PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Property Taxes - 3 September 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment. I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I beg to move,

That this House notes recent reports that the Government is considering a wide range of increases to taxes on property; notes the Prime Minister’s commitment last year not to impose Capital Gains Tax on primary residences; and calls on the Government not to introduce an annual property levy which would tax the family home, higher rates of Council Tax, or a land value tax, or to lower the thresholds or further increase liability to Inheritance Tax, for example, by changing the seven-year gift rule.

I trust you had a good recess, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely certain that the Deputy Prime Minister also had a good recess. We saw many photographs of her down at the seaside, just off the coast in a rubber dingy—rather like many of the other photographs we saw over the summer, given this Government’s reckless policies on illegal migration. She was probably celebrating the acquisition of another property for her property empire, but that celebration was perhaps slightly tinged with a nagging doubt as to whether she had indeed paid enough stamp duty. Well, we will get to the bottom of that in due course.

Those who could not avoid paying the taxes imposed by this Government are businesses right up and down our country, many of which I took the time to visit during the recess. In the leisure sector alone, some 80,000 jobs have been destroyed by the national insurance rises, and this has particularly affected those taking their first job, younger workers, part-time workers and female workers. Jobs are being destroyed.

While the Deputy Prime Minister was lounging on her boat with her wine, this Government were all at sea, like a cork bobbing on the tide, with no control over the events swirling around them. When it came to the economy, although eclipsed by the calamities around illegal migration, we saw recently the panicked reshuffle of the Treasury Front Bench. I offer my congratulations to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) and warmly welcome him to his new role. However, I should also tell him that he is joining a sinking ship, whose captain has just had all her authority stripped from her, while all his comrades down below deck are fiercely trying to bail it out. I also offer a fond farewell to the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who no doubt thought he was very clever when he leapt off the sinking ship. He will not be feeling quite so clever when he discovers that the place to which they have sent him is even more dysfunctional than the Treasury Front Bench.

Among all this news of arrivals to our shores, we have had a cruel summer of speculation around tax. We have seen in the skies clouds of kites flown largely by the Treasury as to what taxes it is going to put up. It has all been tax, tax and tax. I am reminded of the Beatles’ song “Taxman”:

“I’ll tax the street,

If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,

If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,

If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.”

When it comes to tax, it is not so much “Good Day Sunshine” as “Help!”[Laughter.] Okay—it was a bit hammy, but it was worth a try. I was going to try “Penny Lane” as well, but I drew the line there.

It is worth examining how we got to this point, for a reckoning for our country is surely coming. This will be a story for all time.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will do so momentarily.

It started with broken promises. This was a party that said during the run-up to the general election that it had no intention of raising taxes left, right and centre, and yet within a month or two, this Government did precisely that, with devastating consequences: tax rises on businesses that stifle growth. They talked down the economy by confecting a £22 billion black hole that did not exist. What an irony it was that it was they who brought in the Office for Budget Responsibility to decide whether that £22 billion black hole existed and that the OBR said it could not legitimise the claim—the Government were wrong.

What happened with spending and borrowing? It got completely out of control. The combination of passing on price rises because of the national insurance increases, and the extra borrowing and spending, has led to higher inflation. We are an outlier when it comes to inflation.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

In a moment.

That in turn has seen interest rates higher for longer and the servicing costs on our national debt now running at over £100 billion a year—more than twice our defence spend. I will now give way to whoever was trying to intervene behind me.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that correcting this loss of market confidence demands decisive action from the Government at the Budget, and that that decisive action cannot be taken solely on the tax side? The tax side is what has driven us into this loop. We need decisive action on spending and particularly on welfare if we are to see some restoration of market confidence and get ourselves out of this rut.

My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely right. The reality, as we see in the bond yields at the moment, is that the markets have no confidence in the ability of this Government to get on top of spending. We saw the farce of a Government who came into office scrapping the £5 billion of welfare savings that were already baked into the OBR’s scorecard because we had brought them in, and attempting to bring forward their own reforms only for their Back Benchers to vote them down. My right hon. Friend is so right; this Government do not have the will or the plan to deal with spending, and that is at the heart of the reason why we will all be punished and pay the price of more taxes come the Budget in November.

I commend the shadow Chancellor for bringing forward this subject for debate. He clearly shares my deep concern that I have, and that I think everyone in this Chamber should have, that the Government are considering a further tax on property, despite the fact that the Prime Minister committed to not imposing capital gains tax on residents of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Last year, it was the family inheritance tax; this year, those who own property—those who have scrimped and saved for their house, those who are middle class, those hard workers—have now become the latest target of Labour tax policy.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Of course, if the Government have got into a situation where they are having to scrabble around and look at property taxes, as we are debating this afternoon, than really nothing is safe from the taxman under this Government.

