Dan Tomlinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 77 will make changes to ensure that the Motability scheme and other qualifying schemes provide value for money for the taxpayer while continuing to support disabled people. It will remove the VAT relief for top-up payments made to lease more expensive vehicles. Clause 78 ensures that insurance premium tax will apply at the standard rate of 12% to insurance contracts on the scheme. The Motability scheme is an important vehicle leasing scheme available to people receiving the enhanced Motability component of disability benefits such as the personal independence payment. The weekly Motability award covers the lease cost and a generous service package. If a chosen vehicle is more expensive, the customer pays a one-off top-up payment in advance of the three-year lease. The Motability scheme supports the independence of disabled people, but it benefits from generous tax breaks that are supporting provision beyond the scheme’s core objectives, such as the lease of luxury cars. To limit tax support for the most premium vehicles on the scheme, the Government have removed VAT reliefs on the one-off voluntary—I stress that they are voluntary—payments made to lease higher-cost vehicles. VAT reliefs on weekly lease costs covered by eligible disability benefits, and the VAT relief on vehicle resale, will remain in place. Additionally, ending the IPT exemption for most vehicles will bring the IPT treatment for qualifying vehicles’ leasing schemes in line with other commercial leasing firms. The tax changes will preserve the delivery of the core objective of the scheme, and Motability Operations Group has confirmed that, after the tax changes take effect, it will continue to offer a broad range of vehicles available without a top-up payment, meaning that customers will be able to lease a vehicle that meets their needs for the value of their eligible benefit. The changes made by clauses 77 and 78 will generate savings of more than £1 billion across the scorecard. I commend them to the Committee.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 57 has three connected objectives. First, the change will enable certain collective money purchase schemes to apply to become a registered pension scheme. Secondly, it will allow HMRC to refuse to register, or to deregister, an unauthorised CMP scheme. Finally, it will allow regulations to be made to efficiently support the development of those CMP schemes. CMP schemes are a new type of pension scheme that provide members with a target pension income for life. The rules for operating such schemes are set out in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and include a requirement that they must be authorised by the Pensions Regulator. Currently, a CMP scheme can be set up only by an employer to provide benefits to its employees and those of a connected employer. The rules regarding who can set up such a scheme are changing so that from 31 July 2026, it will be possible to set up a CMP scheme for unconnected, multiple employers.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 61 introduces legislation to expressly state that no payments can arise under decommissioning relief agreements in relation to the energy profits levy, confirming the Government’s long-standing view. Decommissioning relief agreements, which take the form of decommissioning relief deeds, are contracts entered into between the Treasury and oil and gas companies. They have been in place since 2013. They define and in effect guarantee a minimum level of tax relief that an oil and gas company will receive in relation to its decommissioning expenditure. Companies can claim a payment under a DRD if the amount of tax relief that they receive is less than the defined minimum level. DRDs enable decommissioning security agreements to be made on a net-of-tax basis, freeing up cash for investment. The energy profits levy was introduced in 2022 by the previous Government, to tax the profits of oil and gas companies following record high oil and gas prices. The calculation of profits subject to the EPL does not allow a deduction for decommissioning expenditure. The Government have always been clear that that cannot be circumvented by making a claim under a DRD. New clause 12 asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of clause 61 on North sea decommissioning and on employment and capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry. The Government oppose the new clause on the basis that clause 61 does not impact on the statutory obligation for oil and gas companies to decommission wells and infrastructure at the end of a field’s life, or on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand or the Scottish economy. This measure simply confirms the Government’s long-standing position that payments cannot be made under a DRD in relation to the energy profits levy. I therefore commend clause 61 to the Committee, and urge that new clause 12 be rejected.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 56 and schedule 11 reform the tax treatment of carried interest—a form of performance-related reward that is received by individuals who work as fund managers. At the autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor announced that the Government would reform the way that carried interest is taxed, so that its tax treatment is in line with the economic characteristics of the reward. Following an initial increase in the capital gains tax rates applying to carried interest to 32% from 6 April 2025, the clause introduces a revised tax regime for carried interest that sits wholly in the income tax framework. The revised regime takes effect from 6 April 2026. The package of reforms announced at the 2024 Budget will raise almost £300 million by 2030-31. The changes made by clause 56 and schedule 11 will establish the revised tax regime, under which an individual who receives carried interest will be treated as carrying on a trade. The carried interest will be treated as the profits of that trade and will therefore be subject to income tax and class 4 national insurance contributions. That reflects the Government’s view that carried interest is, in substance, a reward for the provision of investment management services. New clause 11 would require the Government to publish a report within two years of the legislation passing, covering various issues in connection with the impact of the reforms introduced by clause 56 and schedule 11. The Government recognise the vital importance of the asset management sector in supporting growth. As set out already, we are delivering a revised tax regime for carried interest that ensures fund managers pay their fair share of tax, while maintaining the UK’s position as a world-leading asset management hub. We have engaged closely with the sector to understand the impact of the reforms at every step. We published a call for evidence in July ’24, a consultation at the autumn Budget ’24 and a technical consultation on draft legislation in July 2025. We therefore do not consider new clause 11 to be a necessary addition to the Bill. I commend clause 56 and schedule 11 to the Committee and ask that new clause 11 be rejected.