Rural Roads

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the condition of roads in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, especially on a topic as important as road conditions in rural areas such as South Shropshire. We will all know that there is no place like South Shropshire, with its outstanding beauty, vast countryside and beautiful winding country roads—but those country roads are where we see the issue.

A dangerous trap has arisen for many of my residents and many of the people who come to see such a beautiful area: its beauty has been blighted by potholes, which are causing a major issue. I have in my area some roads that are now damaging the tyres of tractors when they are travelling along them—let us imagine what that would do to a moped or bike. My constituents do not have to imagine, however, because it has happened numerous times; the son of one constituent in Ludlow hit a pothole recently and wrote off his moped.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to him beforehand about this issue. Insurance claims due to potholes, damage to car rims and tyres, and bicycles driving into potholes and riders going over the handlebars and getting injured—those are just some examples of what has happened back home in my constituency. Insurance claims are going through the roof against the roads Department. Does he agree that the present strategy is penny wise and pound foolish, and that a major strategy to improve rural roads is urgently needed to ensure that people do not get injured and their vehicles do not get damaged?

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises a very good point. I will come on to the preventive measures and what can actually be returned to the economy to help the Department fix this major issue.

Potholes are one of the biggest issues raised with me since I have been an MP, and I am sure the same will be true for many other Members. Obviously when we get bad weather, we see them increase more and more, and that causes a major issue.

There are multiple areas that I would like to cover today. I am not raising one or two anecdotal concerns or bits of evidence; I am raising the more than 2,100 road defects reported to Shropshire council in January alone—that is, in one month. That is almost triple the number of reports in the previous month and double the number in January 2025. I have been told that potholes are not getting fixed quickly enough, which is causing roads to deteriorate and some to become impassable.

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

I want to highlight the fact that in Scotland we have a particular challenge. Scottish Borders council is responsible for maintaining 1,900 miles of road, which must be one of the biggest distances in the whole of the UK, but in Scotland, because of the decisions that the SNP Government are making, rural local authorities such as Scottish Borders council are being neglected for the sake of the central belt. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities need to be funded properly to allow them to fix these many miles of roads?

[Stuart Anderson]

I do. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is more money being spent by councils than it costs to fix the roads. I will come on to that in detail in a minute. These are serious issues. I have one constituent that people have stopped visiting because their road is now impassable—talk about remoteness and being cut off in rural areas!

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, he is also the Member of Parliament for my mother-in-law, so I congratulate him on all his hard work. [Interruption.] Check the words: I said nothing wrong. One issue hitting rural areas is, of course, road works, because residents cannot just take the next left or right turn and sometimes have to detour for miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that it behoves the utility companies to keep residents informed of any road works they are doing, so that residents can plan their journeys in advance?

[Stuart Anderson]

We see that across South Shropshire. My hon. Friend’s mother-in-law is a lovely lady and I was delighted to meet her the other week—I get a few points for that. We are finding that Shropshire council is putting cones in the potholes, because they are that big, or putting up traffic lights, and some of the traffic lights are not working. Those have now been up for weeks, and sometimes several months. That is causing an issue, when it is easier to fix the potholes.

There have been a lot of short-term fixes, and we need a longer-term strategy. I set up a survey in my constituency, and 500 people responded in a very short period of time. One in four have experienced vehicle damage, nearly 90% have had a near miss, and 98% said that the roads are in poor or very poor condition. I would love to meet that 2% and see where they are travelling.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing today’s important debate; thousands of residents around the country, maybe hundreds of thousands, will be very grateful for his work. Does he believe that part of the issue is the way that local authorities manage their resurfacing programmes? In our area, unfortunately, Oxfordshire is full of incredibly deep potholes—well below the depth at which other local authorities would intervene—and my Reading residents often cross the boundary and are shocked by the state of the roads. In contrast, our local authority has resurfaced large sections of roads, and this invest-to-save approach has resulted in a better quality of road surface and fewer potholes.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. There is not one specific issue here; there are multiple issues, as I will come to.

Constituents have talked about the road just outside Ackleton. They tell me it is like driving in a third-world country. A local resident, Barry, commented to me, “You want to come to Claverley, mate. It’s like driving on the moon.” I have been there—Claverley, not the moon—and he is not wrong. From Bridgnorth to Bishop’s Castle, and from Broseley to Ludlow, the whole of South Shropshire is suffering from the poor state of the roads. The roads around Ditton Priors, in particular, are impassable in multiple areas.

I thank the local press for their great reporting on the issues in Church Preen. I took BBC Shropshire’s Rob Trigg there to see some of the worst roads in Shropshire—he was truly shocked by the state of them—and to meet local residents. The roads are actually damaging tractor tyres in that area. It is a major issue.