I gently remind the right hon. Member that since this Labour Government came to power, interest rates have been cut five times—a vote of confidence in our Chancellor, fixing the foundations of our economy. That saves the average family on an average tracker mortgage in my constituency over £100 a month. Will he remind me what happened to interest rates when his party was in power?

As the hon. Lady will know, interest rates are one of the key tools in monetary policy and are applied to bring down inflation. While she is right that there have been five reductions in the level of the base rate, there should have been many more. The reason is—the evidence is there—that this Government have stoked inflation. Inflation is still rising. It is at twice the level or thereabouts that it was on the day of the general election. When a Government stoke inflation, we pay the price through higher interest rates, and that is precisely what has been happening.

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the massive impact of these tax rises on so many families and businesses up and down the country. Will he comment on how we can have a Deputy Prime Minister who has admitted avoiding paying the tax that she owed and who continues in office? And this, from a party that called for the resignation of people for far lower offences! Does that not expose the rank hypocrisy that seems to run right through this Government?

If the right hon. Lady wants to make the rules, she should live by them. That message will go out to businesses and families up and down the country. There is no way that they can avoid the juggernaut of taxes that are coming down the track.

In return for the right hon. Member’s generosity in giving way, I will say something pleasant about the last Conservative Government. [Interruption.] I know—wait for it! It will be just one thing.

The last Government allowed councils like Westmorland and Furness, run by the Liberal Democrats, to double council tax on second homes. It is right to do that because excessive second-home ownership annihilates communities in the lakes and the dales, the west country and elsewhere. But can I encourage the Conservatives and the party in government now to do something that would do much more to limit the number of second homes than that: bring in a new planning category of use, so that national parks and councils can manage the numbers and save communities?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the Conservative party—I am sure that they are deeply felt and very genuine. What the Deputy Prime Minister should be doing is delivering more homes. It is quite clear that the target of 1.5 million homes, which the Government claim they will deliver at the rate of 300,000 a year, will not be met. I am quite happy to be proven wrong, but I very much suspect that I will not be, unfortunately.

We have ended up in a situation in which a huge black hole is looming. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research puts it at possibly as much as £40 billion. The economic mismanagement of the Labour party is a recurrent theme. In the October Budget—the Government’s first—there was headroom of about £10 billion against the fiscal rules. That, plus £4 billion more, was blown by the time of the spring statement—the emergency Budget. Once again, it appears that considerably more has been blown all over again.

That is no surprise. The U-turns on winter fuel payments and on welfare reform, which we have already discussed in this debate, led to unfunded commitments of around £6 billion—unfunded commitments after the Chancellor had said that the Labour party would never find itself in that position. What she said has simply not happened. What signal does it send to the markets when the Government cannot control spending? In the long-term, it will be interesting to see what the Office for Budget Responsibility has to say about its forecasts for growth. In recent times, 30-year bond yields have hit a 27-year high. We are paying more to borrow than Greece. There is a potential debt crisis looming, and this country could be on the brink—all on Labour’s watch.

The Government inherited bond yields higher than those in many other countries. Right now bond yields are going up in Japan, Germany and the United States. Is the Chancellor responsible for all that?

There is no doubt that under the previous Government there was a need to support the economy. That involved the expenditure of £400 billion, not least on the furlough scheme. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman’s party arguing at the time that we should not do that; in fact, it argued that we should go further still. The Conservative Government stepped in, supported jobs and saved us from going into mass unemployment that many feared would be worse than even in the 1980s, and I take great pride in that. But we are where we are now, and what the Government should be doing is growing the economy, stoking up business sentiment, getting taxes down and getting the economy moving, but they are doing precisely the opposite.

Is not the difference now that we are seeing stagflation—high inflation and the economy not growing as it should be? We are therefore seeing job losses and unemployment going up every month under this Labour Government. Unless they do something drastically different, it will only get worse, and that will impact on our growth prospects and therefore on the prosperity not just of our nation but of the individuals who work and try to thrive here.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeing high inflation, anaemic growth, high gilt yields and a pound that has been plummeting in recent times. All those are signals flashing red on the dashboard.

Instead of getting a grip on spending and getting taxes down, the Government have been out there pitch-rolling yet more taxes. Over the summer, we have seen briefings to the press suggesting tax rises on property. The Labour party has an opportunity this afternoon to rule out those possibilities, and the Minister should do just that when he responds.

