Taxes
Debate between James Murray and Stuart Anderson(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the damage that recklessness in public office can cause families right across the country—not just for one day, but for months and years beyond that. The Conservative party is desperate for us to forget what happened when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were in Downing Street. But the British people will not forget, and they have been feeling the impacts for many years.
The Conservative party talks about public spending but its record on public spending is abysmal. It spent years in office with money lining the pockets of dodgy PPE providers as the bill for asylum seekers’ hotels soared. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) just said, no debate on the Conservative record on tax and spend can be complete without mentioning the mini-Budget. Conservative Members are desperate for the British people to forget what happened three years ago and what the Conservative party foisted on the country. They are desperate to forget that their reckless unfunded tax cuts crashed our economy, damaged our international reputation and added hundreds of pounds to families’ mortgage costs. While British homeowners have been living with the consequences of the Conservatives every day, Conservative Members are all too conspicuous in their efforts to sweep their record under the rug.
True leadership is about not ducking the difficult decisions but confronting them head-on with a clear focus on priorities and values. That is what the Chancellor has promised to do in this Budget. As she set out last week, we will secure this country’s future with a Budget for growth led by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity. We will do not what is politically expedient but what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates; to protect and strengthen our public services, rejecting the austerity that Conservative Members seem keen to impose on our country once again; and to ensure that the economy that we leave to future generations is secure, with debt under control.
Our focus on cutting debt is crucial. We inherited a national debt of about 100% of GDP and since the spring the cost of borrowing has risen for Governments around the world. Today one in every £10 of taxpayers’ money in the UK is used to pay the interest on our national debt. That money should be going to our NHS, our schools, our police and our armed forces. Instead, it is going to our creditors. That is not what people pay taxes for.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
The Minister talks about the building up of debt. Does he understand that when Labour was last in power, debt went up from 36% of GDP to about 76% of GDP? That massive increase built the foundation of the debt that we have today.
James Murray
I am very aware of the foundation of debt that we inherited at the election last year—of around 100% of GDP. That, combined with global borrowing prices, leaves us in this position. We are determined to change that because we know that the less we have to spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people, the more we can invest in our infrastructure and industry, and the more resilient we can make our public finances, building the headroom to withstand global turbulence while giving businesses the confidence to invest.
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
Debate between James Murray and Stuart Anderson(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Murray
I would challenge the right hon. and learned Lady’s use of language, but that issue is rather outside the scope of a debate on business rates.
As I was saying, we published a discussion paper at the Budget last year, which invited the industry to help us to design a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. Since publishing the paper last autumn, my officials and I have met more than 250 stakeholders across a range of sectors, including RHL and local government, and have received submissions from a range of businesses, including those from the constituencies of hon. Members present today. We are analysing the responses in detail, and the data and views shared by businesses will inform the business rates policy development process. In the summer, we will publish an interim report that sets out a clear direction of travel for the business rates system, with further policy detail to follow at the autumn Budget 2025.
It is worth my briefly drawing hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, beyond the business rates system, the Government are taking other steps to rejuvenate our high streets. We are introducing high street rental auctions to revitalise our high streets and tackle empty properties, which we know can fuel a spiral of decline in town centres. Through the English devolution Bill, the Government will introduce a new community right to buy to help communities to safeguard valued community assets. That will empower local communities to bring assets such as empty shops, pubs and community spaces into community ownership, helping to revitalise our high streets and eliminate vacant properties.
Alongside that, the new £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods programme will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 75 communities across the UK, laying the foundation to kick-start local growth and drive up living standards. As part of the programme, local partnerships will be able to fund interventions focused on revitalising high streets. The Government will announce further plans to support high streets in the small business strategy later this year.
As we have heard, hon. Members are rightly concerned about the high streets in their constituencies. We are all passionate about the places where we live and that we represent, and we want them to thrive. As I have set out, the business rates system that this Government inherited has been failing to give high streets the long-term, certain and stable support they need, instead providing only stopgap help through RHL relief that has kept changing and has been repeatedly extended ahead of an annual cliff edge.
This Government are fixing the foundations of the business rates system, and that starts with permanently rebalancing the burden of RHL properties through introducing permanently lower tax rates from 2026-27.
Stuart Anderson
I really like the idea of permanently lower tax rates. Can the Minister confirm that that is for all businesses, and that no businesses will receive tax rises?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I set out, the new lower multipliers of RHL properties will apply to all RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. There will be a standard RHL multiplier and a small RHL multiplier for properties with rateable values of £51,000 and below. The definition of an RHL property will broadly follow the definition by which RHL relief is currently allocated. That will be set out in guidance, but hon. Members can expect that to operate in a similar way.
The advantage of our approach of permanently lower tax rates and multipliers is that they do not have a cap in the way that the previous Government’s relief did, of £110,000 per business. All properties within the RHL definition with rateable values of less than £500,000 will be able to benefit from this support, helping all the shops that contribute towards high streets across the country.
Beyond the changes to the RHL multipliers, I have also had the chance to set out some of the wider work that we are undertaking to transform business rates over the course of this Parliament and create a fairer, modernised system that is fit for the 21st century. I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
Farming and Inheritance Tax
Debate between James Murray and Stuart Anderson(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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
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.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Debate between James Murray and Stuart AndersonTuesday 3rd December 2024
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
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.