tourists to benefit our hard-pressed hospitality industry, and that could be a quick win-win for this country.

[James Murray]

This matter was looked at by the previous Government several times, and I understand that there was pressure for their Ministers to look at it again. They did so, and they came to the same conclusion, which was not to proceed with reintroducing it.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

The Bellfield interchange is situated on the A77. Its location has significant strategic importance in the south-west trunk road network, connecting to the A71, the A75 and the A76, making it critical for transport and economic connectivity across the Ayrshire region and beyond. East Ayrshire council had previously submitted a bid to the levelling-up fund under the previous Tory Government to upgrade the interchange, but it was rejected. Given the Chancellor’s recent announcement of £66 million of UK Government investment in Scottish transport infrastructure, will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Scottish Government to invest in and agree to vital infrastructure projects such as upgrading the Belfield interchange, to support the Ayrshire growth deal, to unlock growth, and to deliver jobs and prosperity across the region?

[James Murray]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is critical that the Scottish Government use the funding they have received to invest in vital infrastructure projects that support growth and put more money in people’s pockets.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

[James Murray]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

These two technical statutory instruments make practical changes that allow the Government to complete reforms to banking and wholesale markets regulation. Collectively, they ensure that our legislation for financial services remains effective and bring those areas of regulation in line with the model set by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. They do not introduce new burdens for firms and the changes have been widely supported by industry.

I will first address the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025. Hon. Members will be aware that banks must hold capital buffers over and above minimum requirements to ensure that they can absorb losses yet keep lending, even in times of stress. This technical statutory instrument merely updates cross-references now that the buffer regulations have been restated under powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.

The process of bringing the buffers regulations in line with the FSMA model does three things. First, it revokes the 2014 capital buffers regulations, replacing necessary provisions with rules designed and maintained by the Prudential Regulation Authority and restating only limited elements that must stay in legislation, with minor operational tweaks. Secondly, it gives the PRA additional flexibility in setting the Basel-derived capital conservation buffer and the global systemically important institutions, or G-SII, buffer. Those buffers will now be set through PRA rule making rather than legislation, keeping to international standards while allowing flexibility. Thirdly, it keeps in statute the frameworks for the Financial Policy Committee’s countercyclical and other systemically important institutions, or O-SII, buffers, which will ensure that the FPC has a clear statutory basis on which to deploy these tools. It also tweaks the framework to improve its overall effectiveness. For example, the FPC may now adjust the countercyclical buffer off-cycle in an emergency.

I will now turn to the Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025. The markets in financial instruments directive, also known as MiFID, is an EU-inherited framework that governs the regulation of financial markets and the trading that happens on them. One part of the framework is the MiFID organisational regulation, which specifies how investment firms must organise themselves and operate their business.

At Mansion House 2024, the Chancellor committed to revoke the firm-facing regulatory requirements in the MiFID organisational regulation for the financial services regulators to replace in their rules. By delegating responsibility for setting the regulatory requirements to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, the regulators will be able to use their day-to-day experience of supervising financial services firms to ensure the rules are tailored to the UK and proportionate for UK firms.

The MiFID organisational regulation also includes key definitions that investment firms rely on to interpret the regulatory perimeter. As such, it is essential to maintain those definitions in legislation. That is what the draft regulations do: they ensure that key definitions from the MiFID organisational regulation are maintained in legislation. That ensures that there will be no gaps in regulation when the MiFID organisational regulation is revoked and the regulators replace firm-facing provisions in their rules.

To conclude, the statutory instruments are a necessary step to complete reforms to our banking and wholesale markets regulation and to ensure that our regulatory framework remains coherent, effective and tailored to the needs of the UK’s financial sector. I welcome any questions and commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this incredibly dry debate about incredibly technical aspects of regulation. I am only disappointed not to see the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury make her debut today, although it is always nice to see the Chief Secretary.

[James Murray]

It’s too much excitement for day one.

[Mark Garnier]

Quite right. The hon. Gentleman’s leader is with the parliamentary Labour party right now, I think, which will be very exciting.

The regulations are technical, dry but welcome changes to the detailed firm-facing regulations and definitions in the MiFID organisational regulations and capital buffers regime. They follow the comprehensive changes to regulation and tax that the last Government introduced through the Edinburgh reforms, while helping to implement the announcements the Chancellor set out in her 2024 Mansion House speech.