Let me turn to the cost of vehicle repair, before we get on to potholes and the solutions. More than two thirds of my residents travel to work on the roads. There is a limited rail line, which goes north to south, and only impacts a few people. I live a mile-plus from the nearest bus station, and there are limited buses. More than 27,000 of my constituents travel to work on South Shropshire’s roads every day. The reason this is such a big issue in rural areas is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) mentioned, the number of roads and the distance to travel. One constituent has had a car for 18 months. It was a new car, but it is on its third windscreen and has just recently had a tyre puncture after being damaged on local roads. I have personally replaced two tyres and one wheel on the roads around South Shropshire.

Those issues are not unique. Last year, an astonishing £645 million was spent on repairing vehicles damaged by potholes. That is up from £579 million, and it was £474 million in 2023. Those costs are being borne by all our constituents day in, day out.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his impassioned speech about the state of our roads. I was recently speaking to a driving instructor in my constituency who literally relies for his livelihood on having a car that is on the road. Every day that his car is taken off the road, he loses £250 of income, and over the past two years he has spent more than £600 repairing his car because of potholes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a human and a business cost when our roads are falling apart?

[Stuart Anderson]

I do. The hon. Member raises a really good point. This is not just about a pothole in the road; it is about the impact on people’s lives and businesses.

That leads me on very nicely to my next point. This is not just about car damage; it is about road safety. We are talking about people’s lives here. Beyond damage to a tire, which can be upsetting or annoying, and is not what anyone wants to see, there is also an impact on safety and people’s lives. People swerve to miss potholes. Why do they swerve? They swerve because the pothole might not have been there a few days earlier, or they might be driving on a new road. It could be at night. It could be raining. All of a sudden, they see a crater that, if they hit it, will take off the front of their car and could leave them in the side of the road, so they swerve.

We recently had this in South Shropshire: somebody swerved and ended up down a bank. A resident in Cleehill also sent me a photo of a car upturned from having swerved to avoid a pothole. I also had a personal experience: two Fridays ago, I finished speaking at an event in the evening. As I came out of Much Wenlock, I was the third person on the scene after a car had overturned, up towards Harley Bank. A woman was screaming, covered in blood. I thank the first two people on the scene. I gave first aid until the police got there. Although it was a serious incident, the woman who brought out a blanket from her house and did an excellent job, said, “Oh, don’t worry—it’s our MP. All will be good.” I was a medic trained in the military; I am not sure how many MPs can give first aid.

The point is that the local residents did a great job. The car was written off. The woman was lucky; it could have been far worse. I thank the ambulance crew and the police for the work they did. According to the lady who lives in that house, it was the third serious accident that she had seen there since August.

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

I am very glad that the hon. Member was able to provide support to his constituent in that really awful case. In Surrey, we have some of the busiest roads and they are absolutely littered with potholes. Longmead Road has over 30 potholes, and there is a secondary school on that road called Blenheim high school. A huge number of students cycle to that school, so this is frankly an accident waiting to happen. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as fixing the potholes, having a central highways team to answer to councillors and residents might be a good way forward, so that we can better identify where all the potholes are?

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. Between us, we are starting to see that we can deal with this issue in multiple ways, and I really hope the Minister will take them on board.

I launched my rural road safety campaign back in August 2024. I urged key partners to get involved in road safety issues and to take them really seriously. I even met the Morville speed group with the police and crime commissioner John Campion. It was impactful to see the issues that the speeding on the road was causing for everybody in Morville.

I have called for the Government’s new road safety strategy to prioritise rural areas more than it does. The previous Government’s safer roads fund provided over £185 million to improve safety on the country’s most dangerous A-roads. When I raised the matter previously, the Minister was unable to clarify whether the fund will be reinstated. The work must be undertaken by the Government. While the road safety strategy published in January identifies that rural roads are the least safe in terms of fatalities, it did not give any tangible results. It identified the problem but not the solution.

I have done my homework and provided a few solutions. Let us have a look at them. We have raised the issue of potholes and damage to vehicles, and to human life. As a few people have mentioned, councils are reportedly spending more money on fixing roads and potholes than they are getting from central Government. That is unsustainable. At the same time, the Government have watered down the formula to remove “remoteness” from rural areas. The removal of that one word has such a significant impact in South Shropshire, a 700-square-mile constituency. Remoteness is a key issue. We have also lost the rural services delivery grant. Those two decisions have taken millions of pounds out of South Shropshire, which has had a massive impact.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Not only have we lost all that funding for rural roads in places such as Beaconsfield, Marlow and south Buckinghamshire villages, but places such as Denham and Iver back up on to London and the ultra low emission zone. Transport for London gets a disproportionate amount of money for road paving, and all the London local authorities receive extra funding to get their roads paved. However, despite having rural roads directly outside the M25, we have basically no funding for the amount of road space we have to pave. That is disproportionate and should be equalised, to provide better funding to all rural counties.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that excellent point. We have to look at rural counties, which are not being given the fair consideration that they need. The Government are currently holding back almost £46 million, I believe, from Lib Dem-run Shropshire council, because it has not met their stringent criteria. The council has an amber rating at the moment, and we are not getting the money that we need. Long-term certainty is required to ensure a more proactive approach to road measures, rather than just short-term solutions.