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  There are different ways of measuring income. In this instance, the Government’s decision is that total income is an appropriate way of measuring it. We keep all taxes and all thresholds under review. We are legislating for the threshold to remain at £35,000 but, as hon. Members with experience in government in the run-up to Budgets will know, all things are always considered in the round. Other thresholds in the tax system were frozen by the previous Government and, as was debated in Committee of the whole House a few weeks back, income tax thresholds were frozen as well. On the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about tapering, the Government’s view is that that would add complexity to the system. We think that a simple threshold is a preferable approach.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I said in my opening remarks, this clause just clarifies the treatment as was originally intended and has always been the case. It would not be appropriate or necessary to monitor and look at the impact of it, because as I believe was said—a second mention for the 2017 general election—“nothing has changed” in relation to the treatment of DRDs and the interaction with the EPL. Question put and agreed to . Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 70 Relevant property: disapplication of exemptions from exit charges Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 75 and 76 close an avoidance loophole to ensure that the inheritance tax exemption for gifts to charities works as intended. Changes were made in 2023 to the definition of “charity” for multiple taxes, including that the charity must be based in the UK. Some gifts to charitable trusts can still, however, get exemption from inheritance tax, even if they are not themselves charities. They may have no connection to the UK, bypassing the UK jurisdiction condition and other regulation requirements for charities. The tax-paying public may therefore be subsidising relief on money that we cannot be sure is used solely for charitable purposes. The Government are therefore closing this loophole and protecting the exemption for legitimate charities. New clause 13 would require the Government to report on the impact of clause 75 on charitable donations. The Government have already published, as the shadow Minister will have read, a tax information and impact note to set out the impact of the changes. It showed that charities and community amateur sports clubs should be unaffected, as exempt gifts can be made to them in the usual way. New clause 13 should therefore be rejected, and I commend clauses 75 and 76 to the Committee.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are taking action to tackle those who attempt to bend or break the rules to avoid paying the tax that they owe. The clause introduces a new provision to address avoidance arrangements in certain very specific situations involving the creation of liabilities and related expenses for accounting purposes. The rule addresses certain arrangements that are designed to secure a tax advantage. The accounting and tax analysis in relation to when financial assets are derecognised or may continue to be recognised can be complex. In some cases, assets that are transferred to a securitisation vehicle may continue to be recognised for accounting purposes in the transferor’s accounts. This can potentially happen for commercial reasons. In certain circumstances, a liability may also be recognised for accounting purposes in connection with the underlying assets or otherwise in connection with the transfer. This liability is a non-derecognition liability. This new rule addresses scenarios where, as a result of tax-driven arrangements, a company seeks a tax deduction for expenses in connection with such a non-derecognition liability. HMRC considers that existing legislation already negates any UK tax advantage from these arrangements. However, introducing the new rule aims to deter such tax avoidance arrangements and secure receipts for the Exchequer that might otherwise be deferred through tax disputes. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for Maidenhead for their remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for his enjoyable intervention. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, we believe that total income is a reasonable way of assessing income. There are other ways of making that assessment, but we think that in this instance total income is appropriate.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I can give the assurance that this will not be an unreasonable burden, or even a small burden, on charities that are continuing to behave in a way that is reasonable and right. I note that thirdsector.co.uk reports that, according to experts, charities are unlikely to be affected by new inheritance tax avoidance measures. I agree with those experts. Question put and agreed to. Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 77 Zero-rating of leases of vehicles to recipients of disability benefits Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause, as has been discussed, introduces a power to extend the existing inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments. I worked closely on this measure with the Chancellor ahead of the Budget. It is an important measure for the victims of this scandal and their families. I am glad to hear that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, supports the clause—I am sure that all Members will do so—and I of course welcome the challenge and the scrutiny. Amendment 47 would require all regulations made under the new powers to be subject to an affirmative procedure, but the clause already provides that, if the future regulations do not amend primary legislation, they can be made under the negative procedure. That is consistent with the existing regulation-making powers for compensation payments under schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2020. The clause already provides for using the affirmative procedure, should the future regulations amend primary legislation. The Government’s objective here is to ensure that we can introduce regulations, which will come later this year, as soon as possible to help further to clarify the inheritance tax position for all those impacted. I am sure we all agree that we want to ensure as much clarity as possible, as soon as possible, for those who are affected and might be impacted by this change, which has been welcomed. Amendment 48 would require the Treasury to make a statement setting out the extent to which the regulations meet certain objectives. I have already issued a written ministerial statement, on 18 December, setting out in detail how the changes to the existing relief from inheritance tax for compensation payments made from the infected blood compensation scheme and the infected blood interim compensation payment scheme will be made. Amendment 46 would introduce proposed new subsections (7) to (10), which set out various new introductory, consultation and reporting requirements. I understand the desire for prompt clarity on the inheritance tax treatment of compensation payments, and the Government are committed to delivering the regulations as quickly as possible. I also recognise the importance of consulting with relevant stakeholders; officials have worked very closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and the Government will continue to engage with stakeholders ahead of laying regulations. The clause introduces a power to make a sensible and compassionate change, ensuring that those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal can choose how to pass on the value of any compensation received without incurring inheritance tax. Although I welcome the engagement from the Liberal Democrats on this matter, I hope the Committee agrees to clause 74 standing part of the Bill and rejects amendments 46 to 48.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Government Ministers are in regular conversation with external stakeholders and individuals to discuss tax matters and their impact. In part, the changes that are being introduced in clauses 70 to 73 are in response to engagement. We are introducing the changes in order to refine the system, which was changed significantly under this Government, to make it fairer and fit for the long term. I commend the clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 74 Power to make provision about infected blood compensation payments

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 55 and schedule 10 will provide a mechanism to recover the winter fuel payment from those who are not eligible, to balance support for vulnerable pensioners with responsible use of taxpayer money. Historically, the winter fuel payment has been near universal for pensioners over state pension age. In June 2025, however, the Government announced that only those with incomes up to £35,000 or receiving certain means-tested benefits will benefit from a winter fuel payment in winter 2025. Parliament has already legislated to make the payments to all pensioners who have not opted out. To ensure that the support is targeted, HM Revenue and Customs will recover payments made to pensioners with a total income above £35,000 via the tax system. I turn to the non-Government amendments. Amendment 41 aims to uprate annually, in line with the consumer prices index, the threshold above which an individual is liable to repay the full value of their winter fuel payment. New clause 10 aims to require the reporting of the impact on households and on the Exchequer of uprating the income threshold for the charge annually in line with CPI. The Government believe that those changes are unnecessary at this time. The £35,000 threshold has been set at a level such that more than three quarters of pensioners will still benefit from the payment at the end of this Parliament. The cost of benefits is already published regularly by the Department for Work and Pensions through the benefit expenditure and caseload tables. New clause 27 aims to require HMRC to report on the operation of the winter fuel payment charge, including its effect on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount. The £35,000 threshold, above which an individual is liable to repay the full value, has no impact on those whose income exceeds the threshold, as prior to its introduction they did not benefit from a winter fuel payment. The Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary. This measure will be monitored through HMRC’s compliance and reporting systems, including pay-as-you-earn and self-assessment data. I commend clause 55 and schedule 10 to the Committee; I urge the Committee to reject amendment 41 and new clauses 10 and 27.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  We have changed the tax rates, the multipliers, within the system so that a typical high street business may now pay 38p in the pound and an online retail giant may pay 51p in the pound on their rateable values. That is a significant underlying reform to the tax system that is here for good.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  It is not for me to tell the devolved Administrations how to spend their money, but if the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be happy to write back to him with the details of the consequentials following the decision set out today.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  We will not be considering the Liberal Democrats’ policy.