First, there has been a suggestion that there will be changes to the private residence relief under the capital gains tax regime. That would strike at the heart of our country as a property-owning democracy. People would be penalised simply for selling up and moving home. It would have clear implications by bunging up the property market, and clear economic implications by causing friction in the process of people moving from one part of the country to another, often in search of work. It would discourage downsizing, even though that would be beneficial in providing more homes for people to live in. Before the election, the Prime Minister said that there never was a policy of that type so it did not need to be ruled out, but let us rule it out just in case anyone pretends that there was such a policy. When he responds, will the Minister confirm that he stands by the words of the Prime Minister?

Secondly, there has been a suggestion of an annual tax on homes. What a tax on aspiration! What a tax on people who have saved hard and managed to get on the property ladder, but who will then be stuck with annual taxes. What about those who are asset-rich but income-poor and cannot afford to pay—are they expected to sell up? Will the Minister rule out that possibility and put people’s minds at rest?

If that was not enough, we hear that the Government may be considering changes to the gifting regime in inheritance tax. They are not content just to pulverise farmers and family businesses, and to see those businesses and farms broken up when they are passed on from one generation to another, because of the imposition of tax. In fact, it was a Labour Government in the 1970s who brought in the reliefs that this Government have chosen to abolish. The inheritance tax yield will double over this Parliament. The Opposition say, “Enough is enough.” We should not punish parents who wish to pass something on to their children. Socialists do not understand that we do not all stand as atomised individuals; we work together as families and communities. We care about each other, we care about the people we love, and it is right that we have the opportunity to pass something on to them.

I thank the shadow Chancellor for introducing this debate on such an important issue. Properties and assets are vital to the country and to people. On the lifetime limit for inheritance tax, over the past year everyone will have heard the Government telling farmers and family businesses to get their affairs in order and to plan. Not having a limit on the lifetime cap was what allowed them to plan. If that is cut or the cap is not in the right place, it will negate every argument that the Government have made in the past year to justify their family farm and family business tax. Will the Minister please acknowledge that and rule out any change to the cap, which would penalise family farms and businesses?

My hon. Friend has put it brilliantly and succinctly, and she is absolutely right. In their horror—in their recoil from the inheritance tax changes—that is exactly what farmers and family business owners have been doing: thinking about alternatives. The seven-year rule has been one of those alternatives, and it would be a really heartless and extraordinarily cruel moment if the Government were to shut that down as well.

My right hon. Friend is explaining the situation in his usual powerful way. If, as seems likely, the Government impose capital gains tax on a person’s principal private residence, will he, as mitigation, consider whether there should at least be indexation allowance to provide some relief from the horror that I fear is about to be inflicted on my constituents? He will remember that the Finance Act 2008 abolished that relief on other property. I suspect that the Government will not be sympathetic to such a suggestion given what happened in 2008, but it would at least take the edge off the imposition of taxes on the sale of a person’s principal private residence.

My right hon. Friend raises his point in his usual eloquent manner. That is a question for the Minister, and I hope that, when he rises to the Dispatch Box, he will rule out our concerns in their entirety. In the event that he cannot, perhaps he will choose to answer my right hon. Friend’s inquiry.

Is it not the case that those in the Labour party have a clear misunderstanding because they have no business experience? Those on the Government Front Bench have no business experience in setting up companies or understanding the meaning of business taxes—the experience is simply not there. Labour will talk about taxing wealth, but does it not understand that if we tax wealth, we will get less of it?

It has been estimated that about 15,000 high net worth individuals have left our country in the period in which this Government have been in power. A consequence of that tax just walking out of the door is that we will require somewhere around a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings to make up the difference. This is not a case of good riddance to wealth; the Government should—as the Conservative party would—encourage and turbocharge wealth at every turn.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If I am an hon. Friend, I will certainly give way.

I am sure Hansard will correct me.

The right hon. Gentleman just made some comments about high net worth or high value individuals. In my constituency, I am particularly interested in individuals on low incomes. In Peterborough, I represent a city with one of the highest levels of those employed on zero-hours contracts and in chronically insecure work. Does he not agree that his party often wants all the spending, but none of the funding for delivery? He talked about reducing taxation for some of those with higher net worth, but will he also talk about which doctors’ surgeries in my constituency would suffer cuts under his plans, which individuals would receive no protection for their employment rights, and how the people of Peterborough would be worse off because he wants to reduce the spending that will fix the foundations of this country?

The hon. Gentleman refers to cutting spending. His party attempted to cut spending, but entirely failed to do so. My point is that if he wants money to spend on public services, he needs to cut welfare and should worry about how to do so. I do not know how he voted when that was put to the test in this House, but if he in any way voted against his own Government and against getting on top of the welfare bill, he should ask his own question of himself.

