Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
My hon. Friend and many of his neighbouring MPs are excellent advocates for Cornwall and for the benefits that Cornwall can bring to growth, both in the region and right across the country. I know that, in the Budget, the Chancellor was keen to support investment in future industries in Cornwall. For the local council to deliver that, we will work closely with it to make sure that money is well spent. The key thing for us is to ensure that we enable people in Cornwall to be part of the economic growth mission of this Government.
Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I would like to make a statement to the House on two separate but related matters. The first is regarding communication with the public in the lead-up to the Budget. I understand that this is a topic that has held much interest and speculation over the weekend and I would like to take this opportunity to give a formal statement to the House on the Government’s position. Secondly, the Government have also today received the results of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s investigation into the early release of the “Economic and fiscal outlook” at the Budget last week. I know that the House will be concerned to know the findings of that report, and I will turn to that in a moment.
On the first point, the Chancellor has been consistent and up front with the public about her considerations in the lead-up to the Budget last week. First, she was clear on her priorities at the Budget, which were to cut NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living and to cut our debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered on those priorities. Secondly, she was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of the reduced productivity forecast.
Thirdly, the Chancellor was clear on 4 November that she intended to build more headroom. She has done that, with headroom against the stability rule of £21.7 billion. Fourthly, she was clear in the summer that the policy decisions we took on welfare would need to be paid for at the Budget, and the Budget document shows those decisions costing £6.9 billion in 2029-30. Finally, the OBR has now confirmed that the Chancellor knew on 4 November that she had only £4.2 billion of headroom against her fiscal rules, meaning that once the cost of those policy decisions was accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion against the stability rule.
The combined effect of this information is that on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that the Government would be in deficit against the stability rule before any of this Government’s priorities for the Budget had been delivered, or any additional headroom built. In the light of that information, and knowing about the OBR’s productivity downgrade, the Chancellor knew on 4 November that challenging decisions would be required on tax and spend. The subsequent decision to freeze personal tax thresholds for a further three years shows that this was correct.
The Chancellor took the step of delivering a speech before the Budget, precisely so that she could be up front about the circumstances that she was facing and the decisions that she would need to take. She has been honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said.
Last Wednesday, before the Chancellor began her Budget speech, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its entire “Economic and fiscal outlook” online. Let me be clear: this is a very serious breach of highly sensitive information. It is a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility; it is a discourtesy to this House, and it should never have happened. The OBR rightly took full responsibility and issued an apology to the Chancellor later that day. It has conducted an investigation into how the report came to be published prematurely, and it sent its report, including its findings, to the Treasury and the Treasury Committee today at 12.30 pm. The report states:
“We are in no doubt that this failure to protect information prior to publication has inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation. It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR.”
It adds that the
“responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests, over the years, with the leadership of the OBR.”
The report notes that this has
“inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation”,
and caused significant disruption on Budget day,
“to the Chancellor’s disadvantage”.
The report goes on to make it clear that a significant and long-standing issue has allowed external users to gain early access to the OBR’s publication, which contains full details of its forecasts and the Chancellor’s Budget.
In the days since the Budget, there has been speculation about the kind of error that led to the “Economic and fiscal outlook” being published early. The report today confirms that the cause was not
“simply a matter of pressing the publication button on a locally managed website too early.”
The report concludes that the cause of the OBR’s error was “systemic issues”, and that the investigation has made it clear that
“the problem exposed last week was not a new one.”
Indeed, the report reveals that the OBR’s EFO in March was accessed before the Chancellor delivered the spring statement to the House. That underlines just how serious the situation is. Let me underline that as a Government, we take seriously the need to ensure that the OBR never allows this to happen again.
The report notes that common and fairly basic protections to prevent early access, including passwords and random-character URLs, were not used. It further notes that two configuration errors, which were not understood by the OBR’s online publishing function, prevented the safeguards in its online publishing software from being effective.
I am also very concerned that the report notes that
“it is very likely that the weaknesses that caused the premature accessing of the November 2025 EFO were pre-existing. Indeed, it appears that the March 2025 EFO was accessed prematurely”.
These findings are very serious indeed. The fact that market-sensitive information was prematurely accessible to a small group of market participants is extremely concerning, and the fact that this may have been the case on more than one occasion makes the situation even more severe. We do not know at this stage the extent to which market behaviour may have been affected on this or other occasions as a result of information being available early.
I want to share one further bit of information from the report with the House. On the morning of the Budget, the first IP address to successfully access the EFO had made 32 prior attempts that day, starting at around 5 am. That volume of requests implies that the person attempting to access the document had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point. Unfortunately, that leads us to consider whether the reason they tried so persistently to access the EFO is because they had been successful at a previous fiscal event. At this time, we do not have answers to all those questions, but the Treasury will make contact with previous Chancellors, to make them aware of developments relating to previous fiscal events. The OBR has rightly conducted its initial investigation as quickly as possible, and it is right that both the Government and the Treasury Committee now take time to consider the report and its findings. The Treasury Committee will have the opportunity to carefully question the OBR tomorrow, at its post-Budget hearing.
