Business Rates
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Tomlinson
Let me apologise profusely for not letting you know in advance, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have done one of these statements, and I will not make the same mistake again. I am glad that the same courtesy will be afforded to the shadow Chancellor, and I look forward to hearing a full 15 minutes of remarks from him. I am sure that they will be entertaining for us all. [Interruption.] I will make progress now, and we will hear more from the shadow Chancellor.
This decision will mean that the amount of business rates paid by the pub sector as a whole will be lower in 2028-29 than it is today. This is Independent Venue Week, so it is particularly appropriate that our package will apply also to music venues. Many live music venues are valued as pubs, and many pubs are grassroots live music venues. It would not be right to seek to draw the line in a way that includes some and not others, and I thank MPs who have made constructive representations on this issue in recent weeks. In the meantime, we are pressing ahead with wider regulatory reforms, building on the new licensing policy framework in the Budget, and we are working with the sector to ensure that local authorities are using that to ease licensing decisions on the ground. As part of our ongoing licensing reforms, for home nation games in the later stages of the men’s football world cup this summer, pubs and other licensed venues will be able to open until 1 am or 2 am, depending on when the game starts. We will legislate to increase the number of temporary events notices for pubs and other hospitality venues, whether to help them screen world cup games, or for other community and cultural events.
This Government are committed to helping pubs build sustainable business models over the long term. In the spring we will consult on further loosening planning rules to benefit pubs, helping them to add new guest rooms or expand their main room without planning applications. We will also continue to engage with the sector to ensure that other retail leisure and hospitality premises have planning flexibility—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not acceptable. I have to be quite honest, because the other Front Benchers need time to respond. When a statement is meant to take 10 minutes, that is meant to be 10 minutes. If Ministers tell me otherwise in advance, I am willing to work with them, but they cannot just carry on speaking. Minister, I take it that you are now coming to the last page of the statement, not the middle pages—[Interruption.] No, I want you to bring it to an end, and quickly.
Dan Tomlinson
May I apologise, Mr Speaker, for not letting you know in advance that the statement would be running over 10 minutes?
Mr Speaker
Can I just ask, gently, have you not been advised that this is meant to be 10 minutes? Departments have people who are meant to advise Ministers on how long they have got. How on earth have you got a speech that is longer? It could be 20 minutes. It is unfair to the Members present, and there is other business. Please, this House should be shown the respect it deserves, and unfortunately we are not getting it. I am here to protect Members, not allow Ministers to take advantage.
Dan Tomlinson
Mr Speaker, I will wrap up very quickly, and I apologise again.
This Government also understand that things are not easy out there. Today’s announcement is about additional support for pubs, but we understand that this is a tough time for other businesses on the high street. We have already taken significant steps to acknowledge that and support businesses, including £4.3 billion of business rates support in the Budget. Over the past decade, consumers have changed their habits and are increasingly working from home and shopping online, and these trends continue to make it harder for high street businesses. I am therefore announcing today that later this year the Government will bring forward a high streets strategy to reinvigorate our communities. We will work with businesses and representative bodies to bring that strategy together. It will be a cross-Government strategy, and we will be looking at what more the Government can do to support our high streets.
To conclude, this Government have already started the work of reforming our business rates system, and any potential changes to business rates will be considered at the Budget in the usual way. Labour Members have the right economic plan for Britain and will back our high streets and our pubs every step of the way.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I think the mood of the House is that 10 minutes from the hon. Gentleman is more than enough, although I am grateful to him for having given me advance sight of his statement.
Mr Speaker
You can have some extra time, if you need it, and the same applies to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sir Mel Stride
That is much appreciated, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, was that it? After all this time, and weeks of telling our local pubs that help was on the way, this is all they get—a temporary sticking plaster that will only delay the pain for a few, while thousands of businesses despair as their bills skyrocket. The Labour party manifesto promised to completely replace the business rates system. Labour Members said that they would create a system that levels the playing field for our high streets and supports entrepreneurship and investment. Well, we are waiting.
So far, what we have seen is the exact opposite of what our local businesses were promised, with business rates soaring across the board. Despite the temporary relief announced today, pubs will still end up, in time, with bills more than 70% higher than they are today. The Federation of Small Businesses has calculated that the business rates of a typical medium-sized shop or restaurant with a rateable value of around £50,000 will increase by 71% over the coming years. For hotels, it will be over 100%.
Ministers expect those businesses to be grateful for some temporary relief, tweaks to multipliers and changes to licensing, but the Conservatives have been clear: support must be permanent. We have to cut business rates for our high streets to give certainty to local businesses. Measures must be far wider than those that the Government have announced today, applying not just to pubs but to the whole of the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which bring life to our high streets and town centres. We would not just introduce temporary reductions in rates, but completely abolish business rates for thousands of pubs, shops and restaurants across our country.
These huge tax rises introduced by this Government are a choice, but it does not have to be this way. The Government have chosen to increase spending by vast amounts, including on the benefits bill, with a benefits giveaway of over £3 billion at the Budget to abolish the two-child cap. These choices are why bills are going up, businesses are going under, jobs are being lost and our high streets are being hollowed out.
