National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and James Murray

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As I set out during consideration of Lords amendments last week, and, indeed, at pretty much every other stage of consideration of the Bill, the response to the changes in employer national insurance contributions that we are undertaking as a Government is in line with what the hon. Gentleman’s Government did with the health and social care levy in the previous Parliament—namely providing direct support for public employers, meaning central Government, local government and public corporations. That is the standard way in which support for employer national insurance contribution changes is responded to.

As I have set out, the revenue raised from the measures in the Bill will play a critical role in repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services. Clearly, any future changes that would exempt certain groups from paying national insurance would have cost implications, which, as I have made clear, would necessitate higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. It is for that reason that I ask the House to support the Government’s position by disagreeing to amendments 1B, 5B and 8B.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The Commons’ disagreement to Lords amendment 1, debated last week, states that the amendment

“interferes with the public revenue, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason.”

Does the Minister not think that those we represent would—just perhaps—prefer to see their taxed income generously donated via spending on children’s hospices, rather than spent on an idiotic deal to spend millions of pounds on the Chagos islands?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of hospices during last week’s debate on amendments from the other place. As I made clear at the time, although hospices do not receive support to meet the changes in employer national insurance contributions, we greatly value the work they do. I pointed to the wider support that the Government are giving the hospice sector—namely, the £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care, and the £26 million revenue to support children and young people’s hospices.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to people giving to hospices, which are established as charities. Of course, the Government provide support for charities, including hospices, through the tax regime, which is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.

Lords amendment 21B would require the Government to conduct assessments on the economic and sectoral impacts of the Bill. As we have discussed previously, the Government have already published an assessment of this policy in a tax information and impact note published by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That note sets out that, as a result of measures in the Bill, around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance contributions liability decrease, and around 940,000 employers will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further assessments. However, we will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand why we are not supporting these amendments from the other place. The measures in the Bill will play a crucial role in fixing the public finances and getting public services back on their feet. The amendments require information that has already been provided, do not recognise other policies the Government have in place or, most seriously, seek to undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with these amendments, and urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support the Government on that disagreement.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and James Murray

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[James Murray]

No, I will make some progress. The Government want to shift healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting.

[James Murray]

I have explained how the Government are approaching employer national insurance contributions and the support that they offer for central Government, local government and public corporations. That is an established way of responding to changes to employer national insurance contributions, which the previous Government did—

[Sir Roger Gale]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman is being so persistent. He must have an amazing point to make, so I will give way to him. I wait with bated breath.

[Sir Roger Gale]

It is an amazing point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get it, because it was clear that the Prime Minister did not get it at Prime Minister’s questions. Let’s tell the real truth: the money that is being given by the Government—taxpayers’ money—to children’s hospices such as Shooting Star and Demelza hospices, is for buildings. The national insurance increase is directly hitting the people who do the work on which very sick children depend. Why is that imposition being made?

[James Murray]

The £100 million that the right hon. Gentleman alluded to is important funding to help hospices improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients receive the best care possible. As I said a few moments ago, there will be £26 million of revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. More widely, the Government provide for charities, including hospices, through the wider tax regime, which is among the most generous in the world. That included tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, all charities, including hospices that are set up as charities, can benefit from the employment allowance that the Bill more than doubles, from £5,000 to £10,500. That will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between Roger Gale and James Murray

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and James Murray

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill.

This Bill, and the issues that it seeks to tackle, is very important to many of my constituents in Ealing North. Since I was elected, I have been contacted nearly 900 times about specific campaigns to strengthen our country’s animal welfare legislation, including on the Bill before us today and other important pieces of animal welfare legislation, from the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill to the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill.

Passing this legislation is an important priority for many of my constituents. I am therefore glad to be here today to speak in support of the Bill, which includes measures to raise the minimum age of imported dogs and cats to six months, as well as banning the importation of dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant or that are mutilated. In this context, mutilation means, for example, dogs that have had their ears cropped or tail docked, and cats that have been declawed.

I have long supported a ban on the importation of cats and dogs under the age of six months or over 42 days pregnant. Like many other hon. Members, I had hoped that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, introduced in 2021, would address these issues. That Bill included provisions to limit the number of dogs, cats or ferrets that can be moved on a non-commercial basis, and to set restrictions on the condition of animals that can be brought into the country. As we know, the Bill was carried over into the subsequent parliamentary Session, but the Government announced in May 2023 that the Bill would not proceed further in its current form. Like many of my constituents, I was very disappointed when the Government dropped that Bill. I supported an Opposition motion to bring it back to Parliament, as drafted, but the Government voted it down. That decision was not what I wanted, nor what my constituents and our dedicated animal welfare charities wanted, and it delayed the introduction of legislation. However, it is welcome that this Bill is being debated here today, with support from Members on both sides of the House, and I am pleased to be here to support it.

I know that my constituents are far from alone in wanting to see legislation such as this in place. Many Members have expressed that view today, and data from a 2023 survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of Dogs Trust showed that 83% of voters believe that the UK Government should

“crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs into the UK”.