Furthermore, in response to paragraph 3.4 of the report, which set out that the problem exposed last week is not new, I can confirm to the House that the Government will work in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of other fiscal events be carried out—although I note that the report finds no evidence of hostile cyber-activity. In addition, the report says that the OBR
“could not, in the time available, carry out a deeper forensic examination of other recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out”.
We will make sure that work is carried out urgently. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk that this incident has uncovered, including the report’s conclusion that the OBR’s information security arrangements
“should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR.”
This Government are committed to the independence of the OBR and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy making. The Chancellor and the whole of the Treasury value the independence of the OBR and our constructive relationship with it over the past 16 months, in challenging economic times. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s economic and fiscal policy making, and we will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands.
Mr Speaker
In the light of press reports on this matter, I remind the House of the rules and conventions relating to parliamentary language. As “Erskine May” sets out, unless a discussion is based on a substantive motion, certain personal criticisms, including accusations of lying or deliberately misleading the House, are not permitted. I know that the House will want to be at its best. We take this very seriously.
James Murray
I was unclear from what the shadow Chancellor said at the beginning of his comments whether he, like us, values the role of the OBR in the Budget-setting process. We value its independence and we value its integrity. That is why we take what happened last Wednesday with the utmost seriousness, and we are determined to pursue it.
The shadow Chancellor went on to make a series of points, which I will address, but he fails to acknowledge that the productivity downgrade was real. The £16 billion hit to the forecast as a result of the productivity downgrade was real. I wonder why he does not want to acknowledge that. Could it be because the productivity downgrade was the result of things that his Government did over the 14 years that they were in office? Could it be the fact that the productivity downgrade was the result of a review by the OBR of policies including cuts to public investment, the mishandling of Brexit, and the record of the previous Government? That is perhaps why he does not want to acknowledge that point. The productivity downgrade by £16 billion was real. The need to build headroom was crucial. Both were principles that guided the Chancellor going into the Budget, as was the importance of cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists, and cutting Government borrowing.
The shadow Chancellor will remember from when he was in government under the Conservatives that the process involving the OBR and the Treasury is an iterative one that runs until Budget day. When the Chancellor delivered her Budget, the “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which, as we have discussed, was published slightly early, set out the context for the decisions that she took. The shadow Chancellor raised the issue of information security. I am sure that he will have received the letter from the permanent secretary sent on 25 November, which stated:
“As Permanent Secretary, I place the utmost weight on Budget security. I will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.”
Finally, the shadow Chancellor asked where the Chancellor is today. I am very pleased to tell the House that the Chancellor has been at the Wales investment summit today, following the announcement yesterday of £1.4 billion of extra investment into Wales—just the latest in £16 billion of new investments announced since the summit was launched.
James Murray
Mr Speaker, I can reassure my hon. Friend, you and the whole House that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, the permanent secretary has made it clear that the Treasury puts the utmost weight on Budget security. The permanent secretary made it clear in his letter to the shadow Chancellor that he will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I understand that the Minister says he does not have all the answers to the questions about the incredibly serious security failings at the OBR, but has he requested or received any advice on whether the attempts to access the information might have reached a criminal threshold under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a civil level under market abuse regulations? Are there any other arm’s length bodies, related either to the Minister’s Department or to other Departments, that might now need to conduct a similar internal review into their security?
The Budget process has been a mess. There have been leaks on a level that has never been seen before and huge amounts of flip-flopping, which has created uncertainty for households and the markets and has led to businesses putting investment on hold. During the pre-Budget press conference, the Chancellor talked about a reduction in productivity growth, but failed to mention that tax receipts were higher than expected. Why did the Government omit to communicate that information?
Following Sweden’s budget crisis in the early ’90s, its Government changed to a system where the Swedish Parliament saw a draft budget and debated it at length, and Opposition parties could propose alternatives and amendments. Have the Government given any consideration at all to introducing a better system?
On the issue of omissions, on a number of occasions over the past year Ministers have repeated the claim that they would introduce permanently lower business rates for businesses in this country, but they omitted to say that business rates bills would go up because of the higher valuations. Pubs are now saying that their average increase will be £12,000 a year, or 76% over the next three years. Why did the Government omit to mention that?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Having spent the past 18 months arguing that this Government have mismanaged the public finances, the Conservatives have now come to the House to argue that the public finances are fine after all. Their position is patently absurd. Due to the OBR’s productivity downgrade, which was a direct result of the Conservative Government’s decisions, the headroom available to the Government had been cut by 57%. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives are right to be angry about the state of the public finances, but that they are on the Opposition Benches because they are responsible for it? The Chancellor is on our Benches, making decisions in the national interest.