As for those on low incomes, they are precisely the people who are now being devastated by the increase in national insurance. There is not just an increase in the rate, but a substantial reduction in the threshold at which national insurance kicks in, which has meant higher unemployment, in particular among younger workers, part-time workers, women and people getting that vital first job so that they can get themselves on a career path. They are the people whom the Labour Government are punishing most.

Is that not exactly the point—that the top 1% of earners pay almost 30% of income tax? If we lose them, we damage the people who need the support and the investment from the very taxpayers we have just scared off. Should not the reverse be happening? We should attract more people into this country to spend more money, so that we have more money for such services through tax collection.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already shared with the House the classic example of the number of people who have left this country because of a punitive tax regime and the costs of that.

Further to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), the Labour party denigrates wealthy individuals who choose to come to this country. However, it is about not just the tax that they provide, but the jobs and opportunities they create by investing in constituencies up and down the country. This country has prospered for hundreds of years by being open and welcoming to inward investment. If we lose that, we lose a key plank of the competitiveness and growth that have been associated with our economy.

That is right. We live in a highly mobile world; it is easy for people with substantial wealth or money to invest to go anywhere in the world. We have to remain competitive, and this Government are making us less competitive. My right hon. Friend refers to unemployment, but just look at the record—should we have expected any more from this Government? No, not really. Every single Labour Government in history have left unemployment higher when they left office than it was at the time they came into office. What have we seen on unemployment since this Government have been in office? It has increased every single month since they have been in power.

The right hon. Gentleman has spent the past five minutes circling around figures gathered by a consultancy that aids the super-wealthy to migrate from this country. Where is the Conservative party getting its economic ideas from? It speaks volumes that he has spent so much time up to this point speaking for the 15,000 high net worth individuals served by that consultancy; and his previous point was about inheritance tax, which is paid by only 4% of all estates in the UK. If he has any ideas, what will the Conservative party do to grow the economy for the benefit of all people in this country?

The hon. Lady asks where we are getting our ideas from; where we are not getting them from is from academics and researchers who believe in taxing wealth and who now sit there on the Treasury Bench, or in other places where they advise No. 10. They talk on a regular basis about taxing property, wealth, shares and assets of any description that they can think of, but that is the road to ruin. She asked where we get our ideas from, and I will tell her. I set up my own business in the 1980s, from absolutely nothing. I grew it from scratch, and then I took it over to America and grew a business there. I have lived, breathed and eaten business most of my life. I also go up and down the country to speak to other such businesses. They are the people who understand what needs to be done on the tax front and who have to live with the red tape that her party is bringing in to tie them down. They are the people whom this party is listening to.

The right hon. Gentleman has talked at great length about taxing the wealthy, but he has omitted one of the suggestions that came forth over the summer, which was to get rid of the punitive council tax system, which taxes poverty and deprivation in this country. The former Conservative leader of Hartlepool borough council famously cheered when he put up council tax on deprived people in Hartlepool. Why are the Conservative party and now Reform—that former Conservative leader has now defected to Reform—so attached to that regressive system?

I think that council tax, different variants of it, revaluations and so on are things that Government should look at, because we do not want them to be entirely static; there can always be reform and change. I will observe, however, that the average council tax paid in Labour areas is demonstrably higher than the equivalent taxes in Conservative areas. That comes down to the approach that a Conservative council takes to spending and to ensuring that councils are efficiently run, rather than the profligate approach of the Labour party.

One of the suggestions made to the Government earlier this year was from Conservative-run Hampshire county council, to increase the council tax on my constituents by 15%. That was blocked by this Government, by the Secretary of State. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning Conservative-run Hampshire county council’s proposal to increase council tax by 15%?

I am not going to get into specific things going on in the hon. Gentleman’s area. How can I be expected to opine with authority on something of that nature relating to his constituency? [Interruption.] Hold on. My general point stands: the simple fact is that Labour-controlled local authorities charge more in council tax than Conservative-run councils do.

Order. Members cannot keep standing up and waving their hands in the air; the right hon. Gentleman has to give way.

What the right hon. Gentleman has said is not a fact. The reality in my region is that Milton Keynes, the Labour-run local authority, has lower taxes than all the surrounding Tory authorities, including in Northamptonshire, which has failed over and over again. Two Conservative and now Reform councils have failed, as has Buckinghamshire, while Milton Keynes has been labelled by the Local Government Association as one of the best-run councils. It still delivers lower council tax than all those Tory-run authorities.