Let us not forget that this is not an isolated issue. Businesses are having to shoulder not just business rates rises, but a long list of other burdens that are being piled on by a Government who simply do not understand how businesses work. Many of those facing the highest increases in their business rates were among the worst impacted by the Chancellor’s jobs tax. They have already seen their business rates go up by as much as 140% last year, and they face yet more costs and red tape from the Government’s employment rights legislation. Analysis by UKHospitality suggests that, on average, as many as six hospitality venues could close every single day this year. That is a tragedy for our high streets and our communities. It is also a tragedy for our young people, many of whom look for their first job in the local pub or coffee shop, and who will find those jobs simply do not exist any more.
I ask the Minister, where is the help for the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? Does what has been announced today include gastropubs, pubs with hotel rooms, bars, nightclubs and private clubs? Why are the Government happy to stand by and watch while businesses close and jobs are lost? When will the guidance be published for businesses, so that they know whether they will be eligible for this further relief and what their bills will be over the coming year? Why did Ministers not come forward with this relief for pubs at the time of the Budget, when they knew the level of increases that many businesses were facing? No new information has been provided between the Budget being announced and this statement. Can the Minister confirm that because this relief was not accounted for at the Budget, today’s announcements will need to be paid for through yet more borrowing?
The Government have proved today that either they do not understand the damage that they are doing or they do not care. Today’s announcement is far too little, far too late.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate that, but when Madam Deputy Speaker is in the Chair, I expect her to be given the same respect, so that when she says that time is up, you do accept that ruling. She felt that you were not stopping in time. I do not want to get into it now, but I will be speaking to the Chief Whip later.
Dan Tomlinson
It is just not credible for the shadow Chancellor to say that he would scrap business rates. What did the Conservatives do over the 14 years that they were in power? They kept business rates in place, they did not reform the system and, year after year, they introduced temporary reliefs that did not work or last. Some 7,000 pubs closed under their watch, in communities up and down the country, and they expect this House to believe that they were just getting around to it. Well, we do not believe that and we will not stand for it. Instead, this Labour Government will get on with the work of ensuring that we can get our public finances in order, getting borrowing down and continuing to support businesses, as far as we reasonably can, with our £4.3 billion of support.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the guidance. That guidance will be published today—I hope it has been published already, but if not it will come very soon. Bills will be landing in the inboxes and on the doormats of businesses across the country in the coming weeks, and will reflect the changes that have been announced today. Yes, this will be scored in the usual way at the Budget. He talks about borrowing, but his plans to scrap business rates entirely, funded by made-up savings in other parts of public spending, would mean an increase in borrowing of £30 billion or so, which we could not afford.
The Labour Government have set out significant plans today to support pubs and those businesses that are the heart of our high streets that have been affected by the particular way that they are valued. As I said in my statement, pub business rates valuations are not the same as those for the rest of hospitality: pubs are valued on their takings, whereas other hospitality businesses are valued on their bricks and mortar. Industry bodies have highlighted concerns about how the costs are accounted for in this methodology. The Government want to look at that more closely, which is why we are launching the review and have come forward with this significant package of support for pubs today.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the support for music venues as well as pubs in my constituency. I also welcome the Minister’s engagement and willingness to speak to the Select Committee and to be questioned by us. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you would agree that it would increase the Minister’s favour in your eyes were he to do that with dispatch and not leave it for too many weeks, so I thank the Minister for his engagement on that.
On the wider issues of business rates, changes have been announced, but will the Minister outline the timeframe within which we will see a significant change? It was a Labour manifesto commitment to change business rates, but it will take time because of the valuation procedure. Does he propose to change that wholesale, and in what timeframe? Businesses of all types, including pubs, need certainty most of all, so that they know the trajectory in good time and can plan.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
If the Government are serious about saving the high street, then these measures can only be the start. Since the Government’s first Budget, we Liberal Democrats have been warning that high streets were at risk if the Government did not make the various changes that they have made over the past 18 months.
A number of questions arise from today’s statement. There are 11 pubs in my constituency, not all of which could be described as large, that have a rateable value of more than £100,000 because of the ridiculous valuation system, and they will still see their rates bills go up. There will be such pubs across the country, but is it correct that they will get only half of the percentage relief? Pubs can already have 50 temporary event notices a year, so extending that is simply a soundbite solution without a problem.
I am glad that the Government are looking at hotels, but what is the timeframe? The Samuel Ryder hotel in my constituency tells me that its bill is going up by 157% in the first year alone, and it will not be the only such hotel. Will the new formula for hotels be in place in April, or will they be left in limbo?
The statement still offers nothing for the rest of the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors—the restaurants, soft play centres and high street shops that made business, investment and hiring decisions based on the expectation of the full 20p discount. I welcome the announcement of a high street strategy, which we Liberal Democrats will engage constructively with, but will the Minister start now by heeding our calls to direct the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the energy market, which is blocking hospitality businesses and other sectors from getting the best energy deals? Will he also look at our fully funded proposal to slash VAT until April 2027, to give our high streets a boost?
Over the past few weeks and months, getting answers and data from the Government has been like getting blood from a stone. Just 90 minutes ago, I asked the Minister if he would tell us what he knew and when; he said he would, but he has not.