Mr Speaker
Mr Murphy, I brought you in to ask a short question, not to give a full-blown statement. Please do not test the Chair too often.
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the Conservatives want to completely distance themselves from their record in government. We have seen their record in government laid bare in the OBR’s productivity downgrade. That investigation by the OBR resulted in a hit to the public finances to the tune of £16 billion. That was a real consequence for our economy, and we had to take real decisions to correct it.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Two weeks ago, from the Dispatch Box, the Minister said with a straight face to me that he would not take lessons on credibility. I understand the error of my ways now; I should have given those lessons to the Chancellor, because since then we have seen that she has not been entirely truthful with the public—as one of my constituents said to me today while I was travelling down from Aberdeen, she lied to the public. While she was doing that, my constituents were fearing for their jobs through the Government’s punitive energy profits levy. Some 100 more jobs are being lost at Harbour Energy as a result of the Minister’s policies. Why is it okay for them to lose their jobs, yet she keeps hers?
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the energy profits levy. Let me be clear: we know that oil and gas have a role to play in our energy mix for many years to come. We want to support that industry while we make the transition to clean power, and that is the role that the energy profits levy will play. We set out at the Budget how the energy profits levy will come to an end in 2030, or sooner if the price floor is triggered.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am shocked to be picked so early, but I appreciate it.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The premature publishing of the OBR report is very disappointing; I think Members across the House can agree on that. It is particularly disappointing for me and for residents in Harlow, because it detracts from a Budget that makes a real difference to families in my constituency by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, lowering waiting times for the NHS and—as the House knows, an area I am particularly concerned about—tackling tax evasion.
Budget: Press Briefings
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mel Stride
Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package.
The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House. In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room.
Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings? Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place?
Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House.
Mr Speaker
Minister, it is not normal for a Budget to have been put in the press. This is the hokey-cokey Budget: one minute something is in, the next minute it is out. I am very worried. The previous Government also had to be reprimanded for leaking. It is not good policy. At one time, a Minister would have resigned if anything was released. This House should be sacrosanct, and all decisions should be heard here first. Please do pass on the message.
James Murray
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I can reassure you that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.
I will not engage with speculation or comment on the ongoing Budget process, but everyone in this House and beyond can be very clear of what the Chancellor’s priorities are going into the Budget. We will meet the iron-clad fiscal rules, we will make the public finances more resilient, we will reduce inflationary pressures and we will get the costs of borrowing down, because that is the way to focus on the priorities of the British people, which are to protect the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and reduce the national debt.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
There has been either a leak or wild speculation about the Budget, and it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us which it is. In doing so, could he outline—as he will obviously not go into detail, quite rightly, a week before the Budget—what this Budget’s strategic objectives are for the country?
Mr Speaker
I remind the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that the time limit is one minute, not one minute and 50 seconds.
James Murray
Like the hon. Member, I regret the fact that there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to add to that speculation here in the Chamber today. Our focus as a Government is to build the strong foundations that our economy needs, because that is the way to secure Britain’s future.
James Murray
As I made clear, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, nor am I going to engage in speculation about Budget measures. I note that this urgent question is about speculation, which I am not engaging with. It is actually Conservative Members who seem to be fanning the speculation, and I would discourage them from doing that.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that we have had leak inquiries previously when major statements have come out? The reports may be contradicted within days, but they are obviously coming from somewhere. It is worth while thinking about it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
High streets in St Austell and constituencies right across the country need more support from the business rates system. That is why we are transforming the system to ask larger premises, including the warehouses used by online giants, to pay slightly more in order to cut permanently the business rates payable by smaller premises on high streets across the country.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When the Chancellor imposed £40 billion of tax rises, she chose to double business rates for leisure, retail and hospital businesses—and she is going to come back for more. It may be in vain, but perhaps I can offer her a policy suggestion: scrap business rates for 250,000 shops, pubs and restaurants. Rather than hike taxes, will she adopt Conservative policy and control welfare spending so that we can back our small businesses?
Stamp Duty Land Tax
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the Conservatives’ record. [Interruption.] In 2010, I think the national debt was about 67% of GDP, but it was about 100% by the time that they left office.
Mr Speaker
Order. Members on both sides of the Chamber are having their own conversations on the side. I cannot hear the Minister—and everybody wants to hear the Minister.
James Murray
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was confirming what I think everyone in the Chamber knows about how bad the previous Government’s record on the economy was. We know why that record was so bad. It was because previous Ministers failed to invest, and we know that investment is the fuel for our economic engine. That is why we are taking a different approach.
Sir Mel Stride
Speaking of amnesia, would the right hon. Gentleman like to remind the House what the deficit was in 2010, when we first formed a Government?
James Murray
I had definitely been born by that time, Mr Speaker. I was doing my maths very rapidly, but I can be confident in saying that. I seem to have quite lost my way after your intervention, Mr Speaker, but let me return to the main thrust of the argument that I was making a few moments ago.