We on the Conservative Benches will always support reforms that aim to make the UK financial market more competitive and growth-oriented. Our financial services are our biggest export and it is vital that we do everything we can to ensure we keep them competitive with their counterparts in Europe and the rest of the world, while at the same time ensuring the UK is a principal destination for international capital. Let me be clear that we support the considered approach being presented, which will allow us to embrace the regulatory autonomy that Brexit provides while keeping us relatively aligned to EU frameworks such as MiFID. That is important because although we need to innovate to maintain our competitive advantage, we must equally avoid trying to reinvent the wheel on financial services regulation.

I push the Minister to look at the wider regulatory burden that MiFID II has placed on UK financial firms. Many in the sector think the reporting obligations, investor protection rules and governance standards have imposed significant compliance costs and operational complexity. Although the intention is noble, we can over-regulate and we must remember that risk will always be something that we cannot remove completely. That was highlighted in a submission by UK Finance to a recent House of Lords Committee inquiry that showed that the rules have constrained the City’s ability to innovate and grow capital markets.

Although we welcome the regulations, the Government now have the freedom to go further and simplify the onerous rules MiFID II introduced. Doing so would unlock growth in our financial services sector and help us to regain ground lost to competing hubs such as New York and to emerging financial centres in the EU. Nevertheless, we have to accept that the EU is our largest trading partner, so it is right that the changes do not significantly deviate from what was in place before. As I said, the UK deviating to a new regulatory regime would not necessarily help our cause.

We also welcome the fact that the changes will help to make the UK more responsive to emerging trends and risks. That is crucial as we seek to be competitive in an ever more volatile world and it would be remiss of me not to mention that many stakeholders feel the regulatory burden placed on them by the FCA and PRA is already too high and, in some instances, unnecessary. Although the changes should not increase that burden significantly, I hope the Minister and Treasury officials will be mindful of that when making changes in the future.

All together, we broadly welcome the technical changes that the regulations introduce as they will help to streamline capital market regulation and ensure legal coherence. I was going to ask some questions, but I think in the interests of time we can probably pass on that—we do not want to keep anybody waiting. I will leave it at that.

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his speech, for his broad support for what we are seeking to achieve and for the brevity of his contribution this evening. I welcome his support and note the points that he raised. He asked what the Government are prioritising in considering which parts of MiFID to reform. The Leeds reforms announced that the Government are committed to continuing to review and reform the MiFID framework in partnership with the FCA and I can reassure him that, obviously, the Government will make changes where there are clear opportunities to remove burdensome requirements and cut costs for investment firms.

I think we all agree that the regulations support the UK’s transition to a modern, proportionate regulatory regime that upholds high standards while supporting the competitiveness of our financial services sector, which the shadow Minister spoke about. I thank him and other hon. Members for attending the Committee tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025. —(James Murray.)

Property Taxes

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) for opening the debate. I can tell that he spent his summer polishing some of his rhetorical flourishes, which he has shared with us today, but I suggest that he could have spent his time rather better.

Thank you for your words of congratulation, Mr Speaker. It is a real honour to be here as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. May I put on record my tribute to my predecessor, now the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for all his fantastic work, notably delivering the spending review? I welcome the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), to his new role. I thoroughly enjoyed the role myself, and I am sure that he will be excellent in it.

Conservative Members will appreciate that today’s motion, as tabled, simply cannot form the basis of a specific debate on individual tax measures. Members from across the House will know that the Government do not respond to speculation in advance of a Budget, which the Chancellor has today announced will take place on 26 November. This has long been the case: the shadow Chancellor knows it well and he knows that it would be irresponsible to engage in that speculation. Whatever political rhetoric he and his colleagues will use in today’s debate, and no matter how many variants of the same question they ask, I know that he will understand that I cannot engage with speculation about individual tax measures ahead of the Budget.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot speculate on individual tax measures, but will he deny that the No. 11 machine has been leaking these stories to the national press over the summer?