Finally, on the methodology for pubs, the use of fair maintainable trade—turnover—has long had its day, but may I urge the Minister to allow for parliamentary scrutiny? None of the current legislation relating to pubs or business rates allows for any scrutiny in this House or the other place. I asked the Government about the valuation methodology back in July 2024; it was one of my first written questions after the general election, but it has taken 18 months for the Government to listen. Will they please allow this House to scrutinise their plans so that we can get a long-term fix to save our pubs?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We will run this statement to about 3.15 pm, so we can all help each other. Jim Dickson is going to be a good example.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The pubs in my constituency, from the Growler Stop and Ivy Leaf in Dartford to the Bull in Stone and the Spring River in Ebbsfleet, are the heart of our community. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that we find ways to protect them as places for people to come together and build communities, and that the package he has announced today—with its 15% reduction on the revalued bill and protection for the next three years—makes a big contribution to that goal?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement on behalf of the businesses in her constituency. She raises some interesting issues on tax, regulation and licensing when it comes to pubs and hospitality. I do not want to pre-empt the work of the high street strategy, which will be a cross-Government effort with the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury working together, but we want to hear about these things from businesses on the ground. I look forward to engaging with Members of Parliament from all parties as we work on the strategy in the coming months.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
This is a baby step in the right direction, but the hospitality, tourism and retail industry in Torbay continues to trade in a hostile environment. One leisure provider in Paignton shared with me that they have a £44,000 gas bill. Will the Minister share what the Government are doing to tackle these high energy prices that many suffer from?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Coghlan
In the 1940s, refugees fled the Nazis and built the atomic bomb; they pioneered a method of public research and development that has powered US economic dominance ever since. The EU Security Action for Europe defence bond fund offers us a similarly transformative opportunity: £20 billion invested in defence R&D could expand our economy by £100 billion. Will we join our Canadian and European allies, end our economic stagnation, and together defend the—
Mr Speaker
Order. I can see that you want to round up your question, but this is more of a statement. You are telling the history, which is important, but I hope there is a question coming now, as there are a lot of other Members to get in.
Marie Goldman
Chelmsford has a vibrant night-time economy. Just last Sunday, I spent the evening at a fabulous local music venue called Hot Box, right in the heart of my constituency. Venues such as Hot Box represent important cultural and social spaces for smaller cities like mine, but many are at risk due to recent Government changes to the business rates system. New analysis puts the average increase in the hospitality business rates bill in Chelmsford at nearly £23,000 over three years. For many, that is impossible to absorb. Another family-run business in Chelmsford that has been going for 25 years will see its monthly rates more than double from April. It says that it will simply have to close its doors if that goes ahead, resulting in 40 people losing their jobs. Will the Government implement the 20p discount that they have already legislated for and let all businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality get the support that they need?
Dan Tomlinson
I have got the idea, Mr Speaker!
The key thing to note here is that there is a significant difference between the change in the rateable value and the change in the business rates. This year, we have stepped in to cap the increases for bills at £800 for those coming into the system for the first time. For most high street businesses, the increase will be 15%, while the very largest will see increases of 30%. Those are the steps we have taken. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, they chose to increase VAT on businesses up and down the country.
Dan Tomlinson
I am very fond of my constituency neighbour, who has the privilege of sharing a part of Barnet with me. There will be news this afternoon—I am just trying to find my words, Mr Speaker.
Dan Tomlinson
I hope the microphone picked that up.
We will make further announcements this afternoon specifically focused on pubs, but I understand that there are businesses across the economy that will have seen increases in their rateable values since the pandemic. That is precisely why we have stepped in with our support package.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Chancellor promised hospitality firms that she would lower their taxes, but her business rate raid is hammering every town, village, city and high street. This is not just an attack on pubs; hotels, cafés, music venues and many more are being hit. It is two months since the Budget caused huge worry for these businesses, and we await details of this latest U-turn, but the key question is: does the Chancellor get it? Does she get that it is not just pubs but hospitality, leisure and retail businesses that need support because of her terrible choices?
Dan Tomlinson
Conservative Members do not get it, because when they were in government, they set out plans to remove the temporary pandemic rates relief overnight in 2025. That would have seen an increase of 300% in business rate bills overnight for businesses on the high street. We have taken a different, fairer and more proportional approach, phasing out the pandemic relief over a slower time period and extending it into this year.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I wish you a speedy recovery.
We know that pubs have been badly hit by these business rates changes, but businesses right across retail, hospitality and leisure have made investment and hiring decisions based on the expectation raised by this Government that they would get a full 20p discount on their business rate multiplier. Those businesses—music venues, restaurants, soft play centres and hotels—are the high street shops that communities most love. Do Ministers accept that anything less than the full 20p discount for retail, hospitality and leisure will leave the three-to-five-year business plans of those high street businesses in total disarray?
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member may well know that, at the spending review, we increased the financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion. There are a number of ways in which the British Business Bank will support companies like the one she referred to.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund plays a crucial part in investing taxpayers’ money. I welcome the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report on that issue. Will the Minister indicate when the National Wealth Fund will have the ability to borrow from private markets in order to increase its independence, secure funding for infrastructure, and get the taxpayer off the hook?
Torsten Bell
We will always give the hon. Member an answer—and I mean always, at every single one of these sessions. Government Ministers, particularly at the Northern Ireland Office, spend a lot of time speaking to Ministers in Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right to say that the cost of living crisis affects not just one part but all parts of the United Kingdom. To take just one example, the six interest rate cuts since the general election have already made a big difference to those in Northern Ireland whose mortgage renewal is coming up.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Persistently high inflation and fears that things will get tougher for their children are top issues for the British public, but the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of Labour’s plans was that:
“Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall… to around ¼ per cent a year… well below the last decade’s average”.