We are a serious Government who are a serious partner for the private sector, which is why we are investing in things that will get our country moving again. It is early days; the damage that the Tories did will take time to unpick and there will be more difficult decisions ahead, but since we came to power, this Government have announced £250 billion of new investment commitments, creating tens of thousands of jobs. The Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, meaning that someone on a tracker mortgage of just over £200,000 is already around £100 a month better off.
We have cut red tape and changed planning regulations so that we can deliver 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. We have acted to accelerate the construction of nearly 100,000 new homes, which were previously stuck. We were the fastest-growing G7 economy in the first half of this year. Most telling of all, since the general election real wages have risen by more than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government.
The Conservatives’ answer to the nation’s challenges is always the same: austerity. They want to cut spending, increase debt and accept decline. In contrast, we will never accept austerity and we will never gamble with the public finances.
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor’s fiscal rules say that day-to-day spending must be paid for through tax receipts. That is the definition of living within our means. Those fiscal rules were met at the first Budget last year and at the spring statement this year. They are an iron-clad commitment, and we will continue to meet those fiscal rules next month at the autumn Budget.
Those fiscal rules underpin our approach to the economy and to stronger public finances. We know that fiscal responsibility, which the previous Government abandoned, underpins a stable economy, and we need to secure our country’s renewal through public and private investment. We want to secure rising wages, support for businesses, more jobs, more homes and more opportunities in every corner of our country.
The motion before this House today simply is not serious. It is an admission from Conservative Members that after years in power and countless opportunities to reflect and learn from their mistakes, all they can come up with is the same failed solution: more unfunded tax cuts, more cuts to public services, more failure to invest, more austerity and more pain for the British people. That is what will keep them on the Opposition Benches for a very long time. We reject their recklessness, we reject their lack of ambition for our country and we reject this motion.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Through the spending review and the 10-year infrastructure strategy, the Government are funding at least £725 billion of infrastructure over the next decade. That includes investment in critical assets, such as £24 billion over the next four years to maintain and improve motorways and local roads and £7.9 billion over 10 years to maintain existing flood defences and invest in new ones. We have also committed to long-term maintenance budgets for public service infrastructure, with £10 billion of funding per year by 2034-35 to maintain and repair our hospitals, prisons, courts, schools and colleges so that providers can deliver cost savings by planning ahead.
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The CenTax report he refers to is independent analysis demonstrating that, in its opinion, the reforms improve on the current position and are expected largely to meet the Government’s objective. In fact, the report validates the Government’s position.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats oppose the family farm tax, but in the spirit of constructive opposition, last November I recommended and requested that Ministers look at the idea of a family farm test, such as the ones used in France and Ireland. Such a test would ensure that they could close the loophole on big equity companies exploiting land, but it would not cover family farms in the process. Since I raised that suggestion last November, have Treasury Ministers asked officials to look at it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that our changes to the non-dom reporting regime are essential to raise billions of pounds to support the public finances and get our public services back on their feet. I contrast that with some of the proposals set out by opposition parties. Indeed, Reform UK’s plans are for a tax cut for foreign billionaires.
James Murray
Of course, our colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade are having conversations with those businesses and industries that may be affected. I hope the hon. Member welcomes the trade deal that we got with the US—an economic deal that is so important for our prosperity and will see us being the only country to avoid some of the tariffs that are affecting all other countries around the world.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is becoming clear that one year in, the public still do not know what Labour is all about, and the same could be said for its so-called National Wealth Fund. Not only has the National Wealth Fund invested less equity in clean energy than before its costly £7 billion rebrand, but it is also now rightly subject to a Treasury Committee inquiry, at which expert witnesses could not name a single thing it is doing differently. The CEO of the British Business Bank now says the Government did not understand what they were setting up. Can the Minister tell us why the National Wealth Fund has invested less in clean energy than before the costly rebrand and why the Government U-turned on incorporating the British Business Bank?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
There is £200 million available, and the Government will look at all proposals for investing it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
The Government have already taken action on the fair repayment rate, lowering the cap on deductions from universal credit to 15%—it was 25% before the autumn Budget last year. That will benefit 1.2 million households by an average of £420 a year, and 700,000 of the poorest families with children will benefit.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Businesses have just been hit by the Chancellor’s £25 billion jobs tax, which will cost working families £3,500; also, business rates are nearly doubling for hospitality and retail businesses. How does imposing taxes that the Office for Budget Responsibility says will result in lower wages, higher prices and fewer jobs help growth and those on the lowest incomes, and will the Chancellor keep her promise not to come back with more taxes in this Parliament?
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay HoyleWednesday 19th March 2025
(9 months 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 Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 March 2025 - (19 Mar 2025)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 19 and 21, and Government motions to disagree.