[James Murray]

I am not going to engage in speculation about tax measures or any of the mechanics around them. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends will simply have to wait until 26 November to hear the specifics of the Budget. At that point, I am sure that he and his colleagues will have plenty to say.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I genuinely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I have always found him to be an honest and straightforward speaker in the House and he deserves his position. On the point about speculation, can he confirm reports that the Government are looking again at welfare? Surely he will agree with me that, in any process of fiscal consolidation, one must look to tax rises and to spending cuts. There has been a lot of reporting about there being further measures on welfare, so will there be further measures on welfare under consideration—yes or no?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Member for his kind words. As he will know, welfare measures are already going through Parliament and being investigated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability through the review that he is undertaking. This Government are determined to ensure that the safety net is there for the people who need it, and that the people who can work have the support they need to get and maintain a job.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

What is not speculation is that the largest rise in property taxes happened under the Conservatives, when Liz Truss crashed the economy and increased interest rates for everyone in my constituency. Will the Minister speak to the fact that house prices are different in different parts of the country, and that must be reflected in Treasury thinking about tax and the Budget this year?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right to remind everyone of the record under the short-lived Prime Minister, Liz Truss. I notice that Conservative Members do not refer to that themselves when evaluating the economic situation, but the British people will not forget it. On his wider point about housing across the country, we want to ensure that we are building affordable homes in every part of the country. One of this Government’s priorities has been to reform the planning system, to enable the building of 1.5 million homes and ensure that every community has those homes, so people have homes that they can afford to live in, in the area where they grew up, where they want to live or go to work. That is a central mission of this Government.

[Harriet Cross]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will give way one more time, but then I will make some progress.

[Harriet Cross]

The fact that the Government hope to build all those new homes shows that they recognise the importance and value of a home to a family. The Minister says that he will not talk about specific tax measures, but does he recognise the principle that we should not tax people’s homes if we are a country that values home ownership?

[James Murray]

I gently remind the hon. Member that council tax—a tax on property—exists in this country, so the principle of applying some taxes to property is well established in the UK, and has been for some time. She is trying to tempt me to engage in more speculation, but as I said to the shadow Chancellor, I am not going to engage in speculation about what may or may not be in the Budget.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for giving way—he is always very generous with his time—and congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion. The Conservatives are not fans of tax, but sadly they are also not fans of supporting public services. Under their Government, thousands of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs compliance officers, including my mum, were made redundant and we were not able to collect the right amount of tax that people owed. Is that partly why this Government inherited such a large financial black hole?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I will say that we have quite a few colleagues hoping to contribute, so interventions should be short. The Minister should be aware of that and consider how much longer he wishes to contribute.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hint is taken.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his intervention, and I thank his mother for her service to HMRC in the past. People at HMRC do an absolutely critical job in collecting the tax that is important in funding our public services and ensuring that our economy functions effectively. One of our priorities as a Government has been to close the tax gap that existed under the previous Government. At the Budget last year and in the spring statement earlier this year, we set out plans to raise an additional £7.5 billion in tax revenue as a result of hiring people to do those really important jobs, as well as investing in new technology and modernising the service to ensure that people pay the tax they owe.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress, because a few moments ago I said I would do so. I have been gently reminded by Madam Deputy Speaker that I really must live up to my promise on that front.

The right hon. Member for Central Devon asked me questions in his opening remarks—indeed, his colleagues have their sheets from the Whips, and they have been dutifully following up in their comments—but they are on matters that we cannot talk about today. There are of course other important facts that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about, but the British people have not forgotten them. There is the £22 billion black hole in our public finances, which the previous Government hid from the light. There is the disastrous mini-Budget, which caused damage to households across the country and to our reputation around the world. We had stalled housing, unfinished infrastructure and public services brought to their knees by under-investment and disinterest. The Conservatives do not want to talk about those things because that is the legacy of the last Government. We found out just today that the right hon. Gentleman does not even want to talk about things happening in Conservative councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) raised so importantly in his contribution earlier.

Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, the right hon. Gentleman’s party and Reform Members are talking Britain down. They want to claim that Britain is broken, but I believe that Britain is unbreakable. Our country is full of potential. It is home to hard-working people, brilliant businesses, world-leading universities and research institutions, cultural giants and the promise that if people work hard and contribute to the country, it will be a place where they can succeed. Yet undeniably, after 14 years of Tory mismanagement, far too many working people feel that the economy is stuck.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I have been asked by Madam Deputy Speaker to make some progress, so I will return to the hon. Gentleman a little later.