Minister, why is the sum of all this Government’s economic policies condemning the British public to such a despairing prospect?
Torsten Bell
Energy bills are too high because the Tory party left us dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices. Wholesale gas prices today remain more than double what they were at the start of 2020. If Conservative Members think that is some kind of advert for staying on gas forever, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
We have already heard this morning that businesses are suffering harm from business rates and national insurance contributions going up, but on top of that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the energy bills of non-energy intensive industries such as hospitality and retail have increased under this Government by up to 10% in the last year. The Conservative are proposing our cheap power plan, which would save small businesses up to £5,000 a year on their energy bills. What is the Minister doing to help small businesses with their energy bills?
Lucy Rigby
The entrepreneurship package in the Budget was incredibly important. The aim of that package, which includes the UK listing relief—the three-year stamp duty holiday that I referred to in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor)—is designed to make the UK the best place to start, scale and list a company.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Chancellor has been very proud that the FTSE 100 has passed through the 10,000-point barrier, citing that as an endorsement of her policies. Does she not realise that that still leaves FTSE 100 on lower valuations than comparable markets and that, in any event, over 80% of the earnings of the FTSE 100 are generated outside the UK? Is it not clear that the FTSE 100 performance is despite this Government’s policies, not because of them?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, we have permanently reduced the multiplier for business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, but my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will set out the support for pubs in more detail later today. We are determined not only to support pubs, which are the lifeblood of so many communities, but also to support the whole of our retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We are putting more money in people’s pockets by cutting energy bills and train fares and getting people back to work, so that they have more money to spend on the things they love, not just on the essentials.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I begin by associating Conservative Members with the Chancellor’s comments about your leg—we wish it well.
We are waiting with interest to hear the details of the latest U-turn on business rates this afternoon, but if the briefing is to be believed, it will be far too little, too late. The Chancellor simply does not understand the desperate situation so many of our pubs are in. Many pubs are asking why the Chancellor chose to spend billions more on the benefits bill instead of providing proper, permanent business rates support.
Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
Dan Tomlinson
The shadow Chancellor said that I was dragged to the House, but that is very much not the case; I am very happy to take questions from him and from Conservative and Government Members.
Mr Speaker
May I help the Minister a little bit? I did grant this urgent question. This discussion would not have happened if I had not done so. I am not quite sure that his statement and mine are compatible.
Dan Tomlinson
I fully respect your decision to grant an urgent question, Mr Speaker. It was—[Interruption.]
Dan Tomlinson
It was the word “dragged” that I had some objection to. I did not mean to comment on your decision to grant the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
Let me answer some of the questions asked by the shadow Chancellor. The key thing is that we are implementing the revaluations that his Government set in train. Treasury Ministers holding a similar role to mine a good few years ago undertook the process for the revaluations that will be in place from April 2026. Those are set on property values from 2024.
Yes, there is an unwind from the pandemic, in terms of increases in businesses’ property values as a result of businesses recovering from the pandemic. We were aware of the impact of the valuation, and of the fact that the previous Government did not have any plans whatsoever to extend the temporary pandemic support. We extended it for one year, and over the course of the next three years we are phasing it out, with the support of Government decisions worth £4.3 billion, and our transitional relief scheme.
I will not comment on speculation, but the shadow Chancellor referred to borrowing. Over the course of this Parliament, we will see the fastest reduction in borrowing of any G7 economy. Borrowing is set to fall in every single year of the forecast because of the decisions that the Chancellor took at the Budget. We have doubled our headroom against our fiscal rules, and we are seeing a warm response from private sector investors and the markets as a result of the decisions that the Government have taken.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Many pubs in my constituency are seeing eye-watering increases in business rates. We know from the Valuation Office Agency, which gave evidence to the Treasury Committee last week, that the formula used is the same formula that has been used for 20 years. This should have been no surprise, as the shadow Chancellor said, yet we learned in that meeting that more than 2,000 pubs have had their business rates doubled. This Government came in with a mission to transform business rates, and they came in part way through a valuation cycle. Aside from the question of what will happen to the hospitality sector, where are the plans for the reform of business rates in the medium to long term?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership of the Treasury Committee. At the Budget, we set out the first significant fundamental reform of the business rates system that we have ever seen. For the first time, there is a very significant divergence in the tax rate paid by businesses on our high streets and by the very largest businesses, including online giants. The tax rate is around 13p lower for high street businesses than it is for the largest businesses. That is a 25% reduction, which cost around £1 billion. It is a £1 billion reduction for businesses on the high street, paid for by higher taxes on those who can most afford it.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
These business rates changes will hammer high streets, and with the jobs tax on top, many businesses have already decided to shut up shop. Getting data out of the Government has been like getting blood from a stone; every question I am about to ask, I have asked before, but let me try again. Why did the Government set the expectation that they would reduce the business rates multiplier by the full 20p discount for retail, hospitality and leisure, and then not use the maximum power that they gave themselves to do that? Do they accept that lots of small businesses have made investment and hiring decisions based on the expectations that this Government set, and will they apologise to those businesses for raising their expectations and then dashing them? Can the Government finally tell us how many business premises have been brought into paying business rates for the first time?