A report published just today by the Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance survey states that the backlog of repairs in England and Wales is worth more than £18 billion. The Government need to provide longer-term highways maintenance funding for councils through to 2032, as the previous Government planned to do. That would provide councils with the certainty they need to effectively plan and undertake repairs to roads. The decisions made by this Labour Government have taken millions of pounds out of South Shropshire.

The second issue is that the Lib Dem-run council now fixes only about half the potholes that were fixed previously. As per its press release last week, the figure was 25,000 over the last year, but if we go back one, two or three years, then we were averaging 38,000 to 41,000.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Stuart Anderson]

Yes—I thought the hon. Lady might want me to.

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Member is making what is generally a good speech about rural funding, so it is a shame that he has made it party political. Does he not understand that the Conservative administration, under whose budget we are still operating, cut highways funding, including the proportion for preventive maintenance, for every year from 2022 to 2025? That will clearly have had a knock-on impact. If we do not maintain the roads, they will be in a much worse state at the end of that period.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises an important point—which I thought she might raise when I mentioned the local Lib Dem-run council in South Shropshire. For years, and under successive Governments, rural areas have not received the correct funding. That is not right; however, this is also about how the money is used. At the moment, the local council has an amber rating and is not fixing as many potholes as it should. At the moment, it is fixing only half the number done previously.

The other thing being raised with me that although potholes are being fixed, they come out and fix them on the Monday, and if there is a bit of rain on Tuesday and Wednesday, by Thursday the road is the same again. I have photos of people undertaking different measures to fix potholes that are completely unacceptable. Those roads are as bad at the end of the week as they were at the beginning.

We need to look at prevention. As a general rule, councils across the country are fixing more potholes than ever, but we are not seeing that in Shropshire, as per the local council’s numbers that I have quoted. Shropshire council continues to spend disproportionate amounts on reactive pothole repairs rather than on planned maintenance, because the Government have not given it the necessary long-term funding clarity. Evidence from the Road Emulsion Association shows that surface dressing extends life by around 10 to 15 years and uses 75% less bitumen and 80% less aggregate. It is campaigning for significantly increased investment in preventive road treatments and the maintenance of longer-term funding for councils. Every council will have to plan and will need clear visibility on the necessary funding.

As the Minister will know, developments in areas like artificial intelligence and autonomous robots could also start to future-proof how we deal with roads. I was delighted at the beginning of the year to see—as many others will have seen—the first autonomous vehicle able to identify cracks in the road and seal them early on, before they get worse. That is also reducing the number of lane closures, time invested and cost. As the RAC has stated—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has secured a debate that has attracted a lot of attention—I have 16 Members who have put in to speak. The rules say that I must call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. At the moment, that means that those who have put in to speak will have a minute, or fractionally over. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to carry on with his speech, but I ask him to bear that in mind.

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you, Mr Stringer; you raise a brilliant point.

Before I conclude, I would like the Minister to address the support or approval that local councils need for community action to go ahead to help parish councils to fix certain areas, as they have in Devon.

Residents in South Shropshire deserve better than the roads they have at the moment. The reduced funding for South Shropshire, by removing the remoteness factor and the rural services delivery grant, is beyond what is acceptable. It is having a huge impact, and I am not going to sit by and watch my residents put up with this any more.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I shall attempt to do that. It is a pleasure to serve, with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing today’s debate on the condition of roads in rural areas.

First, let me respond to some of the hon. Member’s points. He suggested that his local authority, Shropshire council, has seen its funding for local roads maintenance cut. It has not. In 2024-25, Shropshire received £23.2 million. For 2025-26, the figure is £33.7 million—more money to fix more roads and to undertake preventive maintenance.

The hon. Member suggested that Shropshire council does not have certainty of future funding. It does. For the first time, councils have multi-year funding for local roads maintenance. We have given them four years of funding, specifically to allow them to plan ahead.

The hon. Member also suggested that Shropshire will not receive its incentive funding. There is no reason to believe that is the case. Last year, only one local highway authority out of 154 did not receive its incentive payments. If an authority does what we have asked of it, there is no danger of it not receiving that incentive payment.

[Stuart Anderson]

rose—

[Lilian Greenwood]

Let me make a bit more progress and then I will, of course, come back to the hon. Member.