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may not wish to watch the football, and that is fine—that is her decision—but she will be interested to know that we are consulting on whether we can extend the power over longer licensing hours to other events. She will have to let me know if there are other events that she would like to go and watch in a pub, and that can be part of the consultation. I have already answered the specific question that the hon. Member raises in a way, but I am happy to repeat myself. It is the case that pubs are valued differently than other sectors on the high street. It is also the case that they have suffered in the past 14 years, with 7,000 pubs closing and significant pressures. More broadly, we have put in a package of support, as I have outlined already.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Very much so. We want to support legendary landlords. I have my own in my constituency, and I look forward to having a pint with them this weekend to discuss the changes that the Government have made.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  This Government want the best for Britain’s high streets. We know how central they are to the strength and vibrancy of our villages, towns and cities. We know how hard small business owners work, and we know how badly they were let down by the previous Government; shops were shuttered, council funding was cut, and business rates were left totally unreformed. We will not let decline continue, and we are already taking steps to arrest it. We are protecting high street businesses from upward-only rent review clauses, and we are introducing a strong new community right to buy to help communities safeguard valued community assets, such as pubs and shops on their high streets. We are pushing ahead with high street rental auctions, which are helping to bring long-term empty shops back into use. Where premises have been vacant for too long, councils can auction the right to rent them; they can offer one to five-year leases to new businesses and community groups, helping to create more vibrant high streets. We also launched the winter of action to combat retail crime, a nationwide crackdown on crime and antisocial behaviour to protect shoppers and retail workers. As well as that, we are investing in local communities through the £5 billion Pride in Place programme announced last September, and we are investing to support growth, including through the new local growth fund. Around one in three businesses continue to benefit from small business rates relief and do not pay any business rates at all, and 85,000 benefit from reduced business rates as this relief tapers. At the Budget, we extended the small business rates relief second property grace period for another two years, which is a really important change; it means that businesses expanding into a second property will retain the support as they grow. We know that there is more to do. Before I turn to today’s announcements, I want to run through the three main components of the changes to business rates that are taking place in April for all businesses, and to explain the steps that the Government took at the Budget last year on business rates. The first change is the underlying, significant reforms to the system that the Chancellor set out as part of our commitment to transform business rates in England over this Parliament. We have implemented permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties; the multiplier will fall by around 12p or 25% on 1 April. Some of this is a result of the overall reduction in multipliers between revaluation periods, but the further 5p reduction announced by the Chancellor is, on its own, worth nearly £1 billion for the 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that are the lifeblood of our high streets. We are paying for this support for the high street through higher rates on the top 1% most expensive properties. That includes many large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online retail giants. Let us be crystal clear: before our reforms, a mid-sized high street business faced the same multiplier or tax rate as a warehouse used by an online giant—that was the system we were left with. Now, the mid-sized high street business will pay around 38p in the pound, and the large warehouse will pay around 51p in the pound. That is 33% more. This is a sizeable reform, and it is here for good. The second component of business rates announced at the Budget was the revaluation. All non-domestic properties are revalued independently every three years for business rates purposes. New valuations will come into effect in April. I thank the independent valuers in the Valuation Office Agency who carry out the work. The Government did not take the easy approach of kicking the post-covid revaluation into the long grass. Instead, we introduced a significant transitional support package, because we knew that some sectors were seeing large increases in their rateable values after the pandemic. We are capping bill increases in each of the next three years for those with the largest rises, and we are spending a total of £4.3 billion on that and other interventions. The Government recognise that the rateable value of hotels has increased significantly since the pandemic, so our caps on increases are particularly important for them, but it is right that we look at this further. We will therefore review the way that hotels are valued, to ensure that it accurately reflects the market for this sector. The third important context is the tapering away of the temporary pandemic relief for high street businesses. The previous Government went into the election with plans to withdraw that relief overnight in 2025. That would have been a harsh and sharp removal of support, pushing up bills for independent high street businesses overnight by 300%. That is reckless and irresponsible. Instead, we have taken a different approach. We extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief this year—it is set at 40%—and we are unwinding it over the coming years. The jumping-off point for any business currently receiving a 40% discount is their current bill, not their bill without relief. The Budget decisions led to the following outcomes. First, for over half of ratepayers, bills will be flat or will fall next year. Secondly, of the properties whose bills will increase from 1 April, most will see their increases capped at 15% or less, or at £800 for the smallest. Thirdly, bills will adjust to new valuations, but because of our caps, this will happen gradually, and high street businesses will benefit from permanently reduced multipliers for the long term. That is a fair and reasonable approach. As set out at the Budget, in total we are spending over £4 billion in the next three years to limit the scale of bill increases for those who are either losing reliefs or seeing their rateable values increase. In the coming financial year, because of our interventions, the business rates system will raise the same amount of revenue as it was forecast to raise in spring 2025, before the Budget—not billions and billions more, as Opposition Members seek to claim. The forecast is more or less the same. That is the shape of the policy that we set out in the Budget. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to set that out in full, because business rates are rather complicated. This Government want to go further to support pubs. Pubs are the cornerstone of so many communities, and they are essential to the social and cultural life of so many places across the country. I have heard clearly from Government Members just how important pubs are. I thank colleagues who have engaged constructively and privately with me on this issue in recent weeks. Whether they represent constituencies in coastal or rural communities, towns or cities, their representations have been invaluable. Their constituents should know that most of the politics that they see in the papers is not what matters; it is the conversations and the advocacy of MPs in the corridors of this place that can make the difference. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has been a relentless advocate for businesses in his constituency, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), and for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her engagement on this issue, in her role as chair of the all-party group on pubs. For too long, under the Conservatives, pubs have not had the support they needed. Opposition Members claim to care about pubs, but where were they when the number of pubs fell by 7,000 between 2010 and 2024? They were in government, and they let the number of pubs in our communities fall by a fifth. The Conservatives also allowed the revaluation to go ahead with a business rates methodology for pubs that no longer has the support of the sector. Before the Budget, every pub sector body was broadly signed up to the methodology used for valuing pubs, and lent its support to the principles set out in the Valuation Office Agency’s guide. Since the Budget, the same sector bodies have withdrawn their support. The Government acknowledge their concerns and will therefore carry out a review of the pub valuation methodology. The review will report in time to be implemented at the next revaluation. While that review is ongoing, and given the challenges that pubs faced over the long term under the previous Government, we are stepping in to provide support for pubs in the next three years. Today, I confirm that, from April, every pub in England will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the support announced in the Budget. Pubs’ bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. That support is worth £1,650 to the average pub next year. It will mean that around three quarters of pubs will see their bills either fall or stay the same next year. This decision—

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with my hon. Friend. What happened in the past is in stark contrast to the reform of our business rates system under our Government. We have set out long-term differences in the multipliers—also known as the tax rates—faced by high-street businesses and those faced by the online giants and the largest businesses. Typical businesses on his high street will have a significantly lower tax rate than that faced by the largest online warehouses. I understand that bills may still increase because of the winding down of pandemic relief and the increase in rateable values, but that underlying reform of the system is there, and it is there for good.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  We were aware of the changes to rateable values that were going to be published at the Budget, which is why we came forward with a significant package of support to help businesses adjust to their new values. For example, yesterday, Waterstones came out to express its support for our changes to business rates, because the lower multipliers that we have put into the system will support its business. Businesses across the country are benefiting from those lower multipliers. As I have said, more than half are seeing their bills either flat or falling. We have also put in place significant transitional relief support, with caps this year, next year and the year after. That is because we were aware of the effect of the changes to valuation, although I was not aware of what would happen subsequently with the pubs and their views. I have engaged with them on the methodology, and because of that we are launching this review. We think it is right to look carefully at that methodology.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that I will be out of trouble before too long. We will double the hospitality support fund, providing £10 million of funding over the next three years. That fund aims to help more than 1,000 pubs diversify their business model, improve efficiency and productivity in the sector, and support people who are furthest from the labour market in moving into jobs in hospitality.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  We are, in the usual way, using long-standing definitions set out in business rates guidance to define pubs, and similar venues to which the relief will apply.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure what the question was, but the Government have set out a plan that is fair and reasonable and does not engage with the fantasy economics that Opposition Members keep peddling. They still have Liz Truss in their party, and it shows, because instead of having a sensible business rates policy that is affordable and works for the long term, they have made-up spending cuts and pretend that they could afford to abolish a tax altogether. We know that that will not work. We know that they will not deliver it, not least because they had 14 years to make changes of that magnitude and never even bothered.