Last Tuesday, we learned that that the Valuation Office Agency had sent the Treasury data drops regularly over the past 12 months. What did Ministers know, and when? The VOA also confirmed that it had told the Treasury that more than 5,000 pubs would see their business rates double, so how is it possible that Ministers did not know that this would happen? Finally, whatever the Government are considering, can they confirm that it will apply to all hospitality businesses and not just pubs, and will they consider our fully costed Liberal Democrat plan for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to run this session for an hour from the start, so it will end at 4.40 pm. If the Minister can help Members to get in, that will be really useful.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Perhaps the Prime Minister, on his much-heralded cost of living tour, might like to visit the pubs and cafés in my constituency of Esher and Walton, if they let him in. They are being squeezed to breaking point by this Government, while constituents watch their wallets because of tax rises. Hospitality venues are the lifeblood of my high street and create the jobs we need for young people. Will the Government act now by fully using business rates relief and introducing an emergency VAT cut for hospitality to protect jobs, pubs, restaurants and the lifeblood of my constituency?
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister does not have to defect to Reform to get a pint, and I am very happy to show him round the pubs in Shropshire’s villages and market towns. I will show him that pubs are not just about having non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks; they are often at the very heart of village communities. Local charities, the women’s institute, pensioner groups and others meet there because the post office or the shop has closed. May I genuinely invite the Minister to get out of London—out of the beltway and out of the bubble—and come to Shropshire? He will not be allowed inside pubs, of course, but I can bring him a pint outside when the warmer weather comes. I appeal to him to join me in Shropshire and hear at first hand what pub landlords and owners have to say.
Dan Tomlinson
I do not know what the current Government position is on whether pubs are allowed to sell takeaway pints, but I hope that would be allowed in Shropshire if I were to visit. However, I have about 30 pubs in my north London constituency, and I have many conversations with publicans both locally and in my role as Exchequer Secretary.
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
Dan Tomlinson
Yes, I do believe that we have got the balance right. It is worth noting that the top 4% of claims accounted for over half the Exchequer cost of business property relief and the top 7% of claims accounted for 40% of the Exchequer cost of agricultural property relief. That is hundreds of millions of pounds in tax that was forgone but will now be raised under these changes from the very largest estates. I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on this issue over recent weeks and months.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to House staff and all Members in the Chamber. This policy was a disaster from the get-go. It came with no warning, no consultation and no clue. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to point out the damage it would do to family farms. We have repeatedly and clearly highlighted that it would fail to tackle the loopholes exploited by private equity companies but hammer the family farm, damaging our food security in the process. The changes are welcome, but they do not touch the sides, and they are a clear admission by the Government that they have got it badly wrong.
There is now only one sensible course of action left: to scrap the policy in its entirety. Will the Government now do that? If not, the Liberal Democrats will table amendments to the Finance Bill to bring this measure down. Will the Government allow a free vote so that those on their own Benches who want to vote against the measure are free to do so?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on this and many other important issues that affect rural communities up and down the country, as well as in her constituency—a fantastic part of the world that I am sure I will be able to visit soon. She is right that the Government are taking steps—for example, through our £11.8 billion fund to support sustainable farming and food production—and I look forward to working with Ministers in other Departments and across Government to ensure that we continue to support our rural and farming communities.
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to say that we on this side of the House are the true and better representatives of the rural community. There are over 150 MPs on this side of the House who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies—I believe that there are as many Labour MPs representing rural constituencies as there are MPs on the blue Opposition Benches.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year to you and your staff. Farmers in my constituency will welcome this change to the thresholds for APR and BPR. However, it took 14 months to achieve it and rural communities really do feel discriminated against by some of the measures that this Government are taking against them. I ask the Minister to convey to his colleague, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, that the Government should not enact any changes to shooting or trail hunting, because to do so would really damage and annoy rural communities?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Has the Treasury made any assessment of the SNP’s plans to separate Scotland from its main market, the rest of the UK, which accounts for 60% of its trade? While I am at it, may I thank the Chancellor for the £820 million extra for the Scottish budget?
Mr Speaker
Order. The good news for the Chancellor is that she has no responsibility for the SNP. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The botched Brexit deal has wrapped up British businesses in red tape and blown a hole in the public finances to the tune of £90 billion a year. The Chancellor insists that her No. 1 mission remains to get economic growth. If that is the case, will she and her Ministers vote with the Liberal Democrats this afternoon to make sure that we get rid of that red tape and deliver on a new UK-EU customs union?
Lucy Rigby
I thank the hon. Member for his question. We very much understand the importance of in-person banking, including in beautiful, rural communities such as those that he represents. That is exactly why we are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs right across the UK by the end of this Parliament. Over 240 hubs have been announced so far and more than 190 are already open.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
In the recently published financial inclusion strategy, the Government state:
“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”
What is not to like about that, Mr Speaker? But that makes the Chancellor’s political decisions in the Budget even more confusing. Just look at what was announced: reducing the cash individual savings account limit to £12,000; scrapping the lifetime ISA; capping salary sacrifice schemes at £2,000; increasing tax on dividends by two percentage points; increasing savings income tax by two percentage points; freezing the repayment thresholds for student loans; freezing income tax thresholds for working people; freezing personal allowance thresholds for pensioners—
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] No, please just sit down. Don’t challenge me; it is not a good idea. We did quite a few days on the Budget. I think we can all remember every point you are making. Is there anything you would like to add? If you are carrying on the list, forget it. I call the Minister.