James Murray
I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendment to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill, and I place on record particular thanks to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore, for his invaluable support and for so expertly leading the Bill through the other place.
During consideration of the Bill in the other place, 21 amendments were made, 20 of which we will address today, but before I do so directly, let me remind both Houses of the context for the Bill. When we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable. We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in the Bill represent some of the toughest decisions that we have had to take as a result. To restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet, we needed to raise revenue, including through the measures that the Bill will introduce. Many of the amendments from the other place put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise, so let me be absolutely clear: to support the amendments is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. With that in mind, I now turn to the first group of Lords amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
The businesses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, like businesses in all sectors of the economy, benefit from the stability that this Government have brought to the economy. He wants to talk about unemployment and the rate of jobs. We recognise that making changes to employer national insurance contributions was a tough decision that will have consequences, but the unemployment rate will fall to 4.1% next year and remain low until 2029. When taken together, the Budget measures mean that the employment level in this country will increase from 33.1 million in 2024 to 34.3 million in 2029.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Health and wealth are two sides of the same coin, and we will not get economic growth without a healthy population. But as a result of the national insurance contribution changes, the Care Provider Alliance reports that 73% of social care providers will have to refuse new care packages from local authorities or the NHS, and that 57% will have to hand back existing contracts. What assurances can the Government provide to the huge number of people who are very scared that they will have to go without care and see their lives deteriorate?
Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the autumn Budget, we took difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending that were necessary to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services. We had to do that to address the mess we inherited from the previous Government, which the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will remember well, having served in that ill-fated Government. We have taken these decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.
The Government are better targeting agricultural property relief and business property relief to make them fairer. These reforms mean that despite the tough fiscal context, the Government are maintaining very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others.
Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is a similar picture for business property relief, with more than 50% of it being claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Our reforms mean that individuals can access 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil rate bands, this means that a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant, inheritance tax free.
Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility published further details on the data sources and modelling used to estimate costings across a number of the tax measures announced at Budget, including the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The costing is the same as published at Budget, and the approach to modelling the costing is typical and in line with other tax policies. As the Government have set out, the reforms mean that almost three quarters of estates claiming APR in 2026-27, including those that also claim BPR, will not pay more inheritance tax. This is a fair approach that protects farms while also fixing the public services we all rely on.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Victoria Atkins
Having inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor’s Budget has led to the highest borrowing costs since the pandemic, growth flatlining, business confidence plummeting and job freezes. Who has Labour chosen to pay the price for its economic illiteracy? Pensioners, family businesses and farmers. For months, farmers, farming businesses, professional advisers and economists, and now eight major supermarkets, have warned the Chancellor that she has got her figures wrong, but Ministers cleave desperately to their soundbites. Let us hope that they listen to the OBR.
Yesterday, the independent OBR released additional information about this particular measure and reiterated the “‘high’ uncertainty” of the predicted yield. It noted that the yield of the measure is likely to be reduced by 35% because of behavioural responses, and that it is unlikely to reach a steady state for 20 years. The OBR also expressed grave concerns about the impact on older individuals and their ability to plan. In short, the reassurances provided by Ministers are falling almost as flat as the economy.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has lectured this House about the perils of sidelining the OBR. In light of its analysis, will the Minister now commit to a full and proper review of this dreadful policy? The public have noticed that Government Ministers are failing to answer reasonable questions about their policies, so will the Minister please give straight answers to the farmers and businesses watching our proceedings today?
In light of the new analysis, how many farms does the Treasury think will be affected by the changes to APR, APR/BPR and BPR alone? What assessment has he made of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers’ finding that the Chancellor has underestimated the number of farms affected by the changes by a factor of five? How many tenant farmers will be evicted? As worrying reports of suicides among farmers begin to emerge, will the Minister please do what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to do and measure the number of suicides over the next 12 months, so that we can understand the human cost of this policy?
Finally, why does the Minister think that Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op have all come out against this tax policy and believe the Treasury’s figures to be wrong? Why does he think they are wrong and he is right?
James Murray
There certainly is evidence that the current inheritance tax system has caused people to use these reliefs for tax planning and to avoid inheritance tax bills. My hon. Friend alludes to the broader question of the fairness and sustainability of this measure. As I mentioned earlier, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates, and 50% of business property relief benefits the top 4% of estates. The Leader of the Opposition has said that she thinks this is a good way to prioritise public money, but we think it is neither fair nor sustainable.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
After years of the Tories failing our rural communities, including with a dodgy and utterly shameful Australian trade deal, it is a great pity that the new Government have picked up the baton. From Orkney to the Isles of Scilly, Liberal Democrat colleagues are extremely concerned about the impact of these proposals.