It is a simple matter of logic that even if the hon. Lady’s assertion is true—I do not know whether it is or not—it does not contradict the point that I made.

Was it not the current Prime Minister who said

“not a penny more on your council tax”?

Is the shadow Chancellor aware of how that worked out?

In a word, badly.

A moment ago, the shadow Chancellor suggested that he would not get into speculation, but this whole debate is premised on media speculation. I asked him to comment on an actual proposal that was made to the Government by a Conservative-run county council to increase local council tax for my constituents by 15%, so he is asking us to vote on a motion about media speculation but he will not comment on an actual proposal.

My point is very clear—I need to make some progress as I have been fairly generous in taking interventions—that when it comes to council tax, it is a fact that Conservative-controlled councils charge less, because their whole approach to running the council is the same as our approach to running the economy: to ensure it is done efficiently and not to impose undue burdens on people by way of tax.

We were told by the Chancellor that the tax hikes in the Government’s first Budget, last autumn, were a “once in a Parliament” event. It is now a question not of whether there will be further tax increases, but which taxes will be increased. The uncertainty that has flowed from the disastrous situation over the summer has meant that, because of Labour’s choices, a hold has been put on businesses investing, on property transactions and choices, and fundamentally on some of the freedoms that we, as citizens, often take for granted.

Labour Members will desperately dismiss all of this as press speculation—I expect to hear that from the Minister in a moment—but is it not the truth that this sorry tale is entirely of their own making? It is the inevitable result of their choices and the failure that has followed, with much of this speculation seemingly fuelled by briefings from within the Government. This House and the public deserve answers.

The Chancellor cannot borrow more and has shown no ability to control spending. That can only leave tax, but which taxes will it be? Are family homes safe or are they simply fair game? If Labour Members fail to vote for the simple motion before us today, then the answer will be clear: under this Labour Government, nothing is safe—not people’s homes, pensions, savings, businesses or farms, and not that which they simply wish to pass on to their own children. The message to hard-working people up and down our country could not be clearer: Labour will always duck the hard choices and tax the living daylights out of your family’s future, to pay for its failure.

Order. I hope somebody did not use the word “hypocrisy”. I am sure that was not the case.

I call the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—and congratulations on your promotion.

I thank the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) for opening the debate. I can tell that he spent his summer polishing some of his rhetorical flourishes, which he has shared with us today, but I suggest that he could have spent his time rather better.

Thank you for your words of congratulation, Mr Speaker. It is a real honour to be here as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. May I put on record my tribute to my predecessor, now the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for all his fantastic work, notably delivering the spending review? I welcome the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), to his new role. I thoroughly enjoyed the role myself, and I am sure that he will be excellent in it.

Conservative Members will appreciate that today’s motion, as tabled, simply cannot form the basis of a specific debate on individual tax measures. Members from across the House will know that the Government do not respond to speculation in advance of a Budget, which the Chancellor has today announced will take place on 26 November. This has long been the case: the shadow Chancellor knows it well and he knows that it would be irresponsible to engage in that speculation. Whatever political rhetoric he and his colleagues will use in today’s debate, and no matter how many variants of the same question they ask, I know that he will understand that I cannot engage with speculation about individual tax measures ahead of the Budget.

The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot speculate on individual tax measures, but will he deny that the No. 11 machine has been leaking these stories to the national press over the summer?

I am not going to engage in speculation about tax measures or any of the mechanics around them. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends will simply have to wait until 26 November to hear the specifics of the Budget. At that point, I am sure that he and his colleagues will have plenty to say.

I genuinely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I have always found him to be an honest and straightforward speaker in the House and he deserves his position. On the point about speculation, can he confirm reports that the Government are looking again at welfare? Surely he will agree with me that, in any process of fiscal consolidation, one must look to tax rises and to spending cuts. There has been a lot of reporting about there being further measures on welfare, so will there be further measures on welfare under consideration—yes or no?

I thank the right hon. Member for his kind words. As he will know, welfare measures are already going through Parliament and being investigated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability through the review that he is undertaking. This Government are determined to ensure that the safety net is there for the people who need it, and that the people who can work have the support they need to get and maintain a job.

What is not speculation is that the largest rise in property taxes happened under the Conservatives, when Liz Truss crashed the economy and increased interest rates for everyone in my constituency. Will the Minister speak to the fact that house prices are different in different parts of the country, and that must be reflected in Treasury thinking about tax and the Budget this year?