We all recognise that rural Britain depends on reliable, safe and resilient roads. When those roads fall into poor condition or suffer flooding, the impacts on rural residents and businesses—often with limited alternative routes—can be significant. As numerous Members highlighted, potholes are costly and dangerous to drivers, bikers, cyclists and pedestrians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the Minister for winding up, and I want to respond to two of the points she made. We talked about the funding, but we were calling for funding up to 2032, not 2030; and the incentive payment that was withheld is still withheld—it is not with Shropshire council, so it cannot plan when it does not know that the money will come through.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stuart Anderson]

I would, but I do not have the time, so I will talk to the Minister afterwards. I invite her to South Shropshire to see the roads, many of which are not suitable for driving many cars on. Whatever plan she outlined, it is not suitable to my constituency. The rural services delivery grant really hurt South Shropshire. The removal of “remoteness” in respect of local government funding is absolutely hammering us. We are not able to provide the services that our constituents need. Roads are now in a state, and people are cut off and remote. The roads are in a state and I invite the Minister to come to see them. They are in a bad way, with an impact on cars, business, the economy and safety. This is a major issue, as we heard throughout the debate. We need more funding in South Shropshire to sort out the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the condition of roads in rural areas.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

If I get time and the parking permits in Camden allow it, I do like to drive down and have a walk in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have not yet been made aware of that campaign, but I look forward to talking more with her about it. On a personal level, I will do all I can to get my tea and coffee from those establishments.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I am speaking to loads of business owners across South Shropshire in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, who are telling me the polar opposite of what the Minister is saying from the Dispatch Box, showing that the Government are completely detached from reality. There is a U-turn coming on this policy, but many business owners are lying awake at night worrying about how they are going to get through this. Can the Government make that U-turn quickly?

[Dan Tomlinson]

It is worth pausing to note that while some businesses will see increases in their bills, more than half of rate payers’ bills will either remain flat or will fall in the next year. That, in part, is because of the support the Government have provided to businesses, as set out at the Budget.

Clause 1

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis]

I completely agree. That is why it is disappointing that the Opposition are looking at certain details, when all the farmers that I speak to desperately want us to focus on the next stages of how we support those farms. We have done the thing that we needed to do to protect the smallest ones.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member spoke about the Labour Rural Research Group. Will it stand with the Opposition in rejecting Ukrainian eggs coming into the UK and undercutting British farmers?

[Maya Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We have spoken about that issue with Ministers; is an important conversation that we absolutely have to have.

Another of my farms belongs to a constituent who was one of the first to reach out to me and meet me in London. I have spoken about his farm in previous debates; it is a partnership between husband, wife and mother. Under the original plans, he would have faced a liability of £130,000 when the mother passed away in coming years, but thanks to Government amendment 24 the liability is completely removed, allowing them to focus on profitability.

I also have a significant number of family-owned businesses in my constituency, including Massey Feeds, which happens to supply the agricultural sector. Its people made a really strong point to me when I met them last year; if they had had to downscale to afford the original proposed changes to BPR, their main option would have been to sell one of their company’s three sites to a foreign-owned competitor. Although we welcome foreign investment in this country, it does nothing for our sovereignty, growth or innovation when the proceeds and hard work of British-built companies end up as profits in other countries. After the announcement in December, I was delighted to hear from the owner, Kynan Massey, who thanked this Government for listening and for adapting the BPR thresholds. He told me that the recent change means that the business has the confidence to continue to invest, including with a £2 million investment to grow the capacity of its site in my constituency.

Gazegill farm in my constituency has been in the same family for 500 years and has an estimated value of just over £4 million. It employs 39 full-time equivalents through its organic farm, its award-winning restaurant Eight at Gazegill—I recommend that everyone visiting Lancashire should try it out; it is the best farm-to-fork experience in the country—and its growing farm shop. Emma and Ian, who run Gazegill, are the perfect example of ambitious and innovative company owners, working hard to regenerate and bring new employment and tourism to parts of Lancashire that will really benefit from new investment. The new changes to APR will allow them to push ahead with that investment, including by building a new farm shop later this year.

If we are serious about supporting small businesses across our regions, about local sustainable economies and about improving the health of this country, farms like Gazegill are exactly the type of companies we should support to grow. I wholly support Government amendment 24 to ensure significant protection and support for business owners like Emma and Ian and all the incredible farms in Ribble Valley, which I am so proud to represent.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for the engagement that we have had on this and other issues that affect his constituency, which I know contains some rural elements. He has raised an important point. We need to continue to work in partnership with farmers, and with their representatives and trade bodies, to make sure that we can support sustainable food production in the UK, and we are investing £11.8 billion of support over this Parliament.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank all the South Shropshire farmers and businesses for their tireless campaign. They were continually told by the Government that they were wrong, but they have now been proved right. They are still telling me that this tax is wrong. The family farm tax is not right. Will the Minister apologise for the heartache, pain and suffering that he has caused South Shropshire farmers and businesses, and scrap the tax completely?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will not be scrapping this tax completely. We have tabled an amendment that the House will have the chance to debate next week in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill. We think that the proposals that we plan to implement will raise £300 million in a fair way and protect smaller family farms.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) has read the Budget. He said that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the pain, but those on the basic rate of income tax will be paying an additional £220 a year in income tax as a result of this Budget. I am not quite sure that those with the broadest shoulders will be paying that level of tax.