Lucy Rigby
The shadow Minister makes reference to a number of changes in the Budget that were pragmatic, responsible and fair. I contrast that with the Conservatives’ approach, which would return us to austerity. That would be both irresponsible and unfair.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s support for our high streets and the consultation on the business rates system, which the Treasury launched on 25 November. But it is not just high streets that are suffering. Under the current system, major transport infrastructure owners face crippling bills: Eurotunnel’s business rates valuation has tripled from 2017, so it has cancelled investment in its international freight hubs, and Heathrow Airport’s business rates bill will increase by millions of pounds. Will the Treasury’s consultation on 25 November give transparency and predictability—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hospitality sector might use the rail industry, with freight, so I am sure we can get something on that.
Dan Tomlinson
I am sure that many of us do jump on the train to support our hospitality businesses. The consultation that my hon. Friend mentions, which we published on the day of the Budget, is an important piece of work. Chapter 4 of our call for evidence on how we can reform business rates to support investment will be important. We recognise that airports and other large infrastructure are valued in a different way from other business properties, and we want to look at the changes that we can make to support those businesses, which have seen very significant increases in their rateable values. Under the scheme that we have announced, they will of course be capped as well.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Chancellor promised a new golden era of hospitality, but the reality of her business rates raid, as the British Beer and Pub Association has said, is
“sleepless nights, pay cuts and staff layoffs”
for publicans, who will be paying an extra £13,000 on average. Why did the Chancellor tell businesses last week that their taxes were going down when they are going up, and will she think again and change the multipliers?
Dan Tomlinson
The multipliers are a product of the change in the valuation, and they did come down. We brought them down even further for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Without intervention this year, the bills paid by pubs would have increased by 45% as a result of the increase in value since the pandemic; because of this Government’s significant intervention this year, bills are going up by 4%. That is the impact of the changes this Government have made.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
High street hospitality businesses are on a knife edge—this is a disaster in the making. The Government say that they have rebalanced business rates, but that is not the case. UKHospitality says that the average increase for hospitality businesses will be 76% over the next three years, compared with warehouses, offices and large supermarkets, which will go up by only 16%, 7% and 4%. The reality is, the Government said repeatedly that they were going to introduce permanently lower business rates, and businesses heard that and made decisions based on that—and now their bills are going up. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I implore the Minister to look again, use powers to reduce the multiplier to minus 20p and look at an emergency VAT cut.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, Mr Bonavia, but the Chancellor is ready now—your season ticket has run out.
Rachel Reeves
I just want to talk about Stevenage, Mr Speaker. The Government’s action is saving commuters in Stevenage £285 a year on the cost of a five-day season ticket. With the uplift of £120 billion in capital spending, the Government have also committed to the sorts of projects that my hon. Friend mentions, particularly around transport hubs. I will arrange for my hon. Friend to have a meeting with the relevant Transport Minister.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement that the Chancellor has just made. Can I take that as an assurance that she will speak to her right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and make sure that rail fares in Tonbridge do not increase when a second peak-time service is introduced when contactless is rolled out as far as Tonbridge? That, of course, would be a sleight of hand, and she would never want to do that.
Lucy Rigby
As someone who enjoys both rugby and gin, sometimes at the same time, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s support for the businesses in his constituency. To support spirits producers, the Government have put in place a range of measures. As for small producer relief, I know that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is open to evidence on the operation of the new system. I should add that the Government plan to evaluate the reforms in late 2026, which will be three years after they took effect.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
In east Kent, an entrepreneurial chain of 25 coffee bars employs young people who otherwise would probably be unemployable. The profit margin on those 25 coffee bars for the last year was £12. The hospitality industry is on its knees. Will the Chancellor recognise the need to cut VAT on hospitality to 10%?
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.
Rachel Reeves
I could not agree more. The previous Government failed to protect public money, while this Government have generated around £400 million by getting money back. We all know what happened: the Tories dished out contracts to their friends and donors—money that never belonged to them. This Government will leave no stone unturned because that money belongs to taxpayers, not with cronies or crooks.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The process surrounding the Budget was utterly chaotic. We had months of damaging speculation, fuelled by briefings and leaks from the Treasury itself. They included briefings on 14 November that moved markets and gave the appearance, at least, of being deliberately inaccurate, which is why we need the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate. May I ask the Chancellor a simple question? Did she at any point authorise or allow confidential details of the Budget or the forecast to be briefed to the press—yes or no?
Dan Tomlinson
At the Budget, we came forward with a revision to the policy to support people whose spouses have already passed away, and we made the allowance transferable between the spouses. That change will reduce the number of farms affected by the agricultural property relief changes from about 500—as was estimated at the previous Budget—to 375, when coupled with changes to the underlying economic forecast. The policy raises money from those with the largest estates in a fair way, and I encourage Members in all parts of the House to consider whether or not—
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Short-term lets—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Dave Doogan, what is it about you always wanting to shout at the wrong time? Please be quiet.