The hon. Gentleman is right to remind everyone of the record under the short-lived Prime Minister, Liz Truss. I notice that Conservative Members do not refer to that themselves when evaluating the economic situation, but the British people will not forget it. On his wider point about housing across the country, we want to ensure that we are building affordable homes in every part of the country. One of this Government’s priorities has been to reform the planning system, to enable the building of 1.5 million homes and ensure that every community has those homes, so people have homes that they can afford to live in, in the area where they grew up, where they want to live or go to work. That is a central mission of this Government.

On that point, will the Minister give way?

I will give way one more time, but then I will make some progress.

The fact that the Government hope to build all those new homes shows that they recognise the importance and value of a home to a family. The Minister says that he will not talk about specific tax measures, but does he recognise the principle that we should not tax people’s homes if we are a country that values home ownership?

I gently remind the hon. Member that council tax—a tax on property—exists in this country, so the principle of applying some taxes to property is well established in the UK, and has been for some time. She is trying to tempt me to engage in more speculation, but as I said to the shadow Chancellor, I am not going to engage in speculation about what may or may not be in the Budget.

I thank the Minister for giving way—he is always very generous with his time—and congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion. The Conservatives are not fans of tax, but sadly they are also not fans of supporting public services. Under their Government, thousands of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs compliance officers, including my mum, were made redundant and we were not able to collect the right amount of tax that people owed. Is that partly why this Government inherited such a large financial black hole?

Order. Before the Minister responds, I will say that we have quite a few colleagues hoping to contribute, so interventions should be short. The Minister should be aware of that and consider how much longer he wishes to contribute.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hint is taken.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his intervention, and I thank his mother for her service to HMRC in the past. People at HMRC do an absolutely critical job in collecting the tax that is important in funding our public services and ensuring that our economy functions effectively. One of our priorities as a Government has been to close the tax gap that existed under the previous Government. At the Budget last year and in the spring statement earlier this year, we set out plans to raise an additional £7.5 billion in tax revenue as a result of hiring people to do those really important jobs, as well as investing in new technology and modernising the service to ensure that people pay the tax they owe.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to make some progress, because a few moments ago I said I would do so. I have been gently reminded by Madam Deputy Speaker that I really must live up to my promise on that front.

The right hon. Member for Central Devon asked me questions in his opening remarks—indeed, his colleagues have their sheets from the Whips, and they have been dutifully following up in their comments—but they are on matters that we cannot talk about today. There are of course other important facts that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about, but the British people have not forgotten them. There is the £22 billion black hole in our public finances, which the previous Government hid from the light. There is the disastrous mini-Budget, which caused damage to households across the country and to our reputation around the world. We had stalled housing, unfinished infrastructure and public services brought to their knees by under-investment and disinterest. The Conservatives do not want to talk about those things because that is the legacy of the last Government. We found out just today that the right hon. Gentleman does not even want to talk about things happening in Conservative councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) raised so importantly in his contribution earlier.

Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, the right hon. Gentleman’s party and Reform Members are talking Britain down. They want to claim that Britain is broken, but I believe that Britain is unbreakable. Our country is full of potential. It is home to hard-working people, brilliant businesses, world-leading universities and research institutions, cultural giants and the promise that if people work hard and contribute to the country, it will be a place where they can succeed. Yet undeniably, after 14 years of Tory mismanagement, far too many working people feel that the economy is stuck.

Will the Minister give way?

I have been asked by Madam Deputy Speaker to make some progress, so I will return to the hon. Gentleman a little later.

I hear from my constituents, as I am sure many other Members in the Chamber hear from theirs. They tell us that no matter how much effort they put in at work, their careful management of household finances and their diligent efforts to save for a brighter future, they do not yet feel that they are getting enough in return, and it has become harder to get ahead. At the same time, our roads and railways seem slow and less reliable and our classrooms seem fuller, while the NHS has a massive backlog. The root cause of all that is the chronic under-investment by the previous Government. That under-investment over many years has slowed our productivity growth to a rate not seen since the Napoleonic wars.

Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to the tight fiscal rules that this Government have introduced and the changes in the Budget that since the election my residents in Dartford have seen an investment in the lower Thames crossing? They have wanted that for 15 years, and it was not delivered under the last Government. They have also seen a £25 million hospital rebuilding project at Darent Valley hospital and a £1 billion structures fund from the Department for Transport, which will repair the ruined Galley Hill Road in my constituency. Is it not thanks to the Government’s rules and Budget changes that we are seeing those changes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is only thanks to the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at last year’s Budget and our decisions—the right decisions—to ensure that those fiscal rules are non-negotiable and that we keep to them at every stage that we have been able to boost investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament in many projects, including those that he mentioned and those in constituencies right across the country. That is the right thing for our country.