I hear from my constituents, as I am sure many other Members in the Chamber hear from theirs. They tell us that no matter how much effort they put in at work, their careful management of household finances and their diligent efforts to save for a brighter future, they do not yet feel that they are getting enough in return, and it has become harder to get ahead. At the same time, our roads and railways seem slow and less reliable and our classrooms seem fuller, while the NHS has a massive backlog. The root cause of all that is the chronic under-investment by the previous Government. That under-investment over many years has slowed our productivity growth to a rate not seen since the Napoleonic wars.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to the tight fiscal rules that this Government have introduced and the changes in the Budget that since the election my residents in Dartford have seen an investment in the lower Thames crossing? They have wanted that for 15 years, and it was not delivered under the last Government. They have also seen a £25 million hospital rebuilding project at Darent Valley hospital and a £1 billion structures fund from the Department for Transport, which will repair the ruined Galley Hill Road in my constituency. Is it not thanks to the Government’s rules and Budget changes that we are seeing those changes?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is only thanks to the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at last year’s Budget and our decisions—the right decisions—to ensure that those fiscal rules are non-negotiable and that we keep to them at every stage that we have been able to boost investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament in many projects, including those that he mentioned and those in constituencies right across the country. That is the right thing for our country.

We were just talking about chronic under-investment. We are tackling that through ensuring that the Government invest across the country and by encouraging private-sector investments to get businesses across Britain growing.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will take a very short intervention, then I really will make progress.

[Alison Taylor]

Does the Minister agree that taxation is intrinsically linked to economic growth and that there are already green shoots of recovery in the economy, with three trade deals and five interest rate cuts?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; economic growth is of course critical to our plans. She points to the trade deals that we secured. She and other hon. Members will know that the UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy in the first half of this year. There is much more for us to do, but we are showing that because of the right decisions that we have taken we are starting to move in the right direction.

[Tim Farron]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I probably should. I will give way one more time.

[Tim Farron]

I do not want the Minister to speculate, but I want him to consider something. We talked about people not paying taxes. A significant minority of owners of second homes in my constituency let their property out for just a few days a year; as a result, they can claim to be a small business and pay no council tax or business rates. People on the minimum wage in my constituency are subsidising those people who pay no council tax at all. Will he change that situation to protect our communities?

[James Murray]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on an inventive way of encouraging me to speculate on tax measures. I am aware of the issue that he points to, and I thank him for raising it in this context, but I am not able to make any decisions on taxation at the Dispatch Box today.

Let me go back briefly to the broader context. It is absolutely crystal clear from the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Central Devon, and from what all his colleagues have said so far, that Conservative Members are still in total denial about any responsibility they have for the situation that the country finds itself in. They act as if being behind the wheel for 14 years is irrelevant to where we find ourselves now. It may be that they think that if they do not talk about it, the British people may forget the last Government’s responsibility for getting us into the current situation, but the British people know that the Conservatives did this to our country. That is why the British people put their faith in us at the last election.

While there is clearly more to do to bring down inflation and the cost of borrowing, it is clear that we have turned a corner by taking the right decisions for our country. We have taken the decisions to address the black hole in the public finances, fix our foundations and clear up the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. As a consequence, as I mentioned a moment ago, in the first half of this year we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7; we outpaced France, Germany, Japan and the United States.

Since taking office, this Government have welcomed around £100 billion in investment into the UK, with 384,000 jobs being created over the same period. We have cut red tape and changed planning regulations to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. We already have nearly 100,000 new homes on large developments that were previously stuck in the planning system or simply not progressing as fast as they should be; they are now being given the support that they need to make that progress quickly. In just over a year, the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, which means that someone on a tracker mortgage of just over £200,000 will be better off by around £100 a month. Crucially, real wages have risen more in the time since the last election than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government.

The choice at the next Budget is clear. Over 14 years, the last Government made wrong choices time and again. They, their many Prime Ministers and many Chancellors all embraced the cycle of austerity, debt and decline, and we will never repeat that. We will continue to invest in Britain’s renewal, using every power at our disposal to drive forward an economy that works for working people. As I said, the Government do not respond to speculation, especially ahead of a Budget, and in any case we are not writing a Budget this far out.

The Budget that the Chancellor delivers in November will be carefully considered and designed to get the balance right between making working people better off and raising enough money to fund our public services and getting the country moving once again through investment and growth. Of course, it will also undergo proper scrutiny by the OBR. I was going briefly to address the taxes mentioned in the motion, but I suspect that I should skip over that part of my speech. [Interruption.] I am getting a gentle indication from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have come to the right conclusion.