Rachel Blake
Short-term lets account for up to 20% of homes in parts of my constituency. Not only are they eroding communities, but I am concerned that their owners are not fully paying their tax. What steps will the Chancellor take to address the fact that data from Airbnb suggests that as many as 6,000 homes are being let on short-term lets, but vanishingly few are registered to pay business rates? Will she meet me to discuss this issue, and how we can recover the tax, which could be up to hundreds of millions of pounds—
OBR: Resignation of Chair
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
Richard Hughes was a respected chair of the OBR, and his departure is a matter of deep regret. The circumstances surrounding his resignation remain unclear—although for the Chancellor, it has clearly been a useful distraction from her own conduct.
On Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing the details of the pre-measures forecast rounds, and members of the OBR board were clear to the Treasury Committee yesterday that that step was taken because of serious concerns about partial leaks and briefings about their forecasts. In relation to the market-moving briefings made on 14 November, which suggested that the public finances were, after all, in a better position, David Miles stated to the Committee:
“I think there had been a misconception that there had been some good news. It didn’t exist.”
The board members also clarified that those concerns were raised by Richard Hughes with the Treasury before the Budget, and that the information published on Friday was approved by the permanent secretary.
What discussions did the Treasury, including the Chancellor, have with Mr Hughes immediately prior to his resignation? Mr Hughes said last week that he served
“subject to the confidence of the Chancellor”.
Did the Chancellor give Mr Hughes her full confidence? Was any pressure put on Mr Hughes to resign? Did the Chancellor approve the OBR’s publication on Friday and discuss it with the permanent secretary? I believe that the Minister has confirmed that, but perhaps he might do so again. [Interruption.]
Sir Mel Stride
Do Ministers agree with the OBR’s opinion that leaks and briefings about the forecasts damaged growth? If so, what action was taken by the Treasury regarding those leaks? May I ask once again whether it was appropriate for the Chancellor herself to opine publicly on the OBR’s productivity forecast before the Budget, given that those matters should remain strictly confidential?
As you know, Mr Speaker, I have written to the Financial Conduct Authority seeking a full investigation into matters relating to the Chancellor’s statements on the state of the public finances. I have also written again this morning to the permanent secretary at the Treasury, requesting a full investigation into all these matters.
Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members have to learn that they cannot run in front of other Members when they are speaking, please. It looks really bad on TV, and it is not courteous.
Dame Meg Hillier
I, too, welcome the fact that the OBR has put its report out so quickly, so that it can put its house in order and make sure this never happens again. I have been saddened and troubled by the number of leaks, advertent and inadvertent, during the Budget process. Will the Chief Secretary please assure the House that there will be proper discussion in Government about how to prevent them? I need only point him to the words of the permanent secretary at the Treasury to the Treasury Committee on 12 February this year, when he was very clear that leaks can be market moving and must not happen. Let us be clear that the Debt Management Office was still trading during the Budget process, and was selling gilts at a higher price as a result.
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
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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?
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
These leaks are not just Westminster tittle-tattle; they have a real impact on people’s lives and livelihoods. The cold weather has now reached all corners of Britain, and households do not know if they can afford to put the heating on, because they do not know if their taxes are going up or down or staying the same. It is just five weeks until Christmas, and our high streets are struggling with low consumer confidence. That is precisely why we Liberal Democrats have called for a windfall tax on the big banks to fund an emergency cut to people’s energy bills and a VAT cut for hospitality, visitor accommodation and attractions.
However, these leaks are a symptom, not the cause; the real problem runs much deeper. The Labour Government have no vision for the country and no vision for the economy, and whatever their destination is, they are not taking the country with them. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have had Pinky and Perky chirping all day. Well, that is the last time!
Daisy Cooper
When people and the markets do not know what the Government are trying to achieve, rumours can and do run rife. It is clear that this Budget is more leaky than our crumbling hospitals.
I should add that the confected outrage from the Conservatives is slightly absurd, because their key Budget announcements were often leaked in advance—in at least one case, almost word for word. Perhaps this House needs to move to the Swedish system in which the Swedish Parliament gets to debate the Government’s Budget, proposes alternatives and amendments before it is finalised, and gets a proper period of scrutiny and accountability in the months that follow. What are the Government doing to stop these leaks, do they recognise that this flip-flopping is incredibly damaging to households and the markets, and will they consider all good ideas, including from the Liberal Democrats?
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.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am often put in mind of that scene in “Casablanca” where the official expresses surprise at gambling taking place in the casino when I hear Conservative Members say that briefing might have taken place. Perhaps in 2017, when the key stamp duty measure in that Budget was leaked, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) was equally surprised, as he was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. While there is always briefing, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the job of the Chancellor is to get the best deal for this country.
Mr Speaker
Order. That is a toughie that one, and I think we know the answer. It is the worst patsy question so far. I call Steve Barclay.
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
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her time last week—it was good to meet her to talk about important issues affecting farmers and rural communities. On balance, the Government believe that the policy position that was set out at last year’s Budget is the right one, and we will be continuing with it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This morning the Chancellor failed to take responsibility for her poor choices in a Budget that whacked up taxes, borrowing and spending, and made it clear that she would once again break her promises on tax. The farmers whom I have met have been in tears about the family farm tax, not because they are worried about losing their jobs but because the Chancellor is putting generations of farming at risk. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Chancellor has actually met any farmers, the NFU or other farming organisations to understand the impact of her policy and why she should scrap the family farm tax?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government have assessed the impact of this policy. According to the estimates that we issued at the time of last year’s Budget, about 500 farms would pay additional tax as a result of the changes; those numbers were contested by all Opposition Members, but the CenTax report—which the hon. Member has said that he and others are interested in reading—backs them up and confirms the Government’s estimates.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On Friday I sat with farmers and their families in Brecon and Radnor, and they are desperate. If they are 65 or over, they have no time to plan for the family farm tax, they cannot get insurance, and they will be put in an impossible position if the Government go ahead with the tax unamended. The CenTax report sets out options that could extend extra protection for family farms while rightly raising funds from people who are currently exploiting the tax loopholes in APR. Those farmers asked me to put a question to the Chancellor. They asked, “Can the Chancellor please say precisely which parts of the CenTax report the Government disagree with, and why?”