We were just talking about chronic under-investment. We are tackling that through ensuring that the Government invest across the country and by encouraging private-sector investments to get businesses across Britain growing.

Will the Minister give way?

I will take a very short intervention, then I really will make progress.

Does the Minister agree that taxation is intrinsically linked to economic growth and that there are already green shoots of recovery in the economy, with three trade deals and five interest rate cuts?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; economic growth is of course critical to our plans. She points to the trade deals that we secured. She and other hon. Members will know that the UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy in the first half of this year. There is much more for us to do, but we are showing that because of the right decisions that we have taken we are starting to move in the right direction.

Will the Minister give way?

I probably should. I will give way one more time.

I do not want the Minister to speculate, but I want him to consider something. We talked about people not paying taxes. A significant minority of owners of second homes in my constituency let their property out for just a few days a year; as a result, they can claim to be a small business and pay no council tax or business rates. People on the minimum wage in my constituency are subsidising those people who pay no council tax at all. Will he change that situation to protect our communities?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on an inventive way of encouraging me to speculate on tax measures. I am aware of the issue that he points to, and I thank him for raising it in this context, but I am not able to make any decisions on taxation at the Dispatch Box today.

Let me go back briefly to the broader context. It is absolutely crystal clear from the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Central Devon, and from what all his colleagues have said so far, that Conservative Members are still in total denial about any responsibility they have for the situation that the country finds itself in. They act as if being behind the wheel for 14 years is irrelevant to where we find ourselves now. It may be that they think that if they do not talk about it, the British people may forget the last Government’s responsibility for getting us into the current situation, but the British people know that the Conservatives did this to our country. That is why the British people put their faith in us at the last election.

While there is clearly more to do to bring down inflation and the cost of borrowing, it is clear that we have turned a corner by taking the right decisions for our country. We have taken the decisions to address the black hole in the public finances, fix our foundations and clear up the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. As a consequence, as I mentioned a moment ago, in the first half of this year we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7; we outpaced France, Germany, Japan and the United States.

Since taking office, this Government have welcomed around £100 billion in investment into the UK, with 384,000 jobs being created over the same period. We have cut red tape and changed planning regulations to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. We already have nearly 100,000 new homes on large developments that were previously stuck in the planning system or simply not progressing as fast as they should be; they are now being given the support that they need to make that progress quickly. In just over a year, the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, which means that someone on a tracker mortgage of just over £200,000 will be better off by around £100 a month. Crucially, real wages have risen more in the time since the last election than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government.

The choice at the next Budget is clear. Over 14 years, the last Government made wrong choices time and again. They, their many Prime Ministers and many Chancellors all embraced the cycle of austerity, debt and decline, and we will never repeat that. We will continue to invest in Britain’s renewal, using every power at our disposal to drive forward an economy that works for working people. As I said, the Government do not respond to speculation, especially ahead of a Budget, and in any case we are not writing a Budget this far out.

The Budget that the Chancellor delivers in November will be carefully considered and designed to get the balance right between making working people better off and raising enough money to fund our public services and getting the country moving once again through investment and growth. Of course, it will also undergo proper scrutiny by the OBR. I was going briefly to address the taxes mentioned in the motion, but I suspect that I should skip over that part of my speech. [Interruption.] I am getting a gentle indication from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have come to the right conclusion.

If we are to get this country moving again, investment from both businesses and Government is essential. We must therefore strike the right balance in our tax system, so that we can put more money in the pockets of working people while supporting the private sector to invest and grow and funding our public services. Members on both sides of the House will have their own views on what the right balance is, and I look forward to hearing those views today. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members in advance for their contributions.

Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I inform the House that all Back Benchers will be on a time limit of four minutes.

I begin by adding my voice and that of my party to the others who have welcomed the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) to the Front Bench.

Like so many other things, property taxes in this country are broken and hopelessly out of date. Council tax is regressive; stamp duty is a transaction tax that slows growth; and business rates are a tax on bricks and mortar that bear no relationship whatever to the amount of money a business might make. It is quite extraordinary that the official Opposition have chosen to debate property taxes, given that I can barely remember any discussion at all in the last Parliament about things that they wanted to tackle in that area. In particular, they did not tackle any of the three things I have mentioned. If it is true that the Labour Government are now thinking about biting the bullet and bringing forward fairer alternatives to those things, I commend them for looking at the issue. However, I caution the Government not to repeat the jobs tax fiasco. Going after property simply as a Treasury tax grab will be a disaster if the Government do not set out a broader vision for property taxation and for housing as a whole.