Growth is down, inflation is up, taxes are up, unemployment is up, borrowing is up and interest debt is up. This Budget, coupled with the last one, is £66 billion of tax raising. As we speak, there are farmers outside this Chamber once again, and I know that they are in the Public Gallery as well. Why? Because of the changes that this Government continue to press ahead with through the family farm tax and the family business tax.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers across South Shropshire have been devastated by the family farm tax? It is going to impact them far beyond what the Government are even considering, and it will impact national food security.

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. This Budget has an impact not only on our farming community, but on the wider agricultural supply chain and the many businesses that support our farming community. Why? Because bringing in a threshold of £1 million will impact nearly every family farming business.

Let us look at the figures. The average size of a farming business in England is about 200 acres. When valuing farmland, there may be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, livestock, agricultural machinery, growing crops and crops in store, which will put it well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing the farming business to an IHT liability that kicks in at 20% of the value over and above £1 million. The Government will say that they have permitted some allowances, but that does not take into account the value of those businesses. This is going to have a hugely detrimental impact not only on those family businesses, but on the wider agricultural supply chain.

Taxes

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

There is a real irony in the fact that the Conservative party has tabled a motion calling for the control of public expenditure and for trust to be returned just three years after a notorious mini-Budget that saw the biggest set of unfunded spending commitments in recent memory and that continues to damage the markets’ confidence in UK fiscal credibility. We still pay the so-called moron premium, driving up interest expenses on Government borrowing, which are now running at £131 billion a year. That is money out of the pockets of everyone across this country and we are still living with the real-world impact of that, because debt in the UK has gone from £0.5 trillion in 2005 to £2.9 trillion today. That is up six times in 20 years—and who has been running the country for the majority of those years?

[Stuart Anderson]

It is interesting that the hon. Member raises the moron increase. I point out that we are no longer in government. The hon. Member’s party was also in government from 2010 to 2015.

[Charlie Maynard]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the moron premium relates to Liz Truss. People are feeling pressures and that has a huge impact on everybody individually. Pay cheques go less far, tax bills are higher and small luxuries such as having a slice of cake or a pint, or taking the family to the pub, are increasingly out of reach for many people. That hurts, and it is all on the back of stagnant economic growth. Those facts are all the enduring legacy of the disastrous decisions that the Conservative party made. [Hon. Members: “The coalition!”] It is fun to keep saying “coalition” but, sorry, this is more recent than that. We want to back—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

The only vote we ever had on the issue was a vote for or against an Opposition day motion. I was always clear that the original threshold that the Government set was far too low. I do not think that millionaires and asset-rich, wealthy pensioners should receive the payment. The policy, as it now stands, and as it will be for pensioners in my community this winter, is as it should be.

[Stuart Anderson]

You voted for it when voting for the Budget.

[Sam Rushworth]

I voted against a motion saying that the payment should be a universal benefit, because I do not think that it should be universal, and I argued for where I thought it should be.

The Conservatives are right about one thing: we do need to control spending. We should not listen to those on the left who think that there is a magic money tree. There is not. Many of my colleagues on the Government Benches and I know how flippin’ difficult it is to get money out of the Chancellor, because she has this difficult job of having to control public spending. Let us talk about that for a minute. The Conservatives failed to invest in our public services, infrastructure and growth when they were in government, but let us also look at what they did on profligate waste. They spent £73,000 in 2019 topping up the Government’s wine cellar; £1.7 million painting Boris Johnson’s prime ministerial planes, including £800,000 on a Union Jack; £500,000 in a single year on chauffeuring ministerial red boxes around Whitehall; £11 million changing the colour of our passports; and £120 million on their festival of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who clearly has an ideology that he believes.

As a Conservative, I believe in lower taxes, and that people have a better understanding than Governments of how to spend their own money. I want to see more South Shropshire constituents keep more of what they earn. Last year’s Halloween Budget hoicked taxes by £40 billion a year. It included a hugely damaging rise in employer national insurance contributions, which has added almost £1,000 to the cost of employing someone. We are stunting the wealth creators, and that is not acceptable. The Chancellor did that with one hand, and withdrew support from our suffering high streets with the other. Pubs will have to pay an extra £3,000 on average because of the changes to business rates, and they are feeling it.

The latest statistics have confirmed that economic growth has flatlined, despite the Chancellor’s promise to

“lead the most pro-growth, pro-business Treasury our country has ever seen, with a laser focus on delivering for the working people”.