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend is well versed in all these areas, and has done considerable work in this regard. As I have said, the banks play a role in providing access to cash, for instance via post office banking services.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
In this month of blaming everyone else for every woe that befalls the Government and using it as an excuse to bust manifesto pledges left, right and centre, it seems that the Government are claiming credit for more banking hubs, but we all know that the rolling out of banking hubs is a purely commercial decision by the banks. It is the banks that are choosing to do this, to serve their customers. Is it now the Government’s policy to blame everyone else for their own incompetences, and to claim credit for everyone else’s good ideas?
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Mobilising more investment from the UK pension fund market is critical to driving regional economic growth. The Chancellor says that she is a builder, not a blocker, but her proposed builders tax threatens to drastically increase the cost of building anything from homes and roads to nuclear power stations. This will make investing in UK infrastructure increasingly unviable. To avoid even more investment-killing uncertainty, will the Minister agree to scrap Labour’s proposed landfill tax reforms and let Britain get back to building?
Dan Tomlinson
I am not sure that the matter that the right hon. Member just raised has much to do with HMRC.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Treasury Committee looks at HMRC’s customer service. We have recently seen people having their child benefit stopped, ostensibly on the basis of travel data. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to resolve this issue and what data HMRC based its information on?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Conservative party gave us austerity, Brexit and Liz Truss, including high interest rates and high inflation. This Government, so far, have delivered the highest growth in the G7, five interest rate cuts and record high levels of investment. Is it not the truth that the Conservative party, over 14 years, was the reason businesses were struggling?
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Opposition Members spend a lot of time complaining about the difficult decisions taken by this Labour Government, so I wonder whether the Chancellor can remind them what we have been able to do for public services and infrastructure as a result of this Government’s revenue-raising policies.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Analysis by UKHospitality suggests that more than half the job losses in the UK since last year’s Budget have come from its sector. That is further evidence that the jobs tax has been bad for growth and bad for job opportunities. We Liberal Democrats have set out fairer ways of raising revenue and going for growth, so rather than the Government suggesting that we have not done so, can I instead ask them: will they use the Budget to consult on a new lower national insurance contribution band to create opportunities for part-time workers, especially in hospitality?
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Scottish Secretary—a grown man who seems easy to upset—was very upset recently when the First Minister of Scotland had direct meetings with the President of the United States over whisky tariffs. The SNP and the First Minister will always stand up for Scotch whisky. Will the Chancellor follow suit, or will she continue in the Treasury’s long-standing tradition of suckling off the enterprise of Scottish businesses rather than supporting them? Her tax hike on Scotch whisky last year cost jobs and investment in Scotland. Will she now stand up—
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I remind him of the landmark trade deal that this Government secured with India. He criticises the Government for not doing enough, but we have secured a trade deal with India, the EU and the US. We are also reducing tariffs to support industry and investing in Scotland with a record-breaking Budget to support jobs, investment and growth, and the public sector across the whole of Scotland.
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?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. This question is linked to Newcastle, so we will go to the next question.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Dr Opher
I am proud that the Government have invested £250 million in putting solar panels on schools and hospitals. In Stroud, we have a programme whereby, through community energy funding, we will put solar panels on every school in the area. I was going to ask the Chancellor about Treasury rules that were blocking that, but I heard from her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) that that may no longer be the case. Will she confirm that that block has been removed?
Rachel Reeves
It was good to see my hon. Friend and the engineering company Redler in Downing Street yesterday. On the issue about schools, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), the scheme is now reopened. I have not had a look at the schools mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher). There may be some issues with maintained schools, but we are looking into that and are keen to work with him to ensure that schools in his constituency—indeed, schools in all hon. Members’ constituencies—can benefit from the scheme.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
What is the Chancellor’s definition of “working people”?
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I have a lot of Members to get in and I am trying to help everybody. Don’t be tempted—that is the easy answer.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Please. I am trying to help Members. Minister, tell me which one you do not want to get in, because that is what it is getting to.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I recently joined Sarah Laker and the wonderful team at Stationery Supplies in Marple to celebrate an impressive 20 years in business, but recent research by the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality has shown that 120,000 high street jobs are potentially at risk as a result of proposed changes to business rates next April. Could the Chancellor and Ministers confirm that the forthcoming Budget will support my 250 local retail businesses through a meaningful reduction in rates and ensure that no shop pays more?
Dan Tomlinson
We will be introducing permanently lower rates for those businesses in the Budget.
Mr Speaker
Order. You do not need to bother answering that, Chancellor—we will now move on.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor update the House on how and when schools can apply for libraries for primaries funding, which she announced on 29 September?
Stamp Duty Land Tax
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment. I call the shadow Chancellor to move the motion.
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.