We agree with parts of the Conservatives’ motion today. We agree with their call to rule out capital gains tax on primary residences. In the general election, we Liberal Democrats set out a way of reforming capital gains tax to make it fairer, one that would reduce that tax for two thirds of people already paying it and increase it for the super-wealthy. That would have raised more revenue than the carte blanche measures that the Labour Government have pursued, so we agree with that part of the motion. We also agree with the Conservatives that the property levy that has been described in newspapers would be a disaster. It would choke up the housing market, stop people from downsizing and slow economic growth, so I hope that if Ministers are considering any of these things, they look at the reaction there has been.

In my constituency of Henley and Thame, the average house price is £515,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that the property tax described by the Government so far would be a tax on the south-east and London?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He will know, as I do from my constituency of St Albans, that many people have spent decades and decades living in their property, which they might have bought for a few thousand pounds. It might now be worth a huge amount, but they might be asset-rich and cash-poor. People in that situation are incredibly scared by the reports they have seen in newspapers of a potential tax of the kind that has been described.

There are parts of the Conservatives’ motion we agree with, however we are open in principle to the idea of a land value tax. In principle, land value taxes can create more fairness in the system and produce a more efficient use of land, but of course, the devil is always in the detail. It would depend on the design of any land value tax and any exemptions that might be introduced. We Liberal Democrats have previously set out policies for how we would replace the broken business rates system with a commercial landowner levy. That is an example of how the principle of land value could be applied to commercial land.

Many tourism industry businesses in Torbay raise concerns about the impact of Airbnb, both on safety and legality. Surely the Government should publish their long-awaited short-term let registration scheme as a matter of urgency.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I would love to see that registration programme, although we Liberal Democrats have repeatedly said that it is only the first step. Registration is something that the Airbnb-type platforms actually want, because it enables them to pinch properties from other platforms. It does not solve the problem we have of lots of additional homes being used as Airbnbs, not by young people—or, in fact, by anybody who wants to be able to rent a property in their area. It is important that local authorities have the power to strike the right balance between tourism and enabling the people they need in their local area to afford to live there.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. In my constituency, we have seen a collapse in the long-term private rented sector, which has pushed hundreds of people out of our communities—they are not able to contribute, to be part of the workforce, or to send their children to our schools. Surely, an answer would be the ability to create short-term lets as a separate category of planning use, just as we are calling for with second homes. That would allow councils and national parks to make sure there are enough homes for local people to live in.

Again, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I recall—as I am sure he does—that in the previous Parliament, we Liberal Democrats tabled a number of amendments to legislation introduced by the Conservatives, to try to make that happen. Unfortunately, those amendments were not accepted by the now official Opposition.

In principle, a land value tax could help address land banking. All of us in this House say that we want to build on brownfield first, but of course, part of the problem is that big developers can land bank. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly tried to table amendments to ensure that local authorities could buy that land at land value, rather than hope value. In principle, there are some merits to at least considering a land value tax, but the devil will be in the detail. If the Government bring forward any such proposals, we will scrutinise them closely.

There are a couple of major omissions from the official Opposition’s motion, one of which—as I have already outlined—is business rates. Business rates are a property tax facing small businesses, and the business rates system is broken. We have heard repeated promises, both from the previous Government and this one, that business rates will be fixed, so it is incredibly disappointing that as yet, we have not seen an ambition to replace the business rates system. Instead, we have seen tinkering around the edges, and the Government’s proposals will potentially make business rates a little bit worse, particularly as they will target hospitality. There is another major omission: the motion should refer to giving local authorities real power to regulate the location and number of short-term lets, particularly in the south-west and Cumbria, but also in many other areas.

Queen Camel Community Land Trust is working to create much-needed homes in south Somerset, but it is often hampered by lack of access to finance and an outdated planning system. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should focus on community-led development to deliver the affordable homes that are so greatly needed—homes that communities want, and will appreciate?

I agree. We are discussing property taxation, but of course, taxation on its own without a broader vision for property may well lead us towards the kind of fiasco we had with the jobs tax. There absolutely should be a community-led planning system, rather than the top-down planning system we had under the previous Government, and have under this one, too.

In my constituency of St Albans, Airbnbs are a real problem. A previous Conservative Housing Secretary gave approval for offices to be turned into blocks of flats, but local authorities were given no power to control how that happened. That means that many young people who get a job in my constituency cannot afford to take it up unless they live with mum and dad. They cannot even afford to rent a place, let alone get on the housing ladder. It is absolutely essential that the Government not only come forward with a registration scheme for short-term rentals, but give local authorities real power to regulate the number and location of Airbnbs, so that we can get the balance right between tourism and homes for young people and others who want to live where they work.