We know that the importation of cats and dogs is a problem on a significant scale: in 2020, the Government reported that some 6,768 cats and 66,952 dogs had been commercially imported into the UK. The Bill seeks to address the problem by enabling the national authorities in each of the UK’s four nations to make regulations that would help to protect the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets by imposing conditions on their importation into the UK.

As we have heard from the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), whom I congratulate, the regulations introduced under the Bill would prohibit the importation of puppies or kittens under six months old, and that of dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant or have been mutilated. Furthermore, the Bill would address the problem of commercial imports being disguised as non-commercial ones by limiting the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be imported to five per vehicle or three per foot passenger.

I understand that a key difference between this Bill and the kept animals Bill that the Government dropped last year is that this Bill specifies what the regulations must include—namely the prohibition of the importation of animals that are less than six months old, more than 42 days pregnant, or mutilated. The kept animals Bill enabled those limits to be determined when the regulations were made, and I am pleased that this Bill makes the provisions more explicit at this stage.

I am pleased to be here to support the Bill, because strengthening our animal welfare laws is a priority for me and many other Members. However, beyond the important legislation that we are debating now, I believe that there are many other aspects of animal welfare that need to be addressed through the introduction of stronger laws. Let me give an example of the context in which the Bill sits. I believe that there should be measures to prevent the theft of cats and dogs, and I therefore welcome the Pet Abduction Bill, which was introduced in 2023. It would create offences of dog abduction and cat abduction, and it includes powers to make similar provision for other pets.

Although dogs and cats are now sentient beings under the law, there is no specific offence of pet theft; because animals fall under the definition of property, the offence is treated in much the same way as the theft of an inanimate object. I find it worrying that, while sentencing can take into account the emotional impact on the human victim, the financial worth of the dog or cat is the biggest factor. In my view, the punishment does not come close to fitting the crime or to acting as a deterrent. Pet theft is not a simple matter of theft of an item, nor should it be treated as such by the law. I know that losing a pet can cause great emotional pain. I declare an interest: I think of how I would feel if our cat at home, Orna, were to be stolen. I firmly support the Pet Abduction Bill, as well as measures to improve it—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I have to impress on hon. Members that the Bill under discussion is concerned with the legal importing of puppies, kittens and ferrets. Will the hon. Gentleman please stick to the subject under debate?

[James Murray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having given that contextual example, I will return to the main subject of the debate.

I know from my constituents how important it is for all aspects of animal welfare to be addressed. In my home borough, we are lucky enough to have the annual Ealing animals fair, which took place for the 45th time earlier this month. I was very glad to be able to attend, and I want to thank all those involved, particularly Dr Marion Garnett, for putting on such an important event year after year. I know that those at the fair would be among the first to say that the Bill is much needed, and also that many other aspects of animal welfare legislation need attention.

I am pleased to be playing my part today in supporting the Bill, and I look forward to its making progress as swiftly as possible and becoming law.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and James Murray

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front Bencher.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to respond to these three Lords amendments on behalf of the Opposition. Clause 13 of the Bill introduces new duties on ratepayers to provide information to the Valuation Office Agency in order to support digitisation and a shorter revaluation cycle. It also introduces penalties to promote compliance and establishes an associated appeal system.

Through the Bill, ratepayers will initially face a penalty for failing to comply with the new duties the Bill introduces. If, having received that initial penalty, the ratepayer continues not to comply for a further 30 days, they will be liable for an additional penalty of £60 per day. As we heard from the Minister, Lords amendment 1 caps the total charge arising from that additional penalty at £1,800, equivalent to 30 days’ worth of daily fines. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said on Second Reading, we are aware of concerns relating to the new duty and the associated penalties from those representing shops, and small shops in particular. Although I doubt that all the concerns of those representative organisations and their members have been addressed by the Government, we realise that this limit on the level of the penalty may help to protect ratepayers from much larger charges while still supporting the Valuation Office Agency’s move toward frequent revaluations, which we support. On that basis, we will not be opposing its inclusion in the Bill.

Through clause 13, the Bill also introduces a new criminal penalty, which applies if a person makes a false statement while purporting to comply with the new duties it introduces. The Bill sets out that the Valuation Office Agency will decide whether an offence has been committed, and its decision may be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal for England. As originally drafted, the Bill permits the tribunal to remit such a penalty when it is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person had knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. Lords amendment 2 would require, rather than merely permit, the tribunal to remit the penalty in such circumstances. We believe that the amendment is sensible, so we will not be opposing its inclusion in the Bill.

Finally, Lords amendment 3 makes a technical change to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, omitting section 140(2)(b) of that Act. That section, which refers to Ministers making separate estimates of rateable value for England and Wales, has become obsolete as a result of clause 15 of the Bill, which makes a separate provision about the calculation of multipliers for England. As this is essentially a drafting amendment, we will not be opposing it either.

I am tempted to talk at much greater length about Labour’s plans to scrap the current system of business rates, replacing it with a system of business property tax that rebalances the burden of business property taxation away from the high street and retail firms towards online tech giants. However, I realise that that may be out of scope and that time is tight, so I will simply confirm our intention not to oppose any of these three amendments.