If we are to get this country moving again, investment from both businesses and Government is essential. We must therefore strike the right balance in our tax system, so that we can put more money in the pockets of working people while supporting the private sector to invest and grow and funding our public services. Members on both sides of the House will have their own views on what the right balance is, and I look forward to hearing those views today. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members in advance for their contributions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

HMRC Transformation Roadmap

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

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

At spring statement 2025, the Government committed to publishing a transformation roadmap setting out the future direction of the tax and customs system. Today, the Government deliver on that commitment.

The HMRC transformation roadmap outlines the Government’s vision for a more efficient, modernised, and automated tax and customs system. This will enable HMRC to collect more of the tax that is due, while enabling taxpayers and businesses to focus more on what matters to them—contributing to the Government’s mission in their plan for change to boost economic growth.

The plans laid out in the roadmap will enable everyday tasks, processes and compliance to happen with less effort. This will happen through simplified policies and procedures, the application of new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and the introduction of more digital self-serve options for taxpayers that give them greater control and offer quicker solutions to their queries.

This transformation will also enable HMRC staff to spend more time helping taxpayers who are in vulnerable circumstances, digitally excluded, or have complex tax affairs. It will free up more of their time to support businesses who are seeking greater certainty over their plans for investment and growth.

I have set the Department three clear priorities to drive these changes forward: improving day-today performance and the customer experience; closing the tax gap; and reforming and modernising the tax and customs system. As part of all three priorities, the Government will continue to simplify tax administration to make it easier for taxpayers and their representatives, all while reaffirming HMRC’s charter standards.

HMRC’s transformation roadmap details the actions that HMRC will take to achieve these ministerial priorities and some of the changes that taxpayers and businesses can expect to see. It is informed by insight and feedback from external stakeholders, who will continue to play a key role in supporting and challenging HMRC as it delivers this ambitious package.

Improving day-to-day performance

HMRC’s day-to-day performance depends on the quality of services provided to taxpayers and their agents. These days, most taxpayers want to interact with HMRC digitally, especially for simple tasks. This means HMRC must improve digital services to give taxpayers greater control over their tax affairs and minimise the need for taxpayers to call or write to them.

As such, the roadmap outlines HMRC’s plan for a minimum of 90% of customer interactions to be digital by 2030. HMRC will become digital first, while continuing to support those who need extra help. Taxpayers who are in vulnerable circumstances, digitally excluded, or have complex tax affairs will continue to be able to access support through existing channels, including phonelines.

Closing the tax gap

The Government have funded a significant increase in HMRC’s compliance and debt workforce, including investment for 5,500 new compliance officers and 2,400 debt management officers. Its workforce will have access to improved tools and receive training to identify those at risk of non-compliance and to recover more of the money owed.

For the most stubborn compliance risks, closing the tax gap necessitates changes to process and policy, including digitalisation, use of automation and integration of AI. HMRC will also tackle tax evasion and other offences, increasing the number of annual charging decisions to 600 a year by 2030, with a focus on tackling frauds that are most harmful to taxpayers and the tax and customs system.

Intermediaries such as tax advisers and software providers play a crucial role in administering the tax and customs system, enabling compliance and trust. Taxpayers should have confidence that any intermediary they choose will help them get their tax right, and HMRC will take steps to raise standards in the intermediary market to stop the minority who cause disproportionate harm to the tax system.

Reform and modernisation

Reform and modernisation of HMRC are fundamental to improving day-to-day performance and closing the tax gap. They will ensure HMRC is an agile department, able to adapt to the changing nature of the wider tax and customs system.

To achieve this, HMRC will modernise its IT infra-structure, making use of innovative technology and AI, robust data capabilities—including new legislation to support cross-Government data sharing—and a highly skilled workforce.

HMRC will also modernise the way it delivers change, empowering people throughout the organisation to explore innovative solutions, embedding “test and learn” approaches, and adopting best practice from the private sector.

HMRC is committed to reporting progress against the deliverables in the roadmap, including through its standard reporting. The roadmap includes a list of metrics to demonstrate progress against each of the three priorities. The roadmap will be regularly reviewed and updated as HMRC, in collaboration with external stakeholders, delivers the future of tax and customs administration.

The HMRC transformation roadmap can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-transformation-roadmap

[HCWS868]