How is that going? Since last year’s Budget, a huge number of people—the figure is approaching 180,000—are out of work. Jobs have been lost, and unemployment is up to 5%.

A year ago, the Chancellor told the country that she would not come back with any more tax hikes. The slate had been wiped clean. She clearly said on TV: “This is what I will be doing, and I will not have to come back.” No matter what reason they come up with, if the Government break that manifesto promise, I believe it will hurt them beyond what they believe possible. They have run out of road in their continual blaming of the previous Government. However, it seems almost certain that that is what will happen, so pensions, savings, cars and houses are all sadly in the frame for Labour’s Budget.

South Shropshire is a big rural constituency, so let us consider rural prosperity. The Chancellor’s policies have killed growth, fuelled inflation and reduced opportunities for South Shropshire residents. On average, productivity, earnings and ease of access to further education are all lower in rural than in urban areas. Closing those gaps could add billions to England’s economy. A stronger economy is needed to enhance public services. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that we need strong public services, but we cannot stifle private industry and businesses to get them.

The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has shown how huge savings can be made at the same time as cutting taxes for working people. If the shadow Chancellor and shadow Treasury team set out clear objectives, we should put party politics behind us and adopt some of them for the good of the country.

The family farms tax is crippling farmers in South Shropshire. I have a huge rural constituency—25% of my constituents work in the agriculture industry—and the tax is really hurting it. The Budget must reverse the cruel family farm tax, which needs to change. Farmer confidence has dropped to its lowest-ever level on record. More than 6,000 farms have already closed under this Government. That is concerning, and it is a threat to food security.

The Budget must also reverse some measures to release the stranglehold on the high street. Every Member would struggle to find a business in their constituency that says, “I am enjoying the measures that have been put in.” More than a thousand pubs and restaurants on our high streets have already gone—that is the equivalent to two every single day. That is an issue. I welcome the fact that a future Conservative Government would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. That would stimulate growth, and we could then invest in the areas where we need to.

[Dr Luke Evans]

This toxic concoction creates a cumulative cycle. The pubs that do survive have to reduce staffing and hours. In rural areas, that might increase loneliness and reduce opportunities for young people to get jobs. That cyclical nature means a spiral into decline. I am concerned about that in my area. Does my hon. Friend share that concern for his area?

[Stuart Anderson]

I certainly do. You raise a huge point—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

He raises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

He raises a huge point. In my constituency of 700 square miles, the local pub and village hall are community hubs. After Remembrance Sunday, I took my family to the Queens in Ludlow. I have met many publicans across South Shropshire. Experienced publicans are still just able to keep trading on reserves, but they are not really making a profit. The ones who are just setting out to build up that reserve are going broke. It is just not a viable situation for them at the moment.

Council tax bills doubled in the time that Labour was last in power, representing an extra £751 on an average band D home. The Conservatives put in veto powers to ensure that council tax did not increase over a certain amount. We allowed local areas to receive the funding that they wanted by raising council tax within 5%, but without excessive rises. At the moment, less funding is going into rural areas but council tax is going up by a dramatic amount, so people are paying more and getting less.

The County Councils Network has named Shropshire council as one of 16 local authority areas that will see significant cuts in direct Government funding. It suggests that there will be about £9 million of cuts to Government funding over the next three years. That will affect many different services, including Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, which has said so on record.

I have written to many constituents as part of my “shop local” survey, and I have heard from almost 10% of them—thousands of people have responded. People say that they love going to the local high street and want to do so. However, the footfall numbers are dropping. Businesses say that they do not have confidence, and that it is getting harder and harder to trade. That is causing major issues on the high street. We must release the stranglehold on the high street and encourage growth. The biggest factor, businesses tell me, is the tax hikes, which are crippling. I make a plea to the Government to change their approach to taxing small businesses, or they will destroy the country.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will my hon. and gallant Friend take an intervention from any Labour Member who is prepared to say that they have spoken to a business in their constituency that welcomes the NI tax increase?

[Stuart Anderson]

I will gladly take an intervention from any Labour Member whose local businesses say that the tax on local business is good. Anyone?

[Sam Rushworth]

I spoke to a business in my constituency that said it understands why the Chancellor made that decision. One of its biggest concerns is the number of days that it loses to sickness, and it understands the importance of improving public services and of having a better educated and healthier workforce.

[Stuart Anderson]

I am happy that you intervened, and if you support tax hikes for your—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Stuart Anderson]

I will start that again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman intervened. If he speaks to businesses across his constituency, they might say that they understand the tax hike, but I am asking if any of them support it. I am happy if he wants to intervene to say that they do.

Despite the huge pressures, I will continue to campaign for funding and support that enables businesses to thrive. The biggest area is tax cuts, and it remains a vital part of my focus to unleash rural prosperity for South Shropshire. I urge colleagues across the House to vote down any future tax rises.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

Frankly, it took 14 years for the Conservatives not to apologise for any of the decisions they took, so I do not think we need any lectures from the hon. Member or from other Conservatives.

Contrast our values with the values of the Conservatives: austerity, financial recklessness under Liz Truss, and a dodgy Brexit deal. We cannot return to austerity and economic chaos.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking highly of my constituency—Ludlow is lovely. Does he realise that austerity started under the Labour Government when they were last in power? They started measures to make cuts in 2008-09.

[John Slinger]

I absolutely accept that the previous Labour Government took difficult decisions towards the end of their tenure in office following the global financial crisis. What happened from 2010 onwards was unnecessary and reckless, and we are all still paying the price to this day.

Taxes

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

A working person is someone who goes to work, and in our manifesto we made a very clear commitment to protect working people through the taxes they pay on their pay slips—which is something that we experience when we go to work.

However, we did more than that. We ended tax breaks for private schools to help fund new teachers and raise education standards, supporting more than 90% of children in state schools to achieve and thrive. We removed the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system, so that all long-term residents of the United Kingdom pay their fair share of taxes here. We ensured that the UK tax system remains internationally competitive, reforming the tax treatment of carried interest. We took further action by raising the higher rates for additional dwellings for stamp duty land tax to support first-time buyers and main home movers, giving them a competitive advantage. We made changes to the energy profits levy to ensure that oil and gas companies contribute to the clean energy transition. In the Budget last autumn the Government introduced the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap, ensuring that more individuals and businesses pay the taxes they owe.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary talks about the Budget. I have spoken to small businesses across my constituency that are feeling the impact of last year’s tax rises, and they are concerned about uncertainty and a lack of clarity. Does he really understand the impact that last year’s attacks on small businesses are having, and how devastating they are for our constituents?

[Darren Jones]

Of course we engage with businesses, small and large, week in, week out, as Ministers in the Treasury, across Government, and in our constituency capacities. As Members know, the introduction of the employer national insurance contributions was weighted with changes in the threshold for payment with the aim of reducing the burden on smaller businesses. We recognised that we were honouring our promise to working people not to increase the headline rates of employee income tax or national insurance in their pay slips.

Like other benefits that replace income, the state pension is taxable, but the personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic and full new state pension, which means that pensioners whose sole income is the full new state pension or basic state pension without any increments will not pay any income tax. The state pension continues to be the foundation of the support available to pensioners, backed by this Government’s commitment to the triple lock. This year more than 12 million pensioners have benefited from a 4.1% increase in their basic or new state pension, which means that under this Government those on a full new state pension will receive an additional £470. The full new state pension is currently projected to go up by around £1,900 over the course of this Parliament, on the basis of the latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

I note that Members of opposition parties have not opposed these spending plans. They have not said that they think the NHS should get less money this year, or that we have too many teachers, nurses or police officers. If they support our spending plans, I simply ask: how would they pay for them?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady]

I cannot recall saying anything disparaging about Scottish education. I did criticise the Scottish NHS—[Interruption.] Well, the reality is that businesses are absolutely petrified of the way the SNP is dealing with Scottish education. We have insolvent universities and colleges in crisis, and education standards are plummeting. Those are the facts, and they are why the Scottish SNP Government will lose in 2026 and we will have a new First Minister.

The Conservatives are meant to be patriotic and pro-defence. How is the investment in defence to be paid for? Would they reverse the record settlement for the Scottish Government given that we have Scottish elections next year? I think they should explain.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

rose—

[John Grady]

I will make some progress if I may.

Our debt to GDP ratio is almost 100%, and we inherited that from the previous Government. Conservative Members object to tax rises while wanting tax cuts and increases in public spending and objecting to spending cuts. That is not realistic. We know from the disastrous Budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng that we must manage finances carefully. Some Opposition Members suggest that we should get rid of the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Conservatives shunned the OBR when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng put forward their Budget and we know what happened then. I find it quite surprising therefore that we still have Conservative Members who want to get rid of it.

The Conservative approach to the economy simply does not grapple with the serious state of the public finances; it inhabits a world of wishful thinking—a world of higher inflation, higher Government borrowing costs and higher interest rates.

Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing the debate. Banking hubs are really important in his constituency, as they are in rural constituencies across the country, including mine.

My constituency is 700 square miles of the most beautiful towns and villages, which are a delight. With that beauty and tranquillity come remoteness and lack of connectivity for many people, who can feel isolated. We have seen the decline of the high street bank over years. Some services that we took for granted are no longer available, though they are still of huge importance to local communities.

We recently lost Lloyds banks in Bridgnorth and Ludlow, which is seen as a major loss to both towns. I was quick to launch a survey to find out what residents thought. They were overwhelmingly upset, because they still require face-to-face services and access to cash. We were fortunate that Dudley Building Society came to Bridgnorth recently, opening a branch just opposite my office, but it does not offer the full service of traditional banks, and setting up banking hubs, which is hard to do, is not viable at the moment.

I wrote to many organisations to see what support we could get on our high street. Link came back to me and said it had conducted an assessment—as many Members have said—but it did not recommend any additional services in any of my rural towns. It believed that there was adequate access to cash and banking services for local residents in all those areas. I disagree with that.

Bridgnorth is served by Nationwide and HSBC, while Ludlow has NatWest and Nationwide. However, if people are not with those banks, they are stuck. They might have been with Lloyds for years, only to find that they have to travel to Wolverhampton—or, if they are in Ludlow, to Hereford, which is probably 40 minutes away. That is not suitable for everyone. This is a reactive approach, just watching the decline of our high street. We should change the regulation so that we can be proactive and allow Link to put services into the high street. I do not want to wait for every bank to close before we can get a banking hub. That is not the right approach.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for his part in this largely harmonious debate—although I challenge him briefly on which is the most beautiful constituency. I represent a constituency similar to his in many ways. The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) registered the point about flexibility and Link. When that situation arises, the impact falls not just on those living within the tightly drawn parameters that Link draws, but on the more rural towns and villages that lie just outside those one-minute, 10-minute or 20-minute commuting distances. A hub would help businesses there, including hospitality businesses. Prudhoe in my constituency has just lost a branch, meaning that businesses have to go often from the borders of County Durham into Newcastle to access their bank of choice. Adding to the flexibility would be incredibly valuable and would grow and benefit the wider rural economy.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member is right; I said that people have to go 40 minutes from Ludlow to Hereford, but some might take 20 minutes to get to Ludlow. Given the inaccessibility of remote areas and rural towns, the system is not working. When the Minister sums up the debate, I would appreciate it if she could address the issue of how Link assesses access to banking hubs and the criteria used, and if she could tell me what support she can provide to get more banking hubs in South Shropshire.

Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this debate. It would be remiss of me not to mention my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman); as a rifleman, it is great to hear Waterlooville spoken about. The 95th Rifles fought there, and it was one of our battle honours. Every day is a training day.

This hugely important debate is relevant to every constituency up and down the country. I firmly believe that small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. We must do as much as we can to release them from red tape and to reduce taxes, in order to see the great growth that will support our high streets.

After the autumn Budget, I set out across South Shropshire to speak to as many businesses as possible. I launched my small business campaign, which I was delighted to see Ludlow Nutrition win, and which showed me how much love there is for small businesses across the constituency. I recently held a roundtable with the chamber of commerce, which I thank for its work in bringing businesses together across the constituency to hear about the highs and lows and to hear what is working and what is not.

I wanted to go further, so I partnered with Love Bridgnorth and launched a local high street campaign. When it is finished, I will be delighted to share the results with the Minister so that he can see what local residents have said about high streets. What encourages them to come to the high street? What are the problems? What would they like to see from the Government? I have put those questions to thousands of people, and I look forward to seeing the results.

I want to talk about two core areas. One is retail shops on the high street, and the other is hospitality and local pubs, of which South Shropshire has some of the best. Local businesses are facing uncertainty because of the impact of the national insurance rise and the change to business tax. They are tending to do one of a few things: stopping recruiting, not investing in expansion to go for growth, or putting up prices, which can be inflationary. Those are all things that they do not want to be doing.

Earlier in the year, I got many of the local publicans together in Ludlow. The Minister has heard me talk about this before, but I really want to push Ludlow as the fine food capital of the country. The publicans told me what was working, what was not and what was hard. If Ludlow, with all its great pubs and its fine food festival, is struggling to make a profit, that is a concern. Some of those pubs have been trading for 20 years. They have the same footfall and the same turnover, or sometimes even more, but they cannot make a profit. It is not like covid or a financial crash; it is an ongoing situation that they are finding it exceptionally hard to deal with. They are not asking, “How do I survive?” They are saying, “I don’t know what the future looks like.”

I have spoken openly about how I have been teetotal for 13 years, because I used to drink way too much and had a problem with alcohol. So why am I talking about pubs? In South Shropshire, a constituency of 700 square miles, they are a lifeline. They are community assets. People would otherwise be sitting at home on their own come to them, because that is where their friendship groups are. They are a hub for much of our constituency. The other day, I enjoyed going to the George and Dragon at Much Wenlock. There is also the Mill at Leighton and great food at the Mytton & Mermaid in Atcham, where I have taken my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge before now.

I will not push my time limit, but I ask the Minister to look at reducing VAT to 12.5%, as we did through covid, to help out pubs and small businesses. I also ask the Government to reduce business rates back to 75% until we know what the new rates will look like.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.