The report published yesterday clearly demonstrates the uncertainty about the income from the misguided family farm tax over the next two decades. In the light of this, and given that it will hit older farmers in particular and those who put food on the tables of the United Kingdom, will the Minister do the right thing and scrap this tax?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
We set out the details of our decision to increase the rate of national insurance contributions from employers and to reduce the threshold, and we have added the different benefit we will give, particularly to small businesses and charities, by more than doubling the employment allowance. The employer national insurance contribution changes were among the toughest we took in the Budget, but they were necessary to repair the public finances and deliver the economic stability that is so crucial for investment and growth.
Mr Speaker
We have had the former Chair of the Treasury Committee, so let’s now have the current Chair.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary rightly said that small and medium-sized enterprises are a vital part of our high streets and our economy, and one of the biggest changes is, of course, the change to business rates. He was not tempted at the Select Committee last week to give more detail on the timeframe for that, but many businesses want certainty about business rates as they go forward. May I tempt him to give an indication of the Government’s thinking about how quickly this change might be introduced and whether the small business rate relief is likely to survive or to be subsumed into a new regime?
James Murray
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions. If she did not succeed in tempting me at the Select Committee, I doubt she will succeed today, but I can reassure her that the decisions we have set out about introducing the permanently lower business rate for RHL—retail, hospitality and leisure—properties below a £500,000 rateable value will be coming in from April 2026. Specifically in relation to small business rate relief, I can confirm that the Government are committed to retaining that. One of the options we are looking at in our “Transforming business rates” discussion paper is how to support businesses that want to expand into a second premises, thereby growing the business, because at the moment there is the cliff edge where they lose small business rate relief.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Confidence on Britain’s high streets is sliding faster than the Chancellor will be down the ski slopes of Davos later today. With retail sales down—rather than up, as expected in the run-up to Christmas—and with the British Retail Consortium saying that two thirds of stores will raise prices to cover her national insurance increases, when will the Minister accept that the Chancellor’s economic strategy of raising taxes and increasing regulations is not working?
James Murray
I am glad to know that the shadow Minister’s morning was well spent cooking up that line about the Davos ski slopes. What he will know, and what sectors across the economy will know, is that having a stable economy is a prerequisite for the investment we need to get the economy growing. That is why we had to take difficult decisions at the autumn Budget, including those to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions. Alongside that increase, however, we more than doubled the employment allowance and set out our plans to have permanently lower tax rates for high street RHL properties from April 2026.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
A number of small high street businesses will be hit hard by the Government’s jobs tax and the dramatic reduction in business rates relief, and House of Commons Library research that I commissioned shows that from April 2026 the Government’s reforms to business rates could leave small and independent businesses in effect subsidising the big chains. Will the Chancellor meet me and a delegation of small and independent businesses from St Albans so that we can make the case for fairer reforms and for wholesale reform of the broken business rates system?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Lowe, topical questions are meant to be short and punchy. I am sure that you are very good at that normally.
James Murray
One of my key priorities as Exchequer Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for HMRC is to oversee a programme of transformation at HMRC to improve its customer service, to digitise the service, to close the tax gap and to ensure that we have the modern, reformed service that we need for the future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The shadow Chancellor was touring the TV studios this morning to say that the Conservative party did nothing wrong in government. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the reason for the changes to national insurance is precisely to plug the £22 billion gap that the Conservatives caused and to ensure that our constituents can get a hospital or GP appointment?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem with Conservative Members is that they are all happy to say that they want more funding for the NHS; they are just not prepared to pay for it. What they need to realise is that, in government, we have to take tough decisions to ensure that we can fund public services and fix the public finances.
James Murray
As my hon. Friend will know, many hospices are independent charities and therefore will be able to access the employment allowance, which we have doubled to £10,500 a year, as well as the other wider tax reliefs in the tax system for charities, such as business rates relief and gift aid. Of course, hospices often have statutory obligations with the NHS as well, so I suggest that hospices discuss their contracts with their integrated care boards.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Later today, the House will vote on the Government’s £25 billion national insurance tax hike. To avoid any uncertainty when we vote, will the Minister confirm exactly which public sector organisations will be compensated?
James Murray
I do not think the shadow Minister listened to my response to the previous question, in which I set out very clearly the definition of the public sector for the purposes of national insurance contributions. Look at what the OBR has said: yes, it recognises that we are asking businesses to contribute more and that this will have an impact, but it also says that the employment level will rise from 33.1 million to 34.3 million by 2029, meaning an increase in the employment level over this Parliament.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Citizens Advice in St Albans supports some of the most vulnerable people to access public services. It says that the changes to national insurance contributions will
“hit hard because we employ mostly part-time staff and the change to the threshold means we go from paying nothing to the full amount for each staff member. The increased rebate is intended to offset the NIC for small organisations but does not for us because so many of our staff are part-time.”
