Gareth Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will not ask me why we froze the threshold, because he will know that we did so under tremendous pressure, given the covid pandemic and the debt that we accrued in the economy. We are in a very different scenario now. I am sure that is not what he is going to ask.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak to amendments 3 to 23 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). By now we all know what clause 62 and schedule 12 do: they would restrict agricultural property relief and business property relief to 100% of the first £1 million of qualifying assets and 50% thereafter—though I note that this legislation was written before the recent announcement, which I will obviously come on to. Members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party will fiercely oppose Labour’s family farm tax and family business tax in the Lobby today, just as we have since these policies were announced. We must first face the reality of the sheer number of Labour MPs intent on punishing those who dare to feed us, or who take a risk to build their own business. Our amendments seek to mitigate at least some of the damage by removing the anti-forestalling measures that have purposely tied the hands of so many farmers and business owners across our country. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and many others have pointed out that these measures particularly trap more elderly farmers, who have been robbed of their ability to plan. The Government have said all along that they expect farmers and business owners to alter the ownership structure of their assets. I would be really interested to hear just how the Minister believes that elderly farmers, in particular those in the final few years of their life, should do that. Before I turn to the other issues, I note that the amendment paper tells its own story: Government amendment after Government amendment, each one a U-turn and a rushed attempt to bury the incompetence, indifference and hostility that this Labour Government have shown to family farms, tenant farmers, rural communities and family businesses. I ask respectfully of the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked earlier, why it has taken the Treasury more than a year to admit that it got this wrong. Why have farmers been forced to leave their fields and bring their tractors to Whitehall, just to be heard? I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who gave this House five chances before today to vote against these changes. The Government had ample opportunity, but here we are. We know that their partial U-turn will not be enough. The Country Land and Business Association has been very clear that it will only limit the damage. Many serious questions and concerns remain on the impact of clause 62, but I will highlight just three. First, from the very start the Government’s numbers have been, at best, questionable. The Treasury has disagreed with the CLA and others on how many farmers and businesses will actually be affected. Even after the partial U-turn, HMRC expects 1,100 estates to face larger inheritance tax bills in 2026-27, 185 of which will be claiming APR. Yet the experience of many Members, from speaking to farmers and businesses in our constituencies, and that of several industry bodies is that that figure is massively wide of the mark.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I want to ask the Minister, as he does, how this will be delivered. What is the definition of what the Chancellor has described, albeit to the media? How will this work, and why is it not in the Bill? We know that when the Government have spoken before, they have not stuck to it.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has engaged extensively with farmers and those who represent farmers. The reason I am raising this point now is because the numbers are questionable—and not just on who is impacted by the measures but the net revenue to the Exchequer too. Some have suggested that the changes in clause 62 may even end up costing the Exchequer. While the OBR has forecast that £500 million will be raised through clause 62 in 2029-30, the Confederation of British Industry’s analysis suggests instead a net loss to the Government of some £1.9 billion over the forecast period because of the impact that clause 62 will have on the wider economy.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but as the spokesperson for the official Opposition, I speak on behalf of millions of people who were told that this would not happen, and who voted for a party that told them that it would not be increasing taxes on working people. The Chancellor repeated that claim at the Dispatch Box just a year ago, but then went back on it, which is unacceptable. Whether I agree with it does not matter; we have to represent the millions of people who were frankly let down and misled by this Government. That is our job—to hold the Government to account for breaking that promise, and for where the money is going. I ask the Government: what is this about? Is it about giving up sovereignty—giving up the Chagos islands—or paying off public sector unions, only for them to go on strike once again? There are two issues here. First, the public were told that this would not happen. Secondly, now that it is happening, the Labour party—the Government—is spending that money recklessly. That is unacceptable, and it is the job of the official Opposition to hold the Government to account. Finally, there is an elephant in the room. From April 2026, the state pension rises by 4.8%. The new state pension will sit below the personal allowance next year, but that changes in 2027-28, when, for the first time, people whose only income is the state pension will be dragged into paying income tax. The Chancellor, when challenged on this after the Budget, said that she will protect pensioners from paying small amounts of tax, and the Minister just repeated that. Fine, but where is it? It is not in the Bill. It is not in clause 10, or anywhere in the 535 pages of the Bill. As far as I can see, it has not even been costed. I have two straightforward questions for the Minister: what is the Treasury’s assessed cost of that promise, and how will it be delivered in practice?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says. He is right that there is a point at which you overtax risk and enterprise, and people stop taking risk and stop being enterprising. The trick in the Treasury is to ensure that the Government can raise enough revenue from a broad base of different taxes to pay for public services. [ Interruption. ] They need to try to achieve growth, not overtax growth and growth activity. They should incentivise it through other means. I completely agree with him on that point. I was talking about the increase in tax on dividend income and savings. Together, clauses 4 and 5 will have significant consequences, not just for those who take risks, but for household savers and pensioners, as well as investors in the companies that my right hon. Friend describes. In fact, Hargreaves Lansdown described clause 5 as a “shocking tax rise” for savers. The measures will combine with the Chancellor’s cut to the allowances for individual savings accounts—in the Bill, there is a double whammy tax on savers. It treats saving less like a virtue to be encouraged, and more like a habit to be discouraged. We believe that will have a big impact on savings culture and the financial reality of people across the country. That is why new clause 11 calls for the Chancellor to come to the House to make a statement setting out the impact that the onslaught of this savers’ tax hike will have on all British savers and pensioners. It is not just savers who are impacted by the Bill. Small and medium-sized businesses are, as we were just discussing, the engine of growth up and down the country, in every constituency. They provide 60% of employment. They will feel the pain from these changes. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that through clause 4, the Government continue to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money. Many entrepreneurs and business owners choose to pay themselves part of their income in the form of dividends. For many years, dividend tax rates have been set below the main rate, not by accident or ideology, but to reflect the fact that dividend income is paid out of profits that have already been taxed through corporation tax. I am afraid that even the largest businesses, never mind small and medium-sized enterprises, are not safe. