Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to close this debate on the Crown Estate. May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a happy new year?

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments today, as well as for the contributions of all my hon. Friends. I am particularly grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill in general, which they display by their absence this afternoon. I welcome the questions set out by the shadow Minister and I will go through some of those in my remarks.

As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury noted in his opening speech, the purpose of the Bill is to bring the legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century by making a targeted and measured enhancement to its powers and governance. Without the Bill, the Crown Estate would continue to be restricted in its ability to compete and invest and would therefore be limited in its ability to deliver returns to the public purse. The Bill therefore broadens the scope of the activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition that we know is so crucial. It empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively and, critically, the measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the contribution that the Crown Estate can make to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK.

I turn to some of the points raised in the debate. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s broad support for the Bill’s aim. On his specific question about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers, the Bill is clear that any borrowing undertaken by the Crown Estate can only be from the Treasury or otherwise with Treasury consent. The Treasury will, of course, ensure that any borrowing is consistent with our fiscal rules. There will, as has been noted, be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, and that will govern how borrowing powers will be exercised. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that that is consistent with managing public money principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

The shadow Minister also asked specific questions about commissioners’ pre-appointment scrutiny. I want to set out for him how the appointment of other commissioners is likely to work. The Crown Estate commissioners who manage the Crown Estate are appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of Ministers. The appointment process is governed by the code for public appointments. The reforms in the Bill will not alter the fundamental statutory basis of the Crown Estate, which is as a commercial business that is independent of government, operates for profit, competes in the marketplace and needs to recruit the highest quality talent to its board of commissioners. Within that context, it would not be appropriate for either the Government or Parliament to place further requirements on the recruitment process.

The shadow Minister also asked about chief executive pay. The details of a chief executive’s remuneration are a matter for the Crown Estate board, which is operationally independent of government, as I set out. As the Crown Estate is statutorily an independent, commercial organisation, which returns hundreds of millions of pounds in profit to the Exchequer every year, continuing the success is crucial and it requires the organisation to have the freedom to compete for the top talent in the commercial world.

We know that cheap executive remuneration in this context is set at the lower end of the private sector peer group, which is agreed with the Treasury. The majority of the package is in fact conditional on performance, which ensures that the chief executive rewards are heavily dependent on delivering long-term value to the Exchequer. The shadow Minister also asked about governance when it comes to the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. I can set out to him the operational matters in regard to the partnership, but they will be determined in their final detail by the passing of the great British Energy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. Once it completes all its legislative stages, the partnership will be subject to an agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. This will include a report on the activities of the commissioners under that partnership and any effects or benefits resulting from the activities of the commissioners that entails.

The shadow Minister asked a specific question about the amendment on the seabed, which was debated in the other place by Lord Livermore. As hon. Members may know, on Report of the Crown Estate Bill in the Lords, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury committed to bring forward an amendment, if it were needed, to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed. That was in response to concerns from peers that the seabed, which is owned by the Crown Estate, is a unique asset and therefore special protections may be warranted. As the Financial Secretary noted at the time, the law on the ownership of the seabed is complex, so officials are working with the Crown Estate to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed. If it is established that further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed, we will look to bring forward an amendment at Committee stage.

Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned the measures on salmon that were inserted in the Bill in the other place. There is a fundamental question about whether the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for a debate about the rights of salmon and protecting animal rights in that context. In England, Wales and Northern England, to which the Bill applies, there is on Crown Estate-owned land only one relevant area—one relevant salmon farm. The issue really relates more widely to Scotland, which is governed by Crown Estate Scotland and not by the provisions in this Bill. We know that fisheries policy is the responsibility of devolved Government in Scotland. All fish farming in England is regulated with the intention to ensure that it is carried out in a responsible manner. Given that virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, the matter is really one for a different debate.

As well as the comments from the shadow Minister, we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). Many points that she raised have been covered in what I have said so far, although she raised an additional point that aligned with comments by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about how the Crown Estate will balance the expansion of offshore renewables with the needs of the fishing industry, marine wildlife and so on. I wish to set out briefly the Government’s position on that matter. We know that the Crown Estate is committed to sustainable management of the seabed and, where appropriate, it collaborates with industry stakeholders, marine licence bodies and environmental non-governmental organisations to ensure that activities on the seabed are conducted responsibly.

As with any developer, the proposals of the Crown Estate go through a standard planning application process, which includes the relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering that aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates the recovery of, our marine environment. The Bill will not directly impact on how much commercial fishing takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) raised an important point around grid connections and grid connectivity, which are vital to ensuring that our plans to move towards clean energy are effective. His points were important as part of the connection between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, which we have been talking about during the debate. One benefit of the Crown Estate working with Great British Energy is that they can work together to speed up the process of developing clean energy projects, including co-ordinating planning requirements and grid connections, as well as leasing land to de-risk and speed up projects so that private developers can get on and build them. That will be crucial to unlocking the private investment and speeding up the deployment of clean energy infrastructure. As well as de-risking private sector investments, GB Energy and the Crown Estate will directly co-invest in clean energy infrastructure. That will include floating offshore wind and carbon capture projects.

Several of my hon. Friends made important points around local community benefits and supply chains. I thank in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). They all focused on the importance of community benefits, local supply chains and investment in jobs and skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made a helpful set of points around the importance of long-term community benefit—that is, people who are not just building infrastructure, making a one-off payment and then leaving, but actually making a long-term investment in the area and the people who live there. She referred to Projekt Renewable in her constituency, and it would be interesting to discuss that with her after the debate.

Looking more broadly at what the Crown Estate has been doing and intends to do on investing in local community benefit, it is committed to working with local communities and partners to enable employment and skills opportunities. For example, it has allocated £50 million through the supply chain accelerator to stimulate green jobs. It is also developing a green skills pipeline from a GCSE in engineering skills for offshore wind, seed-funded by the Crown Estate and developed with Cornwall college, to a post-16 destination renewables course with Pembrokeshire college. The Crown Estate is partnering with the employment charity Workwhile to create green construction apprenticeships.

On offshore wind specifically, the Crown Estate has worked on upskilling frontline Department for Work and Pensions work coaches to be well equipped to support job seekers in the offshore wind industry through the offshore wind learning programme and specifically in relation to offshore leasing round 5, which hon. Members have mentioned. The Crown Estate has designed the leasing process in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of new wind farms, including a requirement to provide an apprenticeships plan and a skills development plan.

The Crown Estate is also committed to working with communities to ensure that future generations can make the most of the opportunities that marine energy will bring. It is working closely with local educational institutions, such as Falmouth marine school, where it helped develop a pre-16 engineering programme to build skilled local workforces, alongside other initiatives, including the marine internship programme and a recent partnership with the Sea Ranger Service, which is based in Port Talbot.

We heard from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who asked questions about the devolution of the Crown Estate and its functions to Wales. Some of the points she raised were addressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important to recognise that the proposed powers in the Bill will be of huge benefit to Wales. Combined with its existing scale, expertise and track record, the Crown Estate is uniquely placed to help drive the activities required, such as de-risking and developing offshore renewable energy and other emerging offshore technologies to realise the potential of the Celtic sea. I would be concerned that further devolution of the Crown Estate in the manner suggested could fragment the renewable energy market and undermine the strong international investor confidence in the UK to the detriment of both Wales and the wider UK. It would risk creating further complexity and delay our drive for energy security and net zero at a time when simplicity and accelerated deployment are essential. That is why the Government believe that the existing provisions are the best way to ensure that the assets of the Crown Estate are managed most effectively to benefit people across Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) spoke of his concern about environmental impacts. Offshore wind is essential to meeting our net zero and energy security objectives, which I hope he supports, but to get the wider balance right, the habitat regulations assessment process ensures that we can deliver our offshore wind requirements while maintaining environmental protections. The Government are also consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework to increase support for renewable energy schemes in order to tackle climate change while safeguarding environmental resources.

I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) for their particularly impassioned support for the principles behind the Bill and what it sets out to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, it is crucial for investment, growth and modernising the Crown Estate for the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer focused on the power of the Bill’s measured reforms to modernise the Crown Estate and support growth in a fiscally responsible way while generating revenue that will benefit our constituents across the country.

I hope that I have managed to address hon. Members’ points. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have set out, the Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, thereby modernising it for the 21st century. It broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enables it to further invest in the energy transition, and empowers it to invest more effectively in capital-intensive projects. Critically, the measures in it will unlock more long-term investment and increase the contribution of the Crown Estate to generating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK. Growth is at the heart of our Government’s mission. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CROWN ESTATE BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Crown Estate Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 11 February.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

CROWN ESTATE BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)

King’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Estate Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Treasury under any other Act that is attributable to the Act;

(2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the fund under any other Act that is attributable to the Act.—(Christian Wakeford.)

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Everyone in my constituency, and indeed in the whole country, knows that the last Tory Government decimated public services after 14 years of austerity, mismanagement, negligence and a sole focus on the rich, at the expense and neglect of the poor working class and the public sector. I sympathise with the new Government, and I will try to provide constructive support.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcements in the Budget of increased investment in education, the NHS, infrastructure projects and other public services, but, like many other people in the House and throughout the country, I do not agree with the approach taken to the funding of those investments. Members on both sides of the Committee have indicated today that failing to protect key sectors and services such as general practices, care homes, pharmacies, childcare providers and third sector providers may have been an oversight or a mistake on the Government’s part, but I am not so sure. On the basis of the Government’s other blanket policies on abolishing the winter fuel allowance, imposing VAT on all private schools including low-fee and charitable schools and removing business rates relief from all private schools and charities without any announcement of safeguarding or compensatory measures to protect these services and sectors, it appears to have been a deliberate, or negligent, decision.

It is clear that the Government inherited a dire state of affairs that requires huge investment, which must be paid for in a responsible way. I am sorry to say that the way that has been chosen by this new Labour Government is not the right one. Viable and progressive alternatives are available to the Government to raise finances for the necessary investment rather than inflicting the increase in national insurance contributions on the impacted bodies. Let me suggest a couple of easy measures that would support the Government’s investment. One possible solution is the imposition of a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise the amount predicted to be raised by national insurance contributions; another is the closing of corporation tax loopholes that allow corporations to save billions and to offshore profits.

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

I am conscious that I have only a few moments to speak. I will not go through the four clauses of the Bill, as I take it that everyone will have read it already. I will instead go directly to the amendments that have been tabled, ahead of potential votes in a few moments.

I will address the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). These amendments seek to exclude certain sectors, including healthcare providers, educational settings and charities, from the new rate and threshold for employer national insurance. As hon. Members know, the changes in the Bill before us represent one of the difficult but necessary decisions that the Government have had to take to fix the foundations of our economy and our public finances.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I cannot give way. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman many times in recent weeks, but I have about four minutes in which to address everyone’s comments.

As hon. Members have set out, we recognise that the changes we are making today will have an impact on employers. Making these changes was a tough decision that we did not take lightly, but we are also clear that the revenue raised from the measures in this Bill and others in the Budget will play a critical role in both restoring economic stability and getting the NHS back on its feet. As a result of the measures in this Bill and the wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week.

The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers on additional employer national insurance costs, including central Government, public corporations and local government. Independent contractors, including primary care providers, social care providers, charities such as hospices and nurseries will not be supported with the costs. That is the same as was the case with the changes to employer national insurance rates under the previous Government’s plans for the health and social care levy.

Primary care providers—general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors that provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consults each sector about what services they provide, and about the money to which they are entitled in return under their contract. As in previous years, the issue we are debating today will be dealt with as part of that process in the round. The Department of Health and Social Care will confirm funding for general practice, dentistry and pharmacy for 2025-26 as part of the usual contract process later in the financial year, including through consultation with sectors.

I turn to adult social care. The Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of around 3.2% for 2025-26, including at least £680 million of new grant funding for social care. The funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector; again, they will be considered in the round.

Some hon. Members have tabled amendments to exclude charities from the new national insurance rate and threshold. However, it is important to recognise that charities can benefit from employment allowance, which this Bill has more than doubled from £5,000 to £10,500. That will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest. The Government also provide wider support for charities, including hospices, via a tax regime. This tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors that are worth just over £6 billion for the year to April 2024.

I recognise that some hon. Members have shown an interest in the impact of this Bill on childcare settings, as highlighted in the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans, for Grantham and Bourne, and for Lagan Valley, and in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). Early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible, which is why the Government committed in our manifesto to deliver the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents, and to open 3,000 new or expanded nurseries, by upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. Despite the very challenging circumstances that the Government inherited, the Chancellor announced in her Budget in October significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places. This means that the total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.

New clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, specifically refers to the eligibility criteria for employment allowance. I can assure her that they have not changed, except for the removal of the £100,000 threshold, which will mean that more organisations are able to access employment allowance. The eligibility of a particular organisation will depend on the make-up of an individual business’s work, which can be determined following detailed guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While every organisation will need to check its eligibility for the employment allowance, it is likely that many childcare providers will be able to access it.

Finally, I will turn to the amendments to exclude universities from the new rate and thresholds for employer national insurance. We greatly value UK higher education in creating opportunity, being an engine for growth in our economy and supporting local communities. The Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. The Secretary of State for Education has confirmed that the maximum fees in the academic year 2025-26 will rise, for the first time since 2017, from £9,250 to £9,535. This was a difficult decision, which demonstrates that the Government are serious about the need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing. I would like to continue, Madam Chair, but I should stop now—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill seeks to put into law one of the toughest decisions we made at the Budget in October. As I set out in earlier stages of the Bill, we recognise that there will be impacts on employers as a result of the changes, with employers facing difficult decisions. It will implement a difficult but necessary decision that, along with others, is critical to raising the revenue needed to fix the public finances, get public services back on their feet and restore economic stability.

The Bill before us has three measures: first, an increase to the main rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%; secondly, a decrease in the secondary threshold for employers from £9,100 to £5,000 per year from 6 April 2025; and thirdly, changes to the employment allowance to support small businesses. The measure will protect small businesses and charities by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 pounds a year from April 2025. In addition, the £100,000 eligibility threshold will be removed.

Through the measures in the Bill and others in the Budget, the Government are taking the difficult but necessary decisions to fix the foundations of our economy. If hon. Members in other parties choose to vote against the Bill, the British people will see that they are voting to ignore the fiscal mess that we inherited. They are voting to cut investment in the NHS and to increase borrowing for day-to-day spending.

Finally, I reiterate my thanks to hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I extend my thanks to all the officials for their support. I commend the Bill to the House.

LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme Payments: Income Tax Exemption

James Murray Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Written Statements

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

Today, the Government have confirmed ex gratia payments made under the LGBT financial recognition scheme will be exempt from income tax. The scheme is designed to offer financial recognition to those who served under, and suffered from, the ban on LGBT personnel serving in HM armed forces between 1967 and 2000.

This decision to grant an income tax exemption ensures that applicants receive the full payment amount, marking an important step toward addressing the historic wrongs faced by LGBT personnel and veterans in the past.

The Government will legislate via secondary legislation to formalise this tax exemption in due course.

[HCWS305]

Finance Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

This Government believe that all children should have the opportunity to succeed. That opportunity should not be limited by who they are, where they are from or how much their parents earn. We are determined that a young person’s background should not limit what they can achieve. That is why, despite the dire fiscal situation that we inherited and the numerous tough choices that it has entailed, the Chancellor prioritised investment in education at the Budget in October.

At that Budget, the Chancellor announced real-terms growth of 3.4% in education funding, including a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget in England for the next financial year. This funding supports the recruitment of 6,500 additional teachers, in line with the Government’s commitment, and includes £1 billion for the special educational needs and disabilities system, to help the 1 million pupils in the state system with special educational needs.

This Government will make sure that all children get the high-quality education that they deserve, as well as high-quality school buildings; funding has been announced for the school rebuilding programme, and for school maintenance, so that we can begin to tackle the maintenance backlog. These changes are crucial first steps to improving education for all children and meeting the aspirations of parents across the country.

Investment in education has to be paid for, so I turn to the focus of this debate: our decision to end the VAT exemption for private school fees. In July, the Chancellor announced that the Government will end tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools. These policies are expected to raise £1.5 billion in their first full year, rising to over £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.

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

Has the impact on the market of children being withdrawn from schools been greater than expected? In my time as a Minister, I always found that the Treasury rather underestimated the dynamic impact of policy change. I would be interested to hear his reflections.

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on the impact of the policies on children’s education. I will come to the details shortly, but to give him an overview of the forecast impacts, we estimate that ultimately there will be around 37,000 fewer pupils in the private sector. That is a combination of pupils who will never enter the private sector in the first place and those who will leave. They represent around 6% of private school pupils. We expect most of the moves to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school or at the beginning of exam courses.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

If the intention of the Government is that the moves should happen at natural transition points, why did they decide to impose the change from January? Whatever one’s views on the merits of the policy, that is not really fair on the parents affected. Indeed, one could say it is cruel.

[James Murray]

It is right that these changes be implemented as soon as possible to raise the funding that we need to deliver on our education priorities. As a result of the policies coming into effect in January, we will raise a forecast £460 million of additional revenue in 2024-25. We are ambitious for the state education system, and we want to get on with delivering the changes that we committed to in the manifesto.

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

I must declare that I, like many parents in Surrey, have chosen independent education for my children. A freedom of information request earlier this week regarding empty school places in Surrey showed that in the ’25-26 academic year, there are zero spare places in year 9, zero in year 10 and zero in year 11. The Minister will know that in independent schools, many children in those years take international GCSEs and baccalaureates. What is his message to those children, who have no place and will have their exam training disrupted because of his spiteful policy?

[James Murray]

Local authorities and schools already have processes in place to support pupils who move between schools at any point in the academic year. Analysis carried out by the Department for Education under the previous Government suggests that each year, almost 60,000 secondary school moves take place not at normal transition points or over the school holidays. We fully expect the majority of moves to take place at natural transition points or in the school holidays, rather than within the school year.

I have been clear that ending these tax breaks for private schools has been a difficult decision, but it is necessary to secure additional funding that will help us to fulfil the commitments we made to improving education for all.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Minister continually refers to tax breaks. They are not tax breaks. Why can he not just be honest with the House and admit that this is the first time that any Government in a civilised democracy has imposed a tax on learning and education?

[James Murray]

Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman how public finances work. Funding a tax relief or a tax break is equivalent to public spending, because it is money that cannot be spent on something else. The Conservatives have committed, through their new leadership, to repealing this policy if they win the next general election. That implies cutting state education—cutting the investment in education for all that we are prioritising.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[James Murray]

I will not give way because I am making a clear point. We have to make choices in politics about what to prioritise. We have said that the VAT tax break for private school fees is not something that we want to prioritise. We want to spend that money instead on improving state education for all children.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I am so grateful for the public finance lesson. Surely he has to accept that as no tax is placed on learning in any sector in the educational landscape across the United Kingdom, this measure is not a tax break. It is not that there is a tax break for one sector while others have a tax imposed. This is an imposition of a new tax in the educational sphere. It is not a tax break because no educational establishment pays VAT.

[James Murray]

Given the record of the Conservatives over the past 14 years, I do not think it is ridiculous to assume that they might need some education on how public finances work, with the mess that we inherited and the desperate need for us to restore fiscal responsibility to public finances. Restoring that fiscal responsibility requires us to take decisions that are difficult but necessary to raise the finances to fund our priorities. We have taken the decision that we will not support a VAT exemption for private school fees and that we will invest the money that we raise in state education to ensure that the aspirations of every parent across this country can be fulfilled. That is a decision I will defend every time I am in this Chamber.

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

My constituents would be surprised that there is no tax exemption on tampons, which are used by close to 50% of society, yet there is a tax exemption for VAT on private schools, which are used by less than 5% of the country. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is a mark of the priorities of Conservative Members that they are so quiet about the former but not the latter?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that decisions on VAT reliefs are political choices. Indeed, the Opposition are showing which side of that choice they land on when it comes to education; through their new leadership, they are choosing to prioritise a tax break for private school fees over investment in state education. That is a political choice. I am very happy to stand behind where we are on that side of the debate.

I will turn to some of the clauses in detail. The changes made by clause 47 will remove the VAT exemption from which private schools currently benefit on the education, vocational training and boarding they provide. Let me be clear: this policy does not mean that schools must increase fees by 20%, and the Government expect schools to take steps to minimise the increases for parents. Schools can reclaim VAT paid on inputs and make efficiency savings to minimise the extent to which they need to increase fees. Many schools have already committed publicly to capping fee increases at 5% or absorbing the full VAT costs themselves.

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

One of the schools in my area has posed a question on VAT. It has combined fees, within which things like meals are included. It is not clear from Treasury guidance whether the school would have to separate those fees out, creating another accounting problem—in order to have separate VAT and travel, for example, as part of the fees—when currently it is all one unit. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? When I met the Schools Minister, he was unable to give me an answer, and was going to go away and speak to the Treasury about what that looks like. This will have real impacts for this school, which will have to decide how to set out its accounting, and whether it has to include the fees or separate them out into several different blocks.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his specific question. Let me just be clear that I am not giving tax advice for that particular school in my response, because I would always assume that any school would get its own tax advice. In general, the VAT treatment of a particular supply is determined by the predominant supply, so there are options available to schools. I am happy to pick the matter up with him outside the Chamber and to make sure he has the details in writing. As I said, I would not want to give specific advice to that school, but it is worth the school getting advice on the VAT treatment of the fees it charges based on the predominant supply.

I will return to the impact of the policy we are proposing and the changes in clause 47. Government analysis suggests that the impact of the VAT policy on private and state school sectors is likely to be very small—ultimately leading, as I was saying a few moments ago, to 37,000 fewer pupils in the private sector, which includes both pupils who will never enter the private sector and those who will move.

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

A particular subset of pupils affected by this policy are those in receipt of the continuity of education allowance. The revised figures for the CEA, released recently, do not fully protect those pupils from the uplift on VAT on school fees. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this policy on retention and recruitment into our armed forces and our diplomatic service?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the continuity of education allowance, because the Government greatly value the contribution of our diplomatic staff and serving personnel. The continuity of education allowance is therefore provided to ensure that the need for frequent mobility does not interfere with the education of their children. As he may know, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have increased the funding allocated to the continuity of education allowance, to account for the impact of any private school fee increases on the proportion of fees covered by the CEA, in line with how the allowance normally operates.

The Government have carefully considered the impacts of the policies set out in clause 47 and received a wide range of representations covering topics that have already been raised in the debate today. The Government received more than 17,000 consultation responses, and my officials and I have met those representing schools, local authorities and devolved Governments. As a result of these representations, the Government have made several changes to the legislation, including to clarify the treatment of nurseries. In deciding on the final design of the policy, we have made sure that schools are treated fairly and consistently.

A number of hon. Members have raised with me concerns about the impact of this measure on particular types of schools and on different pupils, so I am glad to have this chance to address some of those points. First, to protect pupils with special educational needs that can be met only in a private school, the local authorities and devolved Governments that fund these places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees. Secondly, as I just mentioned in response to the intervention on military and diplomatic families, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office have agreed to increase the funding allocated to the continuity of education allowance to account for the impact of private school fee increases.

The Government are aware that while many schools have always offered schemes enabling the prepayment of fees, there were concerning reports of some parents using such schemes in an attempt to avoid these fees being subject to VAT. The Government believe that allowing fees paid from the date of the July statement to the date this policy comes into force to be paid without charging VAT on them would be unfair on the vast majority of families who will be unable to pay years-worth of fees in advance. The changes made by clause 48 will therefore introduce anti-forestalling provisions that will apply to all prepayments of private school fees and boarding services on or after 29 July 2024 and before 30 October 2024. Finally, clause 49 sets out the commencement date for these changes, which will apply to any fees paid on or after 29 July 2024 relating to the term starting in January 2025.

To conclude, the reason the Government are raising funding from the changes we are debating today is to increase investment in the state education system. Every parent aspires for high-quality education for their children. The removal of the VAT exemption for private schools will help to support the Government’s investment in schools and ensure that every child has a chance to thrive. We are determined to be a Government who enable the aspirations of all parents to be met and who ensure that all children have the opportunity to succeed. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member. If he just waits for the next part of my speech, he may get the answer to his intervention.

The Government’s plan will put all that at risk. Notably, Haileybury is planning to absorb as much of the financial hit as it can, rather than place the extra burden on parents. To do so, it must look at reducing expenditure and therefore its ability to offer financial support to Haileybury Turnford, painfully contradicting the Government’s argument that their policy will result in more spending on state school pupils. It is not just about money; greater financial pressures on Haileybury will inevitably lead to staff having less time and resources available to share with Turnford, and fewer opportunities for state school students at Haileybury Turnford as a result.

Ministers think that their policy will impact only the rich, but for nearly a decade a genuinely working-class community in my constituency has benefited from a state school and an independent school working together, which is exactly the kind of partnership that we should be encouraging. We should not be encouraging the politics of envy. Sadly, the changes that the Government are introducing through the Bill will bring all that to an end.

[James Murray]

Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. I will take a few moments to respond to some of the points raised and then to set out the Government’s view on the proposed new clauses.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), addressed new clause 8, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). I will come to the new clause in a moment, but for the avoidance of doubt let me reassure the shadow Minister that higher education and teaching English as a foreign language are both exempt from and not affected by this policy. I also reassure him that HMRC stands ready to support schools. It has already published bespoke guidance for schools, run webinars, updated registration systems and put additional resources in place to process applications.

[Damian Hinds]

In principle, what is the distinction between full-time private schooling and private tuition, from the point of view of what it is right to tax? Will he guarantee that no tax will be put on private tuition?

[James Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the comments I just made in response to the shadow Minister’s remarks, teaching English as a foreign language and higher education are exempt from the provisions of the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

No, I mean families who send their child once or twice a week for an hour for academic study or something extra-curricular. Why should that be tax exempt, when if it is done for all the hours in the school week, it is not?

[James Murray]

In designing the Bill and making sure that it is clear, we decided to focus on those schools that provide full-time education. Following feedback during the consultation on the Bill, we decided to clarify some of the treatments, such as for nurseries, which I mentioned earlier, to ensure that they are treated appropriately. If they are fully stand-alone nurseries, they are not covered. In the original drafting of the legislation, we referred to nurseries that wholly comprise children below the compulsory school age. We changed that to wholly or almost wholly to ensure that having, for example, one pupil over compulsory school age would not trip a nursery into being covered.

[Damian Hinds]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress, because I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment, and I want to mention the points made by other hon. Members in the debate.

We heard from the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Yet again from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, we see a party that is happy to support our extra investment in education for all children, but that cannot bring itself to support the measures that we put in place to help pay for that investment in education.

[Sarah Olney]

We have heard this point time and again from the Labour Benches. I want to say, one more time, that the Liberal Democrats put forward a fully costed programme in our 2024 general election manifesto, which had a range of tax-raising measures that would have paid for the changes we proposed and did not include VAT on school fees, for all the reasons the Minister has heard today.

[James Murray]

The reason why the Liberal Democrats hear this time and again from the Government Benches is that, time and again, they want all the benefits of investment without having to pay for it. That is a pattern that we see again and again in this Chamber.

[Munira Wilson]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for their comments. I feel that I am duty bound to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend for Loughborough on his engagement.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is not in his place—sorry, he is at the Bar. Perhaps he could come and take a seat on the Benches. He asked an important question to try to get some clarity about the VAT treatment of combined fees that cover school meals, transport and other services. I hope that my earlier answer gave him some reassurance on that.

I reiterate that I cannot provide advice for individual schools, but it is worth emphasising that the general principle is that if a school supplies a package of education for a single fee, that will normally be a single supply for VAT. That package could include a number of other elements such as transport or meals, alongside the main element of education. If it is a single supply, it is a single VAT liability. However, where a school supplies education and also supplies other elements for a separate fee, that will normally be treated as a separate supply. For example, if a school offers school meals alongside the education for a separate charge, those will normally be two different supplies, and they may have different VAT liabilities. Although the education would be subject to the standard rate of VAT, the school meals may be exempt, if they meet the conditions.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification on that point; I think he is hitting towards it. The school itself has everything grouped into one fee, which includes the transport, schooling and food. Its contention, therefore, is that it will have to break that all out, which means it will have to deal with all the accounting issues on top of this. It is just another burden to think about. I wonder whether the Treasury has thought about that and whether there will be further guidance—there is literally just one line in a piece of written guidance put out by the Treasury. Is there anywhere the school can raise this issue to work through the exact advice it needs? I appreciate that the Minister cannot give that advice directly to the school from the Dispatch Box.

[James Murray]

The way that we treat private school fees and the other charges that private schools may levy has to be consistent with the VAT principles more broadly, which is why I have tried to explain how the supply of education and the supply of other elements would interact with the VAT system more widely. I will hold back from giving specific advice about that individual school, but I would encourage it to contact HMRC to get advice about its specific registration. If the school staff read what I have just said in Hansard, I hope they will see some information that will help them to understand how to approach this issue.

[Graham Stuart]

As ever, the Minister is being very gracious in giving way. If someone were to establish a new educational establishment providing entirely modular educational elements that people could choose between, would that be subject to VAT, individually or collectively, or not?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman is tempting me into hypotheticals and into trying to give advice to a school that does not yet exist—I will hold back from that, because I think the principles of our Bill are very clear on what VAT at the standard rate is applied to and what can be made exempt, in line with the existing rules on VAT.

We heard several times from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I assure him that the Government costing has, of course, been fully scrutinised and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. He also spoke about capital funding. Obviously, pupil numbers fluctuate for a number of reasons. The Government have already announced more than £700 million to support local authorities over this academic year and the next to provide places in new schools and expand existing schools. I did note, however, that in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), the right hon. Gentleman seemed implicitly to admit to his Government’s failure to improve high-needs education in the state sector, which is precisely why our measures today are so important.

[Damian Hinds]

First, the Minister knows I said no such thing. I spoke about the additional investment that had gone into the high-needs budget under the previous Government, particularly since 2019, and said that there was more to do.

Since I am on my feet, can I ask him to expand on what he just said about capital? What he has just spoken about is capital for places that are already planned, but what if a lot more children present in some places? Has he budgeted for that capital? Does he guarantee that whatever capital goes to the DFE will be on top of the existing capital budget?

[James Murray]

As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the Department for Education, and indeed the devolved Governments, already work with local authorities to identify pressures and take action where necessary. As I said in my earlier remarks to him, the Government already provide capital funding through the basic need grant to support local authorities in England to provide school places, and the Government have already announced £700 million over this academic year and the next, which can be used to provide places in new schools and to expand existing places.

Finally, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised the motivation behind our policy, which other Opposition Members also spoke to. Let me be clear on this: our decision to fix the public finances to fund public services, including education, means that difficult decisions have to be taken. Our choice to end the VAT exemption for private school fees has been a difficult but necessary decision that will secure additional funding, which will help to deliver on our commitments to improve education for all.

[Dr Mullan]

I did not talk about motivation in my speech; I spoke about how the Minister has framed it. Does he accept that with a general taxation pot, where all the money goes into one amount that is doled out as the Government see fit, there is absolutely no basis for saying that children in the state sector have less because of the exemption of VAT for private schools? The two things are totally unconnected in the Budget and the financing of the Government.

[James Murray]

What is connected is that if we want to fund public services and fix the public finances, we have to take difficult decisions. This is one of those difficult decisions we are taking today: a difficult but necessary decision to restore fiscal responsibility after the mess we inherited from the Conservative party and to fund our public services. It is necessary to take those decisions, so that we can get that funding into education for all. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to take that decision, he is, in effect, denying the choices that we are making about funding public services.

I will now make some progress to address the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front Benchers. New clause 8, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon, would require the Government to make a statement to Parliament about the impact of removing the VAT exemption for private school fees within six months of the Act being passed. It states that it

“must include details of the impact on…pupils with special educational needs and disabilities…small rural schools, and…faith schools.”

It would require the Government to

“make a statement about the impact of the removal of the exemption on schools that take part in the music and dance scheme”

within 18 months of the Act being passed.

I want to make it clear that in developing this policy, the Government carefully considered the impact it would have, including the impact it would have on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, rural and urban schools, faith schools, and schools that take part in the music and dance scheme. As I said before, the Government considered a wide range of representations, including over 17,000 consultation responses, before finalising the policy design. The Government set out the expected impact of the measure in a tax information and impact note published at autumn Budget 2024 in the usual way.

I set out earlier today how the Government will ensure that those children with an EHCP, or its equivalent in other nations, will not be subject to VAT on any private school fees. I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause, when it refers to “pupils with special educational needs and disabilities”

refers to only those in the private sector, or whether he intends the new clause to consider also the 1 million or more pupils with SEND in the state system. If it is the latter, I am sure he will welcome the extra £1 billion for high-needs funding next year that we have been able to announce thanks to our decisions on tax policy, including that which we are debating today. In addition, based on the evidence provided, it is not apparent that small faith schools will be more affected by this policy than other schools.

The hon. Member for Twickenham, the Front Bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, tabled new clause 9. I think I have addressed most of those points already in my remarks today.

To conclude, I hope I have been able to reassure Members that the new clauses are not necessary, for the reasons I have set out. I therefore urge the Committee to reject new clauses 8 and 9.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Finance Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

At the Budget in October, the Chancellor set out the decisions that we are taking to restore economic stability, put the public finances on a firm footing, and embed fiscal responsibility in the work of Government. Having wiped the slate clean of the mess we inherited, our Government can now focus on boosting the public and private investment that is essential for sustainable long-term growth. It is through sustainable economic growth across the UK that we will create wealth and provide security, making people across the country better off.

That goal of raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pocket is at the heart of the Government’s plan for change that the Prime Minister set out last week. That plan also set out the Government’s commitment to securing home-grown energy, and to protecting bill payers by putting us on track to secure at least 95% clean power by 2030. Making the transition to home-grown energy has required us to take immediate action to unblock investment, including deciding to reverse the de facto ban on onshore wind. The Government have their part to play, alongside the private sector, in making sure that investment happens on the scale and at the pace that we need. That is why the clauses that we are debating are so important—they are a key mechanism for raising the funding that is needed for that investment to be delivered.

We are taking a responsible approach that recognises the role of businesses and their employees in the energy industries of today and tomorrow. Since we formed a Government, my colleagues and I have been working closely with the sector affected by the energy profits levy to make sure that the transition is managed in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries. Our approach recognises that oil and gas will have a role to play in the energy mix for many years to come, during the transition, and it balances that with ensuring that oil and gas help to raise the revenue that we need to drive investment towards the energy transition. Our legislation delivers that approach, and I welcome the chance to set out the details of how it does so.

The clauses that we are debating concern the energy profits levy, a temporary additional tax on profits from oil and gas exploration and production in the UK and on the UK continental shelf. The levy was introduced by the previous Government in response to the extraordinary profits being made by oil and gas companies—and, it is fair to say, in response to substantial political pressure from Labour Members.

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

Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?

[James Murray]

I believe that it is fair that the oil and gas industry makes a reasonable contribution to the energy transition. We need to ensure that during the transition from oil and gas, which will play a key role in our energy mix for years to come, the industry contributes to the new, clean energy of the future. The way to have a responsible, managed transition is to work with the industry and make sure that it makes a fair contribution, but to not shy away from making that transition at the scale and pace needed.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Let me try to understand the Minister’s logic. First, he recognises that we will need oil and gas. Secondly, he is going to tax oil and gas companies. Thirdly, he is telling them that his Government are creating an environment in which there is no future for oil and gas, but he still expects them to invest. Where is the logic?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to set out why the Government plan is the right and balanced approach. We are ensuring that the oil and gas sector is supported in making the contribution that we know it will to our energy mix for many years to come, while asking it to contribute to the transition to clean energy. The oil and gas industry recognises that a transition to clean energy is under way. It wants to support investment and jobs in the industry but also to contribute to the transition. Taking a fair and balanced approach is the right way to protect the jobs and industries of today and tomorrow and, crucially, to protect bill payers, giving them permanently lower bills and greater energy independence. [Interruption.]

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

In the last financial year, the oil and gas industry made £6.1 billion in profit, despite the chuntering from Opposition Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives introduced the energy levy? We are simply ensuring that our oil and gas sector pays an equivalent sum, so that we can transition to a green energy future. This money is necessary for that transition to occur.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are asking oil and gas companies to make a fair and reasonable contribution towards our transition to clean energy. That transition is under way, and it is important for oil and gas companies to make a contribution, but that should happen in a way that protects the jobs and industries of today and tomorrow.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The oil and gas giants were making eye-watering profits when the Conservative Government finally introduced a levy, although it had a loophole that let the oil and gas companies off the hook. The Government should support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which demonstrates how much of a missed opportunity that was, and how much money we could have raised, had the loophole been closed earlier.

[James Murray]

I am not entirely clear that that is what the Liberal Democrat amendment does. We have been clear that our intention is to end unjustifiably generous allowances. That is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance, which was unique to oil and gas taxation and is not available to any other sector in the economy.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

New research published in the last few days has found that fossil fuel companies reported profits of nearly $0.5 trillion during the 2022 energy crisis. By contrast, people struggled with fuel poverty and had to choose between heating and eating. One in seven households in my constituency is in fuel poverty. Does the Minister agree that the ability to extend and increase the energy profits levy is a key lever for addressing this imbalance and supporting households?

[The Chairman]

Order. That was neatly done, but interventions have to be very closely related to what we are debating here and now.

[James Murray]

I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from lower bills as a result of the investment that we are ensuring, by the public and private sectors, in the clean energy sources of the future.

We knew, when the Conservatives introduced the energy profits levy, that the extraordinary oil and gas profits were driven by global circumstances, including resurgent demand after covid-19, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Households in the UK, however, were particularly badly hit by higher oil and gas prices, as the Government at the time had failed to invest adequately in energy independence, or in measures such as home insulation. When the energy profits levy was introduced, an 80% investment allowance was also introduced, and this was later reduced to 29% when the levy rate increased from 25% to 35% in January 2023. An 80% decarbonisation investment allowance was later put in place for decarbonisation expenditure, which is money spent on the reduction of emissions from the production of oil and gas. The levy was initially set at 25%, but the previous Government increased it to 35% and extended it beyond 2025, first to 2028, and later to 2029.

As I mentioned, the Government recognise the continued role for oil and gas in the UK’s energy mix during the energy transition. We are committed to managing the transition in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries, recognising that our offshore workers have the vital skills to unlock the clean industries of the future. I put on record my thanks to the offshore workers I met in Aberdeen in August for giving me some of their time and their views when I was there for a meeting with Offshore Energies UK and representatives of the sector. As I mentioned, it is essential that we drive both public and private investment in the transition to clean energy. Clause 15 therefore increases the energy profits levy by three percentage point—from 35% to 38%—from 1 November 2024. The clause also sets out the rules for apportioning profits for accounting periods that straddle the start date. As I have made clear, the money raised by these changes will help to support the transition to clean energy, enhancing our energy security and providing sustainable jobs for the future.

Clause 16 concerns allowances in the levy. The clause removes the 29% core investment allowance for general expenditure incurred on or after 1 November 2024, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Government have been clear about our intention to end unjustifiably generous allowances, and that is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance. We are bringing the level of relief for investment in the sector broadly in line with the level of capital allowances available to other companies operating across the rest of the economy through full expensing, which we have committed to maintaining. The energy profit levy’s decarbonisation allowance will be retained to support the sector in reducing emissions.

Qualifying expenditure includes money spent on electrification of production, or on reducing venting and flaring. The retention of the decarbonisation allowance reflects the Government’s commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy. However, in the light of the increase to the levy, clause 16 also reduces the rate of the decarbonisation allowance to 66% in order to maintain the same cash value of the tax relief per £100 of investment.

Clause 17 extends the sunset of the levy by one year from 31 March 2029 to 31 March 2030. To provide the oil and gas industry with long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime, we are retaining the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism.

[Dave Doogan]

Certainty is only good if it relates to a positive outlook, not a negative outlook. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked a clear question about the duration. It was not about whether the sector pays fair taxes; we all believe that people should pay fair taxes. Does the Minister still believe that the industry is making extraordinary profits?

[James Murray]

I would like to explain to the hon. Gentleman how the energy security investment mechanism works, because that, to be fair, was put in place by the previous Government, and we are maintaining it. It says that if prices drop below a certain threshold for six months, the energy profits levy ceases early. That gives some certainty and predictability to the oil and gas sector. If prices go below that level, the sector can have confidence that the energy security investment mechanism will end the levy early. If that does not happen, the levy will continue, as we have said, until March 2030.

I am keen—I will set out a few more details later—to engage with the oil and gas sector on the regime post the energy profits levy, because it is important for oil and gas companies making decisions about investment to have certainty about what will happen up until March 2030, and to understand what the regime might be like thereafter. That is why I am looking forward to my conversations with the sector on what the post energy profits levy regime will look like.

Long-term certainty and confidence is being provided to the oil and gas sector by our retention of the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism, which I was explaining to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). It means that the levy will cease permanently if oil and gas prices fall below a set level for a sustained period. Furthermore, as I also just said, to provide stability for the long term, the Government will publish a consultation in early 2025 on how the tax regime will respond to price shocks once the energy profits levy comes to an end. That will give oil and gas producers and their investors predictability and certainty on the future of the fiscal regime, which will support their ability to continue investing, while also ensuring that the nation receives a fair return at a time of exceptional crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I will respond to some of the points raised, and set out the Government’s views on the new clauses. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), asked for confirmation of our decision to retain the energy security investment mechanism. I hope that he will take yes for an answer, because yes, I can confirm that the ESIM will remain in effect until 31 March 2030, when the energy profits levy is due to end. It will continue to be adjusted in line with consumer prices index inflation in future financial years. I hope that sets his mind at rest on that point.

The hon. Gentleman asked about modelling the impact of the energy profits levy. I am sure that he will remember from his time in the Treasury the role that the Office for Budget Responsibility plays. He will see that in the report that it published alongside the Budget, it forecast £12.6 billion being raised from the levy over the forecast period. Of course, the OBR will provide updated forecasts next year.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members kept raising the phrase “extraordinary profits” when talking about trying to understand the position that the oil and gas sector is in. That links directly to the energy security investment mechanism, because prices remain higher than the price floor that we set. The energy security investment mechanism means that if prices fall sufficiently and return to historically normal levels, the levy will be disapplied. The relationship between the levy, profits and the maintenance of the energy security investment mechanism is key to understanding the Government’s approach.

The Liberal Democrats spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked about our choosing a 78% rate, how we set the rate for the energy profits levy, and about other attributes of the system being set up by the clauses under debate. We seek to achieve a balanced approach. We are raising the rate to 78%, extending the levy for a further year and removing the investment allowance, which we deem to be unjustifiably generous; yet we are maintaining 100% first-year allowances, the decarbonisation allowance, and the energy security investment mechanism. That strikes the right balance between ensuring that oil and gas companies continue to invest in oil and gas for years to come, and ensuring that they contribute to and support the transition to clean energy.

The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke about the need for long-term stability. I entirely agree that we need it. That is precisely what we seek to achieve by saying that the energy profits levy will come to an end in March 2030, by having a price floor in the ESIM—we have mentioned that several times—and by proceeding with our consultation on the post energy profits levy regime. That will give confidence to those thinking about investing in the oil and gas sector not just before the end of the energy profits levy, but post 2030.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) also mentioned long-term stability. He seems distracted right now, but I hope that will be of some reassurance to him. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens said that a £78 investment relief is available in Norway, whereas the figure is £46 in the UK. I want to put on record that in the UK, while the energy profits levy remains in place, the sector continues to benefit from an £84.25 relief for every £100 of investment. I hope that gives him some reassurance on the points that he raised.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for her thoughtful and informed contribution, which explained that our approach strikes the right balance. I must say, however, that I was disappointed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), because he seemed not to support our moves to ensure that tax is not a blocker to CCUS, which will play an essential role in our progress towards net zero. The UK has a chance to be a world leader in that sector; I hoped that he would support our efforts to ensure that it is.

Two new clauses were tabled, which hon. Members spoke about. They require reports to be published. I can remember tabling many such new clauses over the last few years. New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans, would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the removal of the energy profits levy investment allowance and the change to the decarbonisation investment allowance rate. New clause 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), would require the Government to produce a report on the expected impact of the levy changes in a number of areas, including on capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry and on the Scottish economy.

The Government oppose new clauses 2 and 3 on the basis that they are unnecessary. We have already set out the impact of our measures in a tax information and impact note, which was published at the time of the Budget. That note states that the changes made to the energy profits levy will raise an additional £2.3 billion over the scorecard, and further data on the UK oil and gas industry is regularly published on gov.uk.

I hope that I have addressed some of the points raised by hon. Members, and have reassured them that the new clauses are not necessary. I urge the House to let clauses 15 to 18 and schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, and to reject new clauses 2 and 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

New Clause 2

Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.” —(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, the clause be read a Second time.

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ecuador) Order 2024

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ecuador) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mrs Harris.

The order before the Committee gives effect to a first-time double taxation convention with Ecuador. It will provide a clear and fair framework for the taxation and administration of cross-border transactions between the United Kingdom and Ecuador, benefiting businesses and the economies of both countries by removing barriers to cross-border trade and investment. The DTC is based mainly on the OECD model tax convention, which contains a set of internationally agreed principles that make DTCs easier for businesses to understand and for tax administrations to apply.

I turn now to some of the main features of the DTC. It provides limits on the withholding taxes that can be charged on dividends, royalties and interest, which in many circumstances are less than the tax rates applied under Ecuador’s domestic law. There are specific exemptions for dividends and interest paid to pension funds and for interest paid to financial institutions, which will be of benefit to UK pension funds and to banks with interests in Ecuador.

The DTC limits the circumstances in which the trading profits of an enterprise based in one country may be taxed in the other country. That will be welcomed, for instance, by United Kingdom businesses looking to provide services to customers in Ecuador, such as in the life sciences, infrastructure and financial services sectors, as it will ensure that businesses will not face Ecuadorian withholding taxes on some payments for those services.

The agreement contains all the minimum standards introduced by the joint OECD and G20 project on base erosion and profit shifting. Those standards ensure that DTCs are not used to avoid or evade tax, and include a statement in the preamble that it is not a purpose of a DTC to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance, and a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in cases of abuse.

Another anti-avoidance rule included in the new treaty is a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on agreement by the competent authorities of each country. The DTC also allows for the exchange of information between the two countries to facilitate tax transparency and provides for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts.

Together, these features strengthen both countries’ defences against tax avoidance and evasion. The order includes dispute resolution provisions that go beyond the minimum standard set out in the final recommendations of the BEPS project by providing that, where a taxpayer considers that the DTC has not been applied correctly, they can present their case to either tax authority, and not just where they are resident.

In summary, this agreement is one that the UK can welcome, fulfilling a long-held ambition to conclude a DTC with Ecuador and filling another gap in the UK’s network of DTCs in Latin America. It will provide a stable, long-term framework within which trade and investment between the United Kingdom and Ecuador can flourish. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister and his party’s support for this double taxation treaty.

First, on Ecuador’s ratification of the DTC, Ecuador has indicated that it will complete the process by the end of this year, which I think gives the shadow Minister the timetable he was seeking. If this Committee supports the DTC today, it will take effect from 1 January 2025, as long as the necessary diplomatic exchanges are all completed in time. Taxpayers and businesses in the UK will be able to benefit from the DTC provisions from that date.

The other questions the shadow Minister asked related to the explanatory memorandum and the relationship with pillar 2. There are provisions taken from the United Nations model tax convention, which many developing countries prefer, and which are present in many of the UK’s treaties. They reflect the support for developing countries as they want to engage in the process. Ecuador’s approach to pillar 2 more broadly is probably a question more for the Government of Ecuador than for me but, as the shadow Minister will know, we are committed to the effective delivery of pillar 2 in the UK and to ensuring that the necessary legislation is put in place. Indeed, there is legislation on that in the current Finance Bill, so I look forward potentially to his support for that Bill when it comes to the Chamber.

To conclude, this statutory instrument to approve the double taxation treaty will ensure that we have a modern DTC in place in both countries, providing a stable foundation for investment and growth, while at the same time, crucially, making it harder for people to avoid their taxes in the UK if that is something they are trying to do. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution and I hope the Committee will see fit to support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions during the course of the debate.

This Government were elected with an immediate and critical need to draw a line under the fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement of the Conservatives. Since day one in office, we have been determined to deliver economic stability, and we have done so by fixing the public finances, introducing tough new fiscal rules, and getting the NHS and other public services back on their feet.

It is on those foundations that we will boost investment and drive long-term economic growth to make people better off. This is not an easy task, as the Chancellor has said, but fixing those foundations is what underpins all the difficult but necessary decisions we have taken. It is the goal of fixing the foundations of our public finances and the NHS that has driven our decision to make the changes to employer national insurance contributions that we have been discussing today.

In taking the difficult decisions at the Budget, the Chancellor has been determined to protect working people. That is why our Budget made no changes to income tax, rates of VAT or the amount of national insurance that working people pay. As a result of our Budget, people will not see a penny more on their payslips. However, a £22 billion black hole in the public finances cannot be fixed without taking any difficult decisions at all. The Conservatives in government hid their heads in the sand and ignored the fiscal realities. Now, both they and other Opposition parties are desperate to have it both ways. They say that they support extra money for the NHS, but they refuse to back the measures to fund it.

[Paul Holmes]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I have been very generous over the past 48 hours in giving way in this Chamber, but I will not. My time is very limited, although I would like to hear more about the plane the hon. Gentleman spoke about earlier.

We have made the tough but necessary choices that this set of circumstances requires, which is why we have decided to raise employer national insurance contributions. The changes broadly return national insurance revenues as a proportion of GDP to the levels they were at before the previous Government’s cuts to employee and self-employed NICs, but they do so in a way that does not result in higher taxes in people’s payslips.

They also do so in a way that increases protection for small businesses and charities, because we have decided to more than double the employment allowance to £10,500 and remove the business size threshold. That means that from April 2025, all eligible organisations will be able to employ up to four people on the national living wage without paying a penny of employer’s national insurance. Over half of all employers will pay the same or less national insurance than they did before, but we acknowledge that the decision will have an impact for other employers. Employers will have a choice about how they respond to the changes, and some of those choices will be hard.

I do not have enough time to respond to all the points raised by hon. Members directly, but I will briefly respond to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—he has been intervening all afternoon but he is no longer in his place. He asked about table 3.2 in the OBR report. I am sorry to disappoint him, but my answer is nowhere near as interesting as I suspect he thought it might be; the table was simply published in error and has now been corrected. The Government provide support for Departments and other public sector employees with the additional employer national insurance contributions liability, and separately we have provided an additional 3.2% increase to local government spending power, including £600 million of new grant funding for social care.

I thank all the other hon. Members who made contributions: my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Josh Simons), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez).

I want to briefly respond to the point of order made earlier by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) because I welcome the chance to repeat the fact that the OBR said in October that its March forecast would have been “materially different” had it known what the previous Government did not share with it at the time of the March forecast. I am confident that the Hansard record is correct. It specifically includes “materially different” in quotations and not the rest of my statement.

I am grateful to have had the chance to respond on behalf of the Government to the questions that have been raised today. The decision to make changes to employer national insurance was not taken lightly. It was a tough decision for us to take. I recognise that while half of businesses and organisations will pay the same or less than before, others will face difficult decisions of their own. We have asked employers to make a greater contribution, and while we do not expect those affected to welcome that, I hope the majority will understand why we have done it.

The simple fact of the matter is that our country needed a Government prepared to fix the public finances, get public services back on their feet and restore economic stability. It is only through an ambitious and fiscally responsible approach that we can boost investment in growth, laying the path towards the brighter days ahead. The previous Government had completely lost sight of that.

My office in the Treasury building used to be that of Nigel Lawson. He once said:

“To govern is to choose. To appear to be unable to choose is to appear to be unable to govern.”

That very neatly reflects where the Conservative party has ended up now. Before, as the Government, the Conservatives had given up on effective governing, and since then they have given up on effective opposition. This vote today comes down to a choice: between irresponsibility on the Opposition Benches and a Government prepared to do what is needed to build a better future. It is this Labour party in government that is taking the tough but necessary decisions, with a once-in-a-generation Budget to wipe the slate clean and put our country on a better path. It is this Government that have restored economic stability, fixed the public finances and hardwired fiscal responsibility into the Budget-making process. It is this Government that are putting the NHS back on its feet, raising the national living wage and protecting people’s payslips, and it is this Government that will invest in our country, create wealth in every nation and region and make people across Britain better off. That is the choice today and that is why we reject the Opposition’s motion.

Question put.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“thanks farmers for their immense contribution to the UK economy and the nation’s food security; welcomes the Government’s commitment of £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years, the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in UK history; acknowledges that the Government is having to make difficult decisions to protect farms and farmers in the context of the £22 billion fiscal blackhole left by the previous Government; recognises that the Government is seeking to target Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief to make them fairer whilst also fixing the public services that everyone relies on; and notes that under the changes announced in the Budget around three quarters of claims for Agricultural Property Relief, including those that also claim Business Property Relief, are expected to not pay more Inheritance Tax.”

I welcome the chance to open the debate on behalf of the Government. The Government’s commitment to farmers is steadfast. As our amendment makes clear, farmers make an immense contribution to the UK economy and to the nation’s food security. We recognise and respect the crucial contribution that farmers make to our country’s way of life.

We must also recognise, however, the state of our public services and the mess in which we found the public finances when we came into power. There was no way we could have left things as they were. Unlike the Conservatives, there was never any question of Labour ignoring the £22 billion black hole that we uncovered in the public finances. We had to bring the previous Administration’s fiscal irresponsibility to an end. We had to ensure that our country lives within its means. We had to get public services back on their feet while meeting our tough new fiscal rules, which end borrowing for day-to-day spending. That is what we, as a responsible Government, had to do.

That is why, at the autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending. These decisions were to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and rebuild our public services. One of the decisions we took was to reform agricultural and business property relief. We chose to do so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for family farms, while fixing the public finances as fairly as possible.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman will want to explain this, Mr Speaker. The Government have argued that only 27% of farms will be affected by this measure, while the National Farmers Union says it is 75%. Will he at least give us an indication from the Dispatch Box, perhaps supported by a note in the Library of the House, showing the modelling that contradicts the NFU’s figures?

[James Murray]

I point the right hon. Gentleman to the letter the Chancellor recently sent to the Treasury Committee, which sets out some of these figures in detail. Some of the confusion that he and other hon. Members have encountered might come from the fact that there are different sets of data. The set of data he may be referring to relates to the total value of farms across the country, but if we are thinking about inheritance tax claims, it is right to look at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs claims data on inheritance tax. Looking simply at the value of a farm does not tell us what the inheritance tax liability for that farm may be, given that we would have to look at the ownership structure—at who owns what—and at any liabilities, and so on. That might be where some of the right hon. Gentleman’s confusion is coming from.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At Treasury questions yesterday, I raised with the hon. Gentleman the case of Upper Peppershill farm in Long Crendon, a small 380-acre arable farm in my constituency, which the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition visited a few weeks ago. The family have calculated that if they borrow the money to pay this new tax, it will take them 40 years to pay it back. What does the Minister say to the Seed family in Long Crendon about the tax bill they face?

[James Murray]

It is not appropriate for me, as a Minister, to give specific tax advice to one family, but I will talk about the general principles behind our reform. In fact, I was about to begin setting out some of the detail of our policy.

[Sir Roger Gale]

On the general principle, is the Minister seriously saying that all the tax advisers advising all the farmers across the country and all the land valuers, who are qualified in a way that he is not, are wrong, and that he is right?

[James Murray]

What I am explaining is that the data for claims through HMRC, which shows the claims made under agricultural property relief and business property relief, is the correct set of data to work out future liabilities on that basis. That is what the projections that we have put out are based on. That is set out in the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee that I mentioned. I urge the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to review that letter to understand the data I am talking about in more detail.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I would like to make a bit of progress to explain some of the detail behind our policy, which may answer some of the questions that hon. Members are jumping to their feet to ask.

We know that inheritance tax is always an emotive issue, and understandably so. It is a natural desire for people to want to pass on their assets to the people they love when they pass away.

The standard single rate of inheritance tax has been 40% since 1988, and assets have generally long been entitled to nil-rate bands, reliefs and exemptions. A form of relief for agricultural property was introduced on estate duty in the Finance Act 1948, meaning that this duty was charged at 55% of the rate that would normally have applied. A new agricultural property relief and a business property relief were created in the mid-1970s with the introduction of the capital transfer tax. The rate of relief increased over time to a maximum of 50% relief; that maximum rate was then increased to 100% in 1992. This means that agricultural landowners and farmers did not receive 100% relief for almost all of the 20th century, and yet farms passed down between the generations.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. That was why the law was changed to introduce 100% relief. Family farms were not being passed down because the value of land was increasing. Will he consider that before bringing in these changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

To address the right hon. Gentleman’s point, we recognise that agricultural and business property relief play an important role in supporting family farms, but the full unlimited exemption from inheritance tax has simply become unsustainable. The four most recent years-worth of data make clear why. The data shows that a very small number of agricultural property relief claimants, including those who claim business property relief too, benefited from a very significant amount of relief. In total, 47% of the Exchequer cost of the relief went to the top 7% of claims. To be clear what that means, I will put it another way. For every 14 or so estates, the top one among them claimed half the total relief.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Let me tell the Minister what concerns me most. There has not been an impact assessment, but if the major driver for the Government, whether we accept it or not, was to raise some money from this source, why were other more effective mechanisms not used, such as business roll-over relief, where a business could be sold in another context and rolled over into buying the land, deferring capital gains tax? If that mechanism had been used, the money would have been taken from much wealthier people who were not actually producing food in the first place. Now, we are capturing a massive proportion of small family farms completely unnecessarily, because due consideration of better alternatives was not done by the Minister.

[James Murray]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect personally, that we carefully considered how to calibrate the policy to ensure that significant relief from inheritance tax is still available to family farms, while at the same time fixing the public finances in as fair a way as possible.

[Simon Hoare]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has just referred to his analysis of four years of data which led him and the Government to this position. That is an incredible thing to ask the House to believe, because just a few months ago his right hon. Friends the now Prime Minister and Secretary of State were specifically ruling out these policies to audiences of farmers and landowners. If the data of four years’ standing told him that this was the right policy, why were those now Ministers economical with the actualité when they spoke to the farmers themselves?

[James Murray]

The data we did not have before the general election was the £22 billion black hole that the hon. Gentleman’s party left in the public finances. He knows that, because it is acknowledged by the Office for Budget Responsibility that the full information was not shared with it. It has said that its forecast would have been “materially different” had it known that that was the case. We have had to take a number of difficult decisions.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

This talk of data reminds me that over 12,000 farmers and agribusinesses have gone out of business since 2010. Will the Minister reassure me about what we are doing to improve profitability in British farming?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the decimation of businesses during the Conservatives’ time in office. Businesses across the economy need stability, public finances on a firm footing and investment in our public services. That is what businesses across the country need to invest for the future and grow.

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a Treasury Minister. May I suggest that some of the disparity between the Treasury figures and those of other reputable bodies representing agricultural interests is because of land values? Average values for ordinary land in the Cotswolds are now £15,000 an acre. Will he accede to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and publish an up-to-date impact assessment on how many farms this tax will affect?

[James Murray]

A lot of data has already been published. I mentioned the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee, and further details on the impact will be published alongside the draft legislation in the normal way. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the letter to the Select Committee. As he and the his right hon. Friend will know, the impacts are typically published at the time of draft legislation. That is the normal process. Indeed, it was the norm under the previous Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I will take one more intervention and then I will make progress.

[Shaun Davies]

Some of the correspondence I have received on this issue talks about the fact that the measures inflate land value. Does my hon. Friend agree with that assessment, and what will the changes do to help farmers across the country in that respect?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that some of the features of the current inheritance tax relief system mean that it is an attractive vehicle for tax planning to reduce inheritance tax liability. People who have wealth who have never been farmers and do not intend to become farmers have been using it as a way to avoid inheritance tax. In fact, reducing that should take some of the pressure out of agricultural land values and, I would hope, help to make a more sustainable farming sector in the future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is important to get the facts right and to get the right number of farms in frame. The Minister must know that the CAAV has said that the Government estimate is down by a factor of five. According to its impartial independent review, 75,000 farms will be in frame for this tax, not the figure the Minister is relying on.

[James Murray]

My response to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as that to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I believe he is looking at the data for the total value of farms, rather than for inheritance tax claims. The two are different things. For instance, a farm worth £5 million owned in equal shares by five individuals would have no inheritance tax liability because of the way claims work. That is where I think some of the confusion has come from. There is different data around the value of farms and around the value of inheritance tax claims. For the purpose of today’s debate, it is the inheritance tax claims that are the right data to focus on.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

On the point about facts, I was fascinated by the end of the shadow Secretary of State’s contribution. She opined on whether Labour was sticking to its promise to end the decline in the countryside. I wonder who was in government for the last 14 years while the countryside was declining. The Conservative Government sold out British farmers through trade deals and 12,000 farming businesses went out of business. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[James Murray]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He points out a repeated pattern of the Opposition: their total refusal to take any responsibility for the damage they caused over the past 14 years. They may wish it never happened; the British people disagree.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

I just set out some statistics that show how this tax relief is very concentrated in a small number of claims. In the context of the dire fiscal situation we inherited and the critical need to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet, it cannot be right to maintain such a significant level of relief for a very small number of claimants. That is why, from 6 April 2026, the full 100% relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property. Above that amount, there will be an unlimited 50% relief, so inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.

The new system, it should be noted, remains more generous than in the past. As I mentioned, the rate of relief prior to 1992 was a maximum of 50% on all agricultural and business assets, including the first £1 million. The reliefs we are providing will be on top of all the other exemptions and nil-rate bands that people can access for inheritance tax. Taken in combination, this means that a couple with farmland will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets to their descendants without paying any inheritance tax.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. The CAAV calls the £3 million figure “unrealistic” and “unreasonable”. Does he not agree?

[James Murray]

The £3 million figure is what a typical couple could expect to pass on to their direct descendants using the various nil-rate bands and inheritance tax reliefs. I would advise any specific family to get advice from an accountant or financial adviser. In terms of the scale of reliefs, when we combine the inheritance tax relief to agricultural and business property relief, along with the nil-rate bands, nil-rate residence bands and the transferability between spouses, that is how we come to the figure of £3 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Lady should ask how many farmers the Minister has met, rather than how many I have met.

[James Murray]

I have met members of the National Farmers Union, representing the farming industry, a number of times since the Budget for detailed discussions. That has helped us to understand the impact that this policy will have and to ask for their support in communicating how it will work.

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

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress. I am going to continue to explain how some of the other exemptions within the inheritance tax system will benefit people affected by this policy.

[Louise Jones]

Can the Minister confirm that in the case of farms worth several million pounds, any mortgageable value is not included for the purpose of inheritance tax? Might that explain the discrepancies in some of the figures that are being bandied around, in which I believe mortgages have not been taken into account?

[James Murray]

That is an important point. Looking at the pure asset value of farms does not tell us what their inheritance tax liability might be. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, any liabilities must be netted off against the value of any estate, and the ownership structure—the various nil rate bands, previous spousal transfers, giftings and so on—need to be considered.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

No. I am going to make some progress.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) has pointed out, a range of exemptions need to be taken into account. Full exemptions for transfers between spouses and civil partners will continue to apply. Any transfers to individuals more than seven years before death, as gifts, will continue to fall fully outside the scope of inheritance tax, and taper relief will apply in certain circumstances within that time. Furthermore, any tax that is due in relation to these assets can be paid in instalments over 10 years, interest free. Those payment terms are more generous than in any other part of the tax system.

As I have mentioned several times during the debate, these decisions have been based on understandings that draw on data from both DEFRA and HMRC. I note that there has been some confusion on the Opposition Benches, whether wilful or not, about what the data shows.

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

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, but analysis will show that over a 10-year period, 99% of the profit from the average 350-acre arable farm owned by a couple will go back towards paying inheritance tax. That does not leave enough money for them either to invest or to live. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman thinks they can deal with that.

[James Murray]

I have confidence in the way in which we have calibrated the policy. As I said to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), it has balanced the need to retain significant, generous provision of inheritance tax relief for family farms with ensuring that, at the same time, we fix the public finances in the fairest way possible.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. In view of the point that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), will he not consider, at the very least, looking at some dispensation for farmers above a certain age, given the lack of time that they will have to plan for this intervention? The truth is that someone who is near retirement age will be faced with the prospect of 10 years of all their projected profits being eaten up by this tax, which will mean that the farm cannot go to the next generation. The hon. Gentleman must surely look at some mitigations to deal with that reality for so many farmers who are concentrated in that older age group.

[James Murray]

We know that individual circumstances will vary. Any individual who is concerned about their specific tax liability should obviously consult an accountant or financial adviser. We would not know, from a thumbnail sketch, whether that person had any inherited nil rate bands, what their liabilities were, what decisions they had made about gifting, and so on. A huge number of factors will play into this, and it is right for individuals to seek specific advice. Things that are said in this Chamber may be creating undue anxiety, when people should be looking into the detail.

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

The Minister seems to be trying to suggest that not much farmland will have to be sold off as a result of this policy. However, on 4 November, following an urgent question, when I asked his colleague the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), how food security would be preserved if farms had to be broken up and sold off possibly for development, he replied:

“Of course there are trade-offs. There are a range of pressures on our land, in respect of housing, food, energy and so many other things.

That seems to constitute an acceptance that we will lose farming land, and people will be building on it instead.

[James Murray]

That is not how I interpret the comment, but I make no apology for the fact that we want to support farmers, as well as making our energy transition and building homes for people across the country. We need to ensure that we are achieving all the goals that the people of this country elected us to achieve.

I want to say more about data, because several Members have raised the subject. As I have explained a few times now, the DEFRA data shows the asset value of farms in England, but it is not possible to accurately infer a future inheritance tax liability from data on farm asset values. Any inheritance tax liabilities that farming assets may face will be affected by who the owners are, the nature of the ownership, how many owners there are, any borrowing that they have, and how they plan their affairs.

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

The Minister talks about data. Given the massive discrepancy involved, and the impact of this policy, if the data shows in 12 months and 24 months that the Government have got this catastrophically wrong, will they revisit the policy and do a U-turn?

[James Murray]

When we approach policies in government we test them thoroughly and consider the details and the data, and we ensure that any conclusions we draw are based on the correct set of data, which is part of the conversation that we are having today. I do not know whether it is due to mischief or misunderstanding, but there is a certain focus on the total value of farms rather than on inheritance tax liabilities. The data on inheritance tax liabilities is the correct data to look at when evaluating the impact that the policy may have.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

As I said earlier, a farm worth £5 million but owned by five relatives in equal shares could have no inheritance tax liability.

[Stuart Anderson]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will give way to the Liz Truss cheerleader on the Back Benches.

[Stuart Anderson]

The CLA has pointed out that 46% of farms are owned by individuals. The data produced in the letter does not take that into account; it concentrates on couples who will receive the relief.

[James Murray]

I note that the hon. Gentleman’s grasp of economics is about as good as Liz Truss’s was. As I have said, the importance of the claims data is that it tells us what the inheritance tax liability will be. I understand that Members are referring to many other sources and sets of data, but when we are looking at the impact of a change in inheritance tax relief, it is claims data that tells us what that is likely to be.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress. I have given way many times already.

Looking at the HMRC data, which relates to estates making claims for agricultural and business property relief, is the correct way to understand inheritance tax liabilities. That data shows that our reforms are expected to result in up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, paying some more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Let me put that in context. It means that nearly three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of these measures.

As this change is introduced, we expect people to respond in a number of ways to reduce their inheritance tax liabilities, and the costings by the Office for Budget Responsibility assume that that will be the case. People may change ownership structures, plan for their succession differently, and make greater use of gifting provisions and insurance.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. He has mentioned claims for agricultural property relief and business property relief, but what about claims for business property relief alone? Have they been included in his figures?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As we know, any farmer who is renting out land or farming it themselves will typically have an estate that includes an element that is eligible for agricultural property relief. The figures I set out include those who claim for business property relief as well, and those figures are set out in the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

Despite attempts by the Opposition to hijack this debate, I can honestly say—[Interruption.] If they want to champion our agricultural communities, they might have started around 14 years ago. The conversations that I have had with farmers in my constituency have been balanced and productive in their scope, with an understanding of why the provisions have been brought in. Given that two thirds of the land bought in England in 2023 was bought by non-farmers, does the Minister agree that it is right that this Government are taking the opportunity to close what is essentially a tax loophole for non-farmers?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for her intervention. It is telling that when she makes such an important and sensible point, the Opposition do not want to hear it and try to shout her down. As she rightly points out, our changes to the reliefs will make buying land less attractive as a means of inheritance tax planning. This means that land prices are likely to become more affordable for farmers, thanks to a reduction in tax-motivated investment in agricultural land.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I have given way already, so I am going to make some progress.

The reforms should be seen in the context of the significant existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system, including the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use rebated diesel and biofuels, and the exemption from the plastic packaging tax for the plastic film used to produce silage bales. On top of that, farmers are able to add together their profits from farming over two to five years and be taxable on the average of those profits, building flexibility into their tax arrangements for difficult years and unexpected challenges.

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

Does the Minister agree that in the Government’s haste to target tax avoiders such as Jeremy Clarkson and others, as has been mentioned, they have actually caught a lot of small and medium-sized farmers in their sights, in a completely irresponsible way?

[James Murray]

Although our policy should discourage the kind of tax planning to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers, the policy is broader than that. It is necessary to balance significant relief from inheritance tax on family farms with the need to fix the public finances, and that is the balanced decision that we have taken with this policy.

Of course, the decision on this tax policy sits alongside the Government’s wider decisions at Budget 2024. There is £5 billion over two years for farming and land management in England, which will help restore stability and confidence in the sector. That includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. Despite the difficult fiscal inheritance, £60 million of funding has also been prioritised for the farm recovery fund, to support farmers impacted by severe wet weather over the last year.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The Minister rightly mentions the need for more sustainable land management, but is it not the case that the changes to APR will actually undermine the sustainable land management initiatives that farmers in Mid Sussex are trying to deliver every day?

[James Murray]

No, that is not the case. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who will be responding at the end of this debate, can set out more about what the Government are doing to support farmers in their work on land management across the country.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I backed British farming ahead of the general election, and I back the farmers in my constituency. I am proud to sit on these Benches with a Labour Government who are backing British farmers with an investment of £5 billion in the recent Budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that we make sure that the money gets into the pockets of our farmers? My farmers complain about the delays that they experienced when the Conservative party was in power.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the mismanagement under the previous Government and to how important it is that, through the commitments we made in the Budget on the farming budget over the next two years, we support farmers across the country as evidence of our steadfast support.

I recognise that the reforms we are making to agricultural and business property relief will have an impact on some individuals. I recognise that some of the larger estates, particularly those worth over £3 million, may be affected by the changes, but the reforms to the reliefs will maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax, at a total Exchequer cost of over £1 billion in the year that the reforms take effect, before rising further. They offer support for family farms and businesses across the country. We could not justify leaving the situation unchanged, with a full, unlimited tax relief benefiting a very small number of estates by a very significant amount.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps unsurprisingly, given the name of their political party, Conservative Members seek to preserve the status quo, which includes the top 7% of claimants—the wealthiest—accounting for 40% of the overall APR budget? Does he agree that the Conservatives need to set out how they would make the situation fairer and provide a better deal for our agricultural sector?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the Conservative party has no ideas about how the country needs to change, no ideas about how to get the public finances back in order, and no ideas about how to get public services back on their feet or how to deliver economic stability.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

Farmers in my constituency tell me how much they are struggling to see a GP and to get public transport—the buses just are not there. The rural economy has been ruined by 14 years of Conservative Government. Can the Minister reassure us that the necessary actions that we are taking in the Budget will get our public services working again for our farming and rural communities?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should relate to the debate in hand.

[James Murray]

I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I feel that my hon. Friend’s intervention relates to the debate in hand, as we have had to take a tough decision on taxation policy in order to fund our public services. Those public services are, of course, enjoyed by people across the country, including farmers and those in rural communities.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

As I was saying, we could not justify leaving the situation unchanged, with a full, unlimited tax relief benefiting a very small number of estates by a very significant amount, given that there is such an urgent need to repair the public finances and to improve the hospitals, schools and roads on which people across the country depend, including those in rural communities.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

There is a lot of talk from the Opposition, who are getting very excited by this debate, about farms, but we have to remember that farms rely on farm workers. In the name of accuracy, could my hon. Friend put on the record a reminder of which Opposition parties, including the Lib Dems, voted for the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board under the last Government? That actually drove down rural wages, and we should be talking about farm workers. Is it not true to say that when the Opposition refer to exemptions, the only thing they want to talk about is exemption from their own record being under scrutiny?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the record of the Opposition parties. In our Budget, we made sure to protect the payslips of working people by not increasing income tax, employee national insurance or VAT.

Our approach to reform strikes the right balance between providing significant tax relief for family farms and fixing the public finances in a fair way. As such, I commend the Government’s amendment to the motion before us today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In her Budget statement on 30 October, the Chancellor set out the difficult decisions that we as a Government have been prepared to make on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions were not just difficult but necessary, given the fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement that had become hallmarks of the previous Government. We inherited a mess, so those decisions were needed to fix the public finances, fund the NHS and other public services and deliver economic stability. We have been determined to take those decisions while protecting working people. That is why our Budget made no changes to income tax, the rate of VAT, or the amount of national insurance that working people pay. As a result of our Budget, people will not see a penny more tax on their payslips.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, with the best brains in the Treasury on hand, he does not understand that it is a moot point whether someone has a higher national insurance contribution in their payslip, or whether their wages are suppressed and the job that they were going for is not there anymore, because the employer cannot afford to increase their payroll due to this national insurance increase?

[James Murray]

We recognise that we are asking businesses to contribute more, and that this will have impacts, but it will be up to individual businesses to decide how to respond to these changes. The one thing that we know for certain is that if we had chosen a different path—if we had followed the previous Government and increased income tax or national insurance—that would have led to a tax on people’s payslips. It would have led to the amount of money in people’s pockets going down, which would have broken our manifesto promise.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I apologise for intervening so early in the debate, but a number of my small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations have raised concerns and asked for clarity. Can the Minister outline what safety nets and other measures for support are available to small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will get to the detail of the Bill in a moment, but I can briefly reassure him that the Bill doubles the employment allowance, which will go from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that small businesses and charities are protected; they can employ up to four people on the national living wage without paying a penny in national insurance. In the context of the tough decisions that we had to take in this Bill, that is important protection for small businesses and charities.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in the UK, the definition of a small business is one that employs fewer than 50 employees and has an annual turnover of less than £10 million? Thanks to his changes and political choices, thousands of small businesses across the country will face the decision of whether to keep staff on or lay them off.

[James Murray]

We know that the tough decision that we have had to take will have impacts—we have been up front with people about that—but we also know that over half of all employers will pay no more or less national insurance than they did before. We acknowledge that this decision will have an impact, but we believe that it is the right decision. I will explain why that is.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear that the Government are working hard to get this right, but may I press the Minister on the point about the employment allowance? What he says about doubling the threshold is welcome, particularly when it comes to childcare provision, and we all want an expansion of childcare places. He will be aware that the employment allowance doubling that he is talking about will apply to state-provided childcare places, but not to private and co-operative nurseries. Some 85% of places are in private and co-operative nurseries, so will he look at extending the employment allowance that he is giving to state nurseries to private and co-operative nurseries, so we can support the expansion of childcare?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but eligibility for the employment allowance is not changing. It is the same as it was before, and we are maintaining that provision. On protecting small businesses and charities, the crucial thing for us is the doubling of the employment allowance. In individual cases, I would recommend that organisations get the right advice, but the eligibility criteria for the employment allowance will not change as a result of the Bill.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will, one more time, and then I will make progress.

[Sammy Wilson]

Is not the fact of the matter, despite what the Chancellor has said, that businesses have been abandoned? There is no safety net for them. To use the words of the Chancellor,

“What we have done with the increase in employer national insurance is leave it to the business to work out”.

Businesses are bearing the brunt of this, and it is really too bad. As far as the Chancellor is concerned, they will have to grin and bear it.

[James Murray]

I am sorry, but there are tough decisions that we have to take, and there are difficult decisions that businesses will have to take. The only people to have abandoned businesses were the Conservatives when they were in government. They abandoned any pretence of economic stability, fiscal responsibility, and supporting businesses to invest and grow. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I will make some progress, and take more interventions shortly. For me, keeping the promises on income tax, employee national insurance and VAT is crucial, but making those decisions and needing to get our country back on track has meant that other tough decisions in the tax system have been necessary. That is why, at the Budget, we took the decision to increase national insurance contributions from employers, while, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), increasing protections for small businesses and charities. It is those measures that the Bill seeks to introduce.

I will set out the detail of how the Bill seeks to achieve that. First, it increases the main rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%. It decreases the secondary threshold for employers—the threshold above which employers begin to pay employer national insurance contributions on their employees’ salary—from £9,100 to £5,000. At the same time, as I have mentioned to hon. Members, the Bill increases the protection for small businesses by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That increase in the employment allowance, alongside the removal of the £100,000 eligibility threshold, means that all eligible businesses will be able to employ four full-time workers on the national living wage without paying any national insurance contributions.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware of the complete disaster this will cause for Scottish hospitality businesses? We do not have business rates relief, as businesses do in England Wales. We have a very large number of young people in the hospitality sector. For example, for someone working part-time for 25 hours a week on the minimum wage, their salary is £15,912, and the national insurance has just gone up by 74%. This is wiping out the hospitality industry in Scotland.

[James Murray]

I recognise that the decision we are taking will have impacts, and in some cases it will mean that employers have to take difficult decisions. We are, however, reforming business rates to help retail, hospitality and leisure on the high street, so I would suggest that the hon. Member speaks to the Scottish Government about their doing something to support businesses in the same way; I cannot speak on their behalf.

Taken together, the measures, should the Bill pass, will mean that 865,000 employers pay no national insurance at all next year, with over 1 million—more than a half of all employers—paying the same or less than they did previously. I have been clear, however, that I recognise that there will be impacts on some employers as a result of the changes. While many small businesses and charities will be protected through the employment allowance increase, others will have to contribute more.

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

The Minister talks about protecting businesses or charities, but hospices, for example, employ many more than four people. I cannot think of one hospice that does not employ more than four people. How will they be protected?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That will depend on the exact set-up of the hospice, but typically hospices are independent charities, so they will be able to use the employment allowance against their national insurance contributions liability. They will also be able to access the other tax reliefs in the system that benefit charities, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief, which we have maintained in the Budget. We have taken the decision to maintain—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[James Murray]

Members will have to wait a second so that I can answer this question.

We will maintain the charitable reliefs in the system, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief. However, it is important to recognise that the decisions we have taken overall mean that over half of all employers will not pay any more or will pay the same national insurance as they did before. Their national insurance bill will be the same or less than it would have been otherwise.

[Clive Lewis]

Many of us in this House appreciate the work that my hon. Friend’s team are doing to unpick the mess we inherited, but one thing that has been pointed out is the need for better targeting. I have been talking to social enterprises and small businesses in my constituency. Social enterprises often do things that charities may do, but are considered as small businesses, although they do not get the same tax reliefs as charities. They also provide critical services in my constituency and in constituencies around the country. Is there not a better way to target micro-businesses and social enterprises to enable them to better manage what is quite a tough Budget for some of them?

[James Murray]

We recognise that tough decisions had to be taken throughout this Budget, but that is exactly why we have balanced the difficult decisions on the rate of national insurance and the decrease in the secondary threshold with the increase of the employment allowance, which helps small businesses and charities. There is no way that we can get through the measures announced in the Budget, and say that there will not be any difficult decisions for organisations or businesses to have to take. We are being up front about this. It is a tough decision for the Government to have to take, and it will mean that businesses must take difficult decisions as well. However, it is essential that we do this to fix the public finances, get our public services back on their feet and restore the economic stability that was squandered by the Conservative party.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

How does it help morale and positivity among small businesses, which will be vital to economic growth, if some of them are going to see their salary bills double? An employer in my constituency—not quite a small business, but a medium-sized business—is facing crippling increases in the salary bill. How will it help growth if those companies go to the wall and we lose jobs?

[James Murray]

The hon. Member focuses on the national insurance contributions changes, which is rightly the focus of this Bill, but I urge her to look at that in the context of everything else the Government are doing, not least the employment allowance doubling that I have mentioned. There is also our decision to freeze the small business rates multiplier as it applies in England, our decision to introduce permanently lower retail hospitality and leisure rates for businesses on the high street in 2026-27, and the decision in our corporation tax road map to maintain the small profits rate and other allowances from which small businesses can benefit. I urge her to understand that what we are doing on national insurance is taking a tough decision to fix the public finances, while at the same time providing the stability that businesses need to invest and grow, and that is the way to move our country forward.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that many people who want to work have struggled to do so because of poor health? They are unable to get access to a doctor, a hospital appointment or a dentist appointment—to a whole range of appointments—and as a consequence they have been forced out of work when they want to be in work, earn a living and get dignity from work. With the changes that the Government are bringing forward, we will see investment in our NHS and our public services that will help people to get the appointments they need to return to work. Does he agree that this investment is much needed and a good thing for our economy?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right. He points out why we are taking these difficult decisions, and why it is so important to fund public services and fix the public finances. Healthy businesses need a healthy NHS, healthy businesses need a healthy workforce and healthy businesses need public services to be functioning so that they can maintain their investment and grow the economy. I am sure that my hon. Friend, and other Members, will have seen the Government’s “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which sets out the barriers that ill health puts in the way of people being economically active. We are determined to challenge that and to help people who are able to get back into, and stay in, work. That will be a mission of this Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I will make a bit of progress; I have been generous in giving way.

The choice that we have taken is difficult; it is not one that we have taken lightly. As I have fully acknowledged in the Chamber, the impacts of this measure will be felt beyond businesses, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has acknowledged. Let me put the decision in context and say what we could have done instead. We could have reversed the previous Government’s cuts to employee national insurance. Those cuts were simply not honest because they were based on a forecast that the OBR said would have been “materially different” if the true extent of the last Government’s cover-up had been known. We made a commitment to not increase the taxes that working people pay, and we have delivered on that promise and made a different choice.

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

rose—

[James Murray]

I will give way; I am being too generous I think.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The manifesto said that Labour would not increase rates of national insurance contributions. The Minister is perfectly entitled to use the argument, “We never realised that it was this bad, so we have had to change what we said we would do”, but to pretend that Labour has not resiled on its manifesto promise is pure sophistry.

[James Murray]

In fact, it is both things: it is true that we have kept to our manifesto pledge of protecting working people by not increasing income tax, the national insurance that working people pay or VAT; at the same time, the situation is far worse than we thought it would be when we won the general election, with the £22 billion black hole and the fact that the OBR said that its forecast would have been “materially different” in March, had it known the true extent of the previous Government’s cover-up. Those are facts that the OBR put out there and from which we cannot hide.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I believe the Minister is misleading the House—[Interruption.] Inadvertently. The OBR did not say the words “cover-up” so will he correct the record?

[James Murray]

I said that the OBR said that its forecast would have been “materially different” had it known what the previous Government did not share with it at the time of its March forecast. I have been absolutely clear, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the OBR forecast as it might be illuminating—

[Stuart Anderson]

rose—

[James Murray]

No, I will not give way again. It might be illuminating for him to read the OBR forecast and understand what it says about the previous Government’s relationship with it, how much information was not shared, and how that impacted on its forecast going into the election.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I will make some progress as I want to explain why we are taking this tough decision, and why it is so important that we take this decision now, as set out by the Chancellor in the Budget. Revenue raised by measures in the Bill will play a critical role in enabling the Government to fix the public finances, restore economic stability in a fiscally responsible way, and get the NHS back on its feet.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

We know how crucial economic stability is for businesses taking investment decisions, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), we know how crucial it is for businesses to have a healthy NHS. As a result of measures in the Bill, as well as wider measures announced in the Budget, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion increase in resource spending to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. That is urgently needed to get the NHS back on its feet. The increase in funding will be done within our tough fiscal rules—new rules that will bring an end to borrowing for day-to-day spending, something that the previous Government never achieved or even aimed for.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the NHS, and I believe the NHS and hospital trusts will receive an exemption to the increase in national insurance contributions. Given his clear passion for the NHS, will he look again at the impact that his rise in national insurance contributions will have on air ambulances? Under the current proposals air ambulances, like hospices, will face a huge increase in their costs.

[James Murray]

The way that we are approaching the reimbursement of employer national insurance costs for Departments and public sector employees is similar to what the previous Government did with the health and social care levy. It means that money goes to Departments, local governments, and public sector employees directly to help compensate for the increase in employer national insurance. For other people who are paying employer national insurance, if they have a contract with the public sector they are treated as contractors or private organisations. If they have concerns about their cost base they should talk to their sponsoring Department, the NHS, or whoever they have a contract with, so that those considerations can be taken into account in the round. It was the same for adult social care, and it is the same for other organisations that are funded through the public sector.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Let me pick up on the point about local authorities and public services. I pressed the Minister on that this morning during Treasury questions, and I fear he did not give me a clear answer. Richmond council, my local authority, delivers children’s services through an arm’s length body called Achieving for Children. As a result of these measures, with all the employees who deliver services for vulnerable children in Richmond upon Thames, it faces a bill of £588,000 in employer’s national insurance. Will the Minister assure local authorities up and down the country that operate similar models for delivering services that these arm’s length bodies will be exempt from the national insurance rise? Otherwise he will be damaging the very public services that he claims to be investing in today.

[James Murray]

We are protecting public services by providing relief directly to Departments and other public sector employers. Third parties, private organisations, or those who have a contract with the public sector are dealt with differently and they should approach their local council, or whoever is sponsoring them, to talk about their funding arrangements. I might draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that local government financing is increasing by 3.2% next year as a result of decisions that this Government have taken. I expect she would probably support that increase in funding, but sadly she does not have the guts to support what we need to do to raise the money in the first place.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

On the £22.6 billion for the NHS, or the figure just mentioned for local government, have the Minister or his officials calculated what the numbers would be, net of the national insurance cost? Those bodies— the national health service and local government—carry on with exactly the same services as before, but now face extra bills for national insurance contributions. Have they done the maths?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

In the statistics put out by the Government at the time of the Budget, a specific amount is earmarked directly for Departments and public sector employers. That amount is effectively netted off against the amount that will be available for net spending in public services. For other organisations, such as third parties that contract with the NHS, there should be a conversation between the person under the contract and the contracting organisation to consider pressures in the round. As I said, this is in the context of, for example, the local government budget going up by 3.2% next year, and a huge amount of extra investment in the NHS, with £600 million going to local authorities in England to help deal with social care pressures. That is the context of the decisions that we had to take and pressures in the round.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. What about GP surgeries?

[James Murray]

GP funding for 2025-26 will be confirmed by the Department for Health and Social Care in the usual way as part of the GP contracting process, and it will consider all the pressures on GPs in the round.

I will make some progress, because the points we have made are clear. It is important for me to look also at what the Opposition might do, given the important vote today on these tax changes, which are necessary to raise funding for the NHS and other public services. I would like to think that the Opposition might join us today, back our plans to provide extra funding for the NHS and support this Bill to help pay for it. It seems though, from an article in The Sunday Times in the name of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), that that may not be the case. In that piece, he wrote that the Conservatives apparently

“want to provide further funding for the NHS.”

Sadly, they refuse to take the tough decisions to pay for it.

I note that in that article, the shadow Chancellor rehashed the discredited pledge from the recent Conservative manifesto to make £12 billion of welfare savings, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies politely described at the time as being “difficult in the extreme.” Perhaps he missed the admission from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), during the election campaign that those welfare cuts were in fact not new, and the money had already been spent. Either way, it is hard to fathom why the new shadow Chancellor would rest his first intervention on a pledge from a manifesto that led to his party losing nearly 250 seats. It only serves to underscore the fact that the Conservatives are getting further and further away from being a credible Opposition by the day.

We recognise that the decision to increase employer’s national insurance will have impacts. Although measures in this Bill will help to protect small businesses and charities, other measures mean that larger businesses and organisations will have difficult decisions to take. Let me be clear, however: the Budget was a one-off and a once-in-a-generation event. The difficult decisions we took meant that we were able to wipe the slate clean of the previous Government’s fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement. Public services now need to live within their means and the means we have set them for the rest of this Parliament. The Budget delivered stability and fiscal responsibility, meaning that our focus can now be resolutely on boosting investment and growing the economy. That fiscal responsibility is possible only when we take tough decisions. This Bill makes it clear that this Government will not shy away from tough decisions and that we will do what is right in the circumstances we face. I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions on public sector organisations.

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

As we set out in the autumn statement, the Government have set aside funding to support the public sector with the additional cost of employer national insurance contributions. The amounts are £4.7 billion in 2025-26, £4.7 billion in 2026-27, £4.8 billion in 2027-28, £4.9 billion in 2028-29 and £5.1 billion in 2029-30. The Government plan to update Parliament on allocations by Department as soon as possible.

[Chris Law]

Labour’s national insurance increase will cost Dundee city council a minimum of £7.3 million, while across Scotland an additional £500 million will be incurred, rising to £750 million when indirect employers such as GP practices are included. Labour promised to reset the relationship with the devolved Administrations, so, ahead of Scotland’s Budget this week, will the Minister confirm that the full cost of the national insurance contributions increase to the delivery of public services in Scotland will be reimbursed?

[James Murray]

The funding for the impact on public sector organisations includes funding for the devolved Governments, which is allocated through the Barnett formula in the usual way. It is the responsibility of the devolved Governments to manage devolved workforces. Might I say that if the bill is somewhat higher in Scotland, that may be due to the Scottish Government’s decisions about the size of the public sector?

[Rebecca Smith]

A major housing association serving not only Plympton, Plymstock and Ivybridge in my constituency but the rest of Plymouth and other parts of Devon and Cornwall will have to shoulder three quarters of a million pounds in increased national insurance contributions. That is money that could have been spent on new homes for some of the most vulnerable in my constituency. How will the Minister reassure my constituents patiently waiting for much-needed social housing when they realise that they will have to wait longer because of the Chancellor’s decisions?

[James Murray]

We recognise that the decision on national insurance contributions is a tough one, but we also recognise that it was necessary for the Chancellor to set out a Budget that included a record set of promises on home building. We are set to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, investing in social and affordable housing. That is what will benefit the hon. Member’s constituents who need a decent home.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The shadow Chancellor was touring the TV studios this morning to say that the Conservative party did nothing wrong in government. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the reason for the changes to national insurance is precisely to plug the £22 billion gap that the Conservatives caused and to ensure that our constituents can get a hospital or GP appointment?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that fits with the question, somehow.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem with Conservative Members is that they are all happy to say that they want more funding for the NHS; they are just not prepared to pay for it. What they need to realise is that, in government, we have to take tough decisions to ensure that we can fund public services and fix the public finances.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

What reassurance can the Minister give to hospices such as Julia’s House, which serves my constituents, which are concerned by the planned increase in national insurance contributions and the impact that will have on the services they provide?

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend will know, many hospices are independent charities and therefore will be able to access the employment allowance, which we have doubled to £10,500 a year, as well as the other wider tax reliefs in the tax system for charities, such as business rates relief and gift aid. Of course, hospices often have statutory obligations with the NHS as well, so I suggest that hospices discuss their contracts with their integrated care boards.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Later today, the House will vote on the Government’s £25 billion national insurance tax hike. To avoid any uncertainty when we vote, will the Minister confirm exactly which public sector organisations will be compensated?

[James Murray]

If the shadow Minister would like to know which public sector organisations will be compensated, he could look at what his Government did with the health and social care levy, because the definition of public sector organisations—it is a regularly cited definition—is set out through the Office for National Statistics. We will reimburse Departments and other public sector organisations.

[Gareth Davies]

There was so little information in that response—the civil service will be very proud of the Minister. He will not say who will be spared by the Chancellor’s tax raid, but we know that working people will be made to pay—the Office for Budget Responsibility has said so; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said so; even the Resolution Foundation has said so; and working people know so. Why is it that Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it entered office?

[James Murray]

I do not think the shadow Minister listened to my response to the previous question, in which I set out very clearly the definition of the public sector for the purposes of national insurance contributions. Look at what the OBR has said: yes, it recognises that we are asking businesses to contribute more and that this will have an impact, but it also says that the employment level will rise from 33.1 million to 34.3 million by 2029, meaning an increase in the employment level over this Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Citizens Advice in St Albans supports some of the most vulnerable people to access public services. It says that the changes to national insurance contributions will

“hit hard because we employ mostly part-time staff and the change to the threshold means we go from paying nothing to the full amount for each staff member. The increased rebate is intended to offset the NIC for small organisations but does not for us because so many of our staff are part-time.”

Will the Chancellor look again at the impact of the national insurance contribution changes on part-time workers?

[James Murray]

We recognise that we have taken a tough decision to increase the rate and broaden the base through changes to the secondary threshold. I welcome the work done by the organisation mentioned by the hon. Lady in her constituency, but perhaps the need for advice would be less if public services were stronger. One of the reasons we are taking these difficult decisions on taxation, welfare and spending is precisely to ensure that these public services can provide the service that people need.

[Daisy Cooper]

We all want to see stronger public services. According to Hightown Housing Association, the estimated extra total cost of the national insurance contribution changes will be £860,000 per year—money that would allow the association to pay the interest on a loan of around £17 million, which would pay for around 60 social homes. Will the Chancellor say whether she will conduct an impact assessment of these national insurance contribution changes on the number of social homes?

[James Murray]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson began her question by saying that we all want public services; the problem is that not all of us in this Chamber are prepared to pay for them. That is exactly why we have to take difficult decisions to ensure that we can fund our ambitious plans for the NHS, education and indeed housing. The impact of the impact assessment is published in the tax information and impact note, which is published alongside the legislation, which I am sure the hon. Lady will have seen. It comes down to the basic point that we have to make tough decisions on taxation if we want to fund those public services.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

2. What fiscal steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to increase the supply of affordable housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to increase the level of tax paid by online multinational corporations.

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

Ensuring that online multinationals pay their fair share of tax is crucial, so the Government are finalising the implementation of internationally agreed rules for a minimum 15% effective rate globally. As set out in the corporate tax road map, we are seeking an international solution for a fair tax allocation of multinational profits. Meanwhile, the digital services tax ensures that search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces pay UK tax reflecting a UK-derived value.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Amazon currently makes hundreds of millions of pounds in profits in the UK each year, and often gets away with paying little to no corporation tax. Meanwhile, high street businesses in Weymouth, Portland and Swanage in my constituency pay their fair share. To level the playing field, will the Chancellor consider further measures to ensure that online giants always pay their fair share of tax? I fear that, without action, our high streets will always be at an unfair disadvantage.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and supporting the high street is at the heart of our ambitions when it comes to business rates reform. On Second Reading of the Finance Bill last week, in which I spoke, we set out our plans to issue permanently lower tax rates for high street retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That will be paid for through an increase in the tax rate on properties with a rateable value above £500,000, a category that includes the warehouses used by many of the online giants to whom my hon. Friend has referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

20. What fiscal steps she is taking to increase economic growth in rural areas.

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

A prosperous rural economy will be underpinned by improvements in rural connectivity and productivity, the availability of affordable energy, access to public services and a thriving farming sector. To that end, the Government are investing £5 billion in broadband connectivity, which will support growth in rural areas across the UK. In addition, we are spending £5 billion for the farming budget in England over the next two years, including the largest amount to be directed at sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our country’s history.

[Jamie Stone]

For generations the grim spectre of highland depopulation haunted the area I come from. I can remember my own father saying, before North sea oil came along, that I would have to go south; to go away. Today we have the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green freeport, and we have the prospect of a space launch in Sutherland. May I ask the Government to consider fiscal means whereby these projects can be assisted? I warmly invite a Treasury Minister to come north to my constituency to see what we are doing and what we have on offer.

[James Murray]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will set out any fiscal measures in due course. I am not sure whether I will get away with committing him to a visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am sure that many of us would like to visit it. In fact, I shall be in Scotland in the next few days, but as it is for a Labour party fundraiser, the hon. Gentleman may not want to join me.

[Helen Morgan]

Rural North Shropshire is home to some great independent businesses that we are looking forward to celebrating on Small Business Saturday this week, but they are held back by the business rates system, which benefits big online retailers and holds back investment not only on the high street but in the countryside. Will the Minister consider a much more radical reform of business rates which takes account of land values, encourages businesses to invest and puts high street retailers on a level playing field with online giants?

[James Murray]

Until the hon. Lady’s last sentence, I thought she was declaring support for our business rates plans, because we are setting out to level the playing field for high street businesses and the online giants. We are doing that by way of a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street, which is paid for by the higher multiplier for those with a rateable value of £500,000 or more—a category that includes the warehouses used by online companies. I look forward to the hon. Lady perhaps contributing towards our “Transforming Business Rates” paper, which sets out our wider ambitions for reform.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The last Government failed to stand up for British farmers in trade agreements and left them vulnerable to flooding, rollercoaster energy costs and poor infrastructure. Can the Minister confirm that this Government will protect British farmers where the last Government failed?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failures of the previous Government, and to point out that this Government remain steadfast in our commitment to farmers across the country. That is exactly why we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years, including the largest ever budget for sustainable food production in our history.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

9. What steps she plans to take to help improve living standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

24. What steps she is taking to introduce permanent reductions to business rates for high street retailers.

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

To deliver our manifesto pledge, we intend to introduce permanently lower tax rates for high street retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. This tax cut must be sustainably funded, so we intend to introduce a higher rate on the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 or above—from 2026-27. The Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, introduced last month, will enable the Government to deliver these changes, and it will come into effect in April 2026.

[Jonathan Hinder]

High streets in my Pendle and Clitheroe constituency were hollowed out under the last Conservative Government, with many shops left empty. Small, independent businesses are the backbone of our local economy, employing local people, keeping our towns vibrant and giving them their character and charm. Can the Minister assure me that multinational giants will pay their fair share under Labour, levelling the playing field and enabling our high streets to thrive?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of small, independent businesses in his constituency, and I am sure his sentiment is shared by Members across the House. Through our reforms, we are setting out to make sure that those properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more pay so we can have a permanent tax cut for high street business. This category includes the large distribution warehouses used by online businesses, which will make sure that those online businesses make a fair contribution to ensuring that our high streets are the success we all want to see.

[Connor Naismith]

Ahead of Small Business Saturday, I congratulate St Martha Greek taverna in Nantwich on being the first winner of my Crewe and Nantwich small business of the month competition. Small businesses on our high streets, such as St Martha, regularly highlight business rates as a significant challenge, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that they can continue to thrive?

[James Murray]

May I extend my congratulations to St Martha Greek taverna in Nantwich? Given the time, I am feeling a bit hungry now that we are talking about food. I reassure my hon. Friend that our plans to reform the business rates system would see a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. While I do not know exactly the details or the rateable value of the property in question, I am sure properties like that would be eligible for the cut. It is crucial that we support those much-loved local businesses. I am glad he is doing all he can to champion them, and I look forward to my invite.

[Jade Botterill]

Many people in my community rely on in-person banking and access to cash. I was pleased to recently open the banking hub in Ossett town centre. Ossett was previously one of the 55 bankless towns in the UK. How are the Government looking to further support those who rely on those services, particularly in towns and rural villages?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance to communities of having access to cash and banking services, which is why we have committed to rolling out more banking hubs across the country—100 by the end of this year and a total of 350 through our commitment. We want to work with local communities across the country to deliver that, so that all areas, like Ossett, can benefit from a local banking hub.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The heavy burden of business rates and the national insurance contributions that the Government are going to impose on small businesses is taxing businesses to death. Does the Minister recognise that in doing so, he is going to cause unemployment, higher inflation and lower growth, and that we are heading for higher taxes in future because of the downward economic spiral?

[James Murray]

As the right hon. Gentleman will see in the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill that we will be debating this afternoon, we have doubled the employment allowance to help small businesses to employ up to four people earning the national living wage without paying a penny in national insurance. That is dedicated support to help those small businesses, in the context of what, I admit, is a tough decision. If the right hon. Gentleman has a chance to contribute to the debate, he might say whether he supports the extra public services funding that comes from those difficult decisions.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Businesses like Mr Miles in Taunton High Street are being hit hard by the changes in taxes for hospitality businesses, including the increase in the wage bill and national insurance contributions, and the massive increase in business rates. That business is now considering reducing its opening hours, which would make our high street less vibrant than it should be. One challenge is the £50,000 rateable value limit for the discount, as many high street premises have a rateable value of more than £50,000. Will the Chancellor consider reviewing the limit placed on the business rates discount for small businesses?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we set out our plans for reforming business rates to ensure that retail, hospitality and leisure properties on the high street with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from a permanent tax cut from this Government. The importance of that tax cut being permanent is that it gives businesses the stability they need to invest and grow. I look forward to his support for our reforms when we vote on them in due course.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

14. What steps she is taking to help ensure the sound management of public finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

T3. The owner of Horton pharmacy in Epsom has raised concerns about the financial burden that increased employer national insurance contributions will place on community pharmacies. Pharmacies provide frontline care, and without support, their viability and the accessible healthcare that they offer could be at risk. That will add pressure to an already strained national health service. Will the Chancellor reconsider and exempt community pharmacies from the increase?

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

Primary care providers have yearly negotiations with the Department on what services they provide and what money they are entitled to. More broadly, the reason why we are, in the Budget, taking difficult decisions about national insurance and other matters is precisely to fund the NHS, so that we have the health service that our country needs and deserves.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

T6. Crawley’s public services, not least its schools and the NHS, are set to benefit significantly from the measures set out in the Budget. Does the Minister agree that Opposition parties cannot have it both ways, claiming to support the investment in our local public services while rejecting every one of the measures necessary to fund them?

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The single most important factor in raising living standards, driving income equality and improving children’s life chances is having a job. Why is the Chancellor disregarding that fundamental truth, with tax policies that will actively harm employment, particularly youth employment?

[James Murray]

If we look at the OBR forecasts for this Parliament, employment will increase from 33.1 million to 34.3 million. The right hon. Gentleman talks about youth employment. I suggest that he read our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which sets out in detail what we will do to help get young people, and people suffering from ill health, back into work.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

T7. Last week, the House passed the Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and I was proud to walk through the voting Lobby with my hon. Friends. This Government are committed to implementing the vaping products duty, which complements the Bill, to safeguard our young people. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering using a digital platform tax for that duty?

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend set out, the Government confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty to ensure that young people and non-smokers do not take up vaping. Registration for the duty will open on the digital platform from 1 April 2026, and the duty will take effect from 1 October that year.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

On economic black holes, the Labour Mayor of London thinks that Brexit punched a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. A very simple question for the Chancellor: has leaving the EU been a net positive or a net negative for the public finances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The owners of a 380-acre farm in my constituency have worked out that they would have to spend 40 years paying back the money that they would have to borrow because of the changes to agricultural property relief. When will the Chancellor start listening to farmers rather than hiding behind Treasury figures?

[James Murray]

We are taking an approach that balances significant tax relief for family farms with the need to fix the public finances in as fair a way as possible. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the data that the Treasury has put out, based on claims data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It shows how few farms will in fact be affected. The measures are a fair and balanced way to fix the public finances, which we desperately needed to do given our inheritance from the Conservative Government.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is vital that we give value for taxpayers’ money, yet Conservative-run Norfolk county council’s doomed Norwich western link road is costing taxpayers £27,000 per day—that is nearly £50 million so far for not an inch of tarmac. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Norfolk Tories give us Liz Truss not just in Whitehall, but in county hall?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Achieving for Children is the arm’s length body of Richmond council that delivers its vital children’s services, yet because of the rise in employer’s national insurance, it now faces a staggering bill of £588,000 because the employees are not directly employed by Richmond council. When the Chancellor looks at her local government settlement, will she build in reimbursement for councils such as Richmond, or indeed exempt arm’s length bodies?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Member will know, we announced in the Budget an increase in local government funding of 3.2% next year, and the Chancellor announced extra funding for early years providers to deliver Government-funded childcare places, meaning that total funding will be over £8 billion in 2025-26. I look forward to the hon. Member’s support for all that extra funding.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. With a disability employment gap of nearly 30% and a disability pay gap of nearly 14%, how is the Chancellor helping to address those inequalities?