Will the Chancellor look again at the impact of the national insurance contribution changes on part-time workers?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, while keeping taxes on working people as low as possible is crucial, the way to make people better off in the long run is through boosting public and private investment, and delivering sustained economic growth. That is the focus of this Labour Government, and that will guide the choices we make.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
During the election campaign, I held a press conference at which I outlined the glaring funding gaps in Labour’s plans and the taxes they might raise to pay for them. One of those taxes was employer national insurance contributions. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—now Chief Secretary to the Treasury—responded at the time by arguing that this was a list of things that “Labour isn’t doing.” Is it correct that raising employer national insurance contributions is something Labour isn’t doing?
Mr Speaker
Order—[Interruption.] No, these are topical questions and I decide.
James Murray
My hon. Friend will have to wait for the Budget tomorrow, but he will know that we have committed to closing some loopholes, including VAT on private schools, the non-dom loophole and cracking down on tax avoidance.
VAT: Independent Schools
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
I am not going to give way, because I am responding to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a point of order, so you do give way, unfortunately.
Mr Speaker
Order. As you know, that is not a point of order—do not waste my time. Carry on, Minister.
James Murray
As I was saying to the right hon. Member for Witham, the Government will publish a tax information and impact note on the VAT policy change at the Budget, once the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has scrutinised and certified the costing of the final policy.
James Murray
I am going to make a bit of progress.
To address some other points raised in this debate, we know that a small number of diplomatic officials and service personnel are posted abroad for extended periods. In such circumstances, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence provide the continuity of education allowance to ensure that this does not interfere with their children’s education. I can give the reassurance today that the Government will monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected diplomatic and military families, with any changes to the scheme being considered as—[Interruption.]
James Murray
I am not quite sure what happened there, but I will carry on. I was making an important point, which is that the Government will monitor closely the impact of our policy changes on affected diplomatic and military families, with any changes to the scheme being considered as part of the ongoing spending review.
James Murray
I will make a bit of progress. In our consultation on the technical detail of this policy, we have been engaging widely and in depth, and the views of MPs are an important part of that. As I said earlier, it has been a tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. We believe it is the right decision, and one we need to implement as soon as possible to help raise the funding that we need to deliver our priorities for state education in this country. We are determined to make sure that education, which is available for all, is of the highest possible quality, because that is how we ensure that we meet the aspiration of every parent to get the best possible education for their children.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Chambers
Over the past few weeks, I have been inundated with questions from the people of Winchester about the cuts in the winter fuel allowance, and it seems as though people from all parts of the House are getting similar correspondence. Although I totally understand that there are many wealthy pensioners who do not rely on the winter fuel allowance to heat their homes, a large proportion of pensioners live on or near the poverty line and will be plunged into crisis this winter. Given the huge strength of feeling in all parts of the House, will the Chancellor reconsider her decision? If not, will she at least commit to a vote and a debate in the House about how we best protect our most vulnerable—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, I have to get through the Order Paper. Put in for an Adjournment debate. Minister, I think you got the gist.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Member for his comment, but as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out, the state pension is £900 more this year than it was last year, thanks to the triple lock. We have committed to maintaining the triple lock as the foundation of state support for pensioners throughout the rest of this Parliament. Energy bills are lower this year. It is crucial that he and other Members across the House support our goal to increase the take-up of pension credit. If we make sure that all pensioners who are eligible for pension credit take it up, they will thereby receive the other benefits, including the winter fuel payment, to which they are entitled.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
During the general election, the Labour party committed to bring down energy bills by £300. Now that the election is over, energy bills are going up by some 10%. On behalf of the British electorate, especially the 10 million pensioners who are having their winter fuel payment taken away, I ask the Minister to confirm to the House that the £300 cut is still Labour policy. If it is, specifically how is the £300 calculated, and when will it be delivered?
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his comment and welcome him to his new place. He referred to the cost of energy. As we know, the cost of energy is substantially lower than it was this time last year, but we are under no illusions about how much more we need to do to make sure that energy bills are truly affordable and that we tackle the cost of living crisis. That is why we have set to work straight away in establishing Great British Energy, alongside our national wealth fund, which will help to invest in the clean energy sources of the future and bring down energy bills for good.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
We know that the Government have inherited a mess, and that at the centre of that mess is a £22 billion hole left in the public finances by the previous Government, but that cannot be allowed as cover for measures that cause suffering for the most vulnerable in society. The Chancellor will have heard Lib Dem colleagues talk about the hardship that the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance will mean for their constituents, so can she assure us that she will give her full support to measures to boost the uptake of pension credit? Most crucially, will she give the House the opportunity to have a proper debate and a vote on this cut, which will have such an impact on so many?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Conservatives’ decisions in this Parliament mean that the average family will face a tax bill that is £870 a year higher, and pensioner taxpayers will pay £960 a year more. The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“This remains a Parliament of record tax rises.”
Higher taxes, squeezed living standards and weaker public services—that is the Conservatives’ legacy. Does the Minister understand why the country has lost confidence in them?
HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the Government’s decision to close the HMRC self-assessment helpline every year between April and September.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), and others, for raising the important issue of HMRC’s customer services and its plans to provide better services for taxpayers.
As Members probably know, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has announced that it is halting planned changes to its helplines, but aims to encourage more taxpayers to self-serve online. It has listened to the feedback and recognises that more needs to be done to ensure that all taxpayer needs are met, while also encouraging those who can to make the transition to online services. Making the best use of online services allows HMRC to help more taxpayers, and to get the most out of every pound of taxpayers’ money by boosting productivity. HMRC helpline and webchat advisers will always be there for taxpayers who need support because they are vulnerable or digitally excluded, or have complex affairs. I recognise that such reassurances were not communicated clearly enough yesterday.
Of course, the pace of this change needs to match the public’s appetite for managing their tax affairs online. The changes in the self-assessment VAT and PAYE helplines announced by HMRC will therefore be halted while it engages with stakeholders, which means that the phone lines will remain open as usual. HMRC will now work with stakeholders—including me—while continuing to encourage customers to self-serve and gain access to the information that they need more quickly and easily by going online or to the HMRC app, which is available 24/7.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Throughout the pandemic, people across the country made extraordinary and heart-wrenching sacrifices, yet as they did so, a small minority were instead making millions of pounds by ripping off the taxpayer. With conflicts of interest, defective goods and exorbitant profit margins, it has been greedy and grubby and this Conservative Government have enabled it all. As taxpayers, we want our money back, so Labour will create a covid corruption commissioner to chase down every pound we can. Does the Minister have any idea just how angry people are that our country has been taken for a ride?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Tens of thousands of people have been affected by the loan charge, with some having faced well-documented distress and harm as a result of HMRC’s approach. At the same time, HMRC has been issuing fewer than two fines a year against the architects and enablers of failed tax avoidance schemes. It is absolutely right that disguised remuneration schemes are tackled fairly and effectively, so how on earth can the Conservative Government justify such a light-touch approach for the promoters of such schemes, while many of those caught up in them face such a nightmare?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
In October 2021, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), as Chancellor, welcomed the OECD global agreement on a global minimum corporation tax rate. The then Chancellor’s press release made it clear that
“The aim is for these historic rules to be implemented and effective from 2023.”
Yet now we hear rumours that some senior Conservatives are agitating against the deal being implemented, and we have all seen the Prime Minister’s weakness when facing resistance from his own party. Can the Minister confirm that pillar two of the OECD deal will be in place, as promised, by the end of this year?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I echo the consensus about the importance of a merry Christmas. In the last month, I have asked Treasury Ministers three simple questions: whether the Chancellor has considered abolishing non-dom status; whether the Prime Minister was consulted about doing so; and whether, when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor, he recused himself from discussions on the matter. I have asked those questions four separate times, but four times Treasury Ministers have refused to answer or even acknowledge them. Once might be an oversight and twice might be careless, but three times seems deliberate and four times feels like stonewalling. Will the Minister finally show that they have nothing to hide by answering my questions today?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Two years ago, in a video entitled “Rishi Explains: Green Home Grants”, the current Prime Minister enthusiastically took credit for the green homes grant scheme. Six months later, the scheme collapsed and £1 billion was cut from its budget. The truth is that we have the draughtiest homes in Europe, but when it comes to insulating homes, the Government are nowhere to be seen. If the Government had followed our plan last year, 2 million of the coldest homes could already have been upgraded, saving households more than £2 billion on energy bills this year alone. Home insulation should be a no-brainer. Will the Chancellor explain why the Government will not follow Labour’s plans and get on with it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor’s refusal to publish OBR forecasts just over two weeks ago played a key role in falling confidence in the pound, rising borrowing costs and market panic. His woeful decision to avoid scrutiny by gagging the OBR helped to increase mortgage costs for working people, who are now paying the price for Conservative failure.
The Chancellor’s behaviour has been described by the former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as “undercutting” economic institutions. Jonathan Haskel, a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, has made it clear that a
“sidelined OBR generates more uncertainty”.
Does the Chancellor accept that they are right?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Labour welcomes the principle of a UK infrastructure bank moving to a statutory footing, but it is crucial to make sure that public money supports decent jobs that people can raise a family on. Will the Minister therefore support our proposals for all projects funded by the infrastructure bank to come with a good jobs plan and for working people to be given a voice on its board?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between James Murray and Lindsay Hoyle(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Just in the last seven days, we have learned that 7 billion items of personal protective equipment were not fit for purpose, the Government are burning 500 lorryloads of it a month and former Treasury Minister Lord Agnew admitted that the lack of anti-fraud measures in the Government’s covid business support packages meant it was
“happy days if you were a crook”.
When billions of pounds of public money have been lost through the Chancellor’s incompetence, is the Minister ashamed to be hiking taxes on working people by billions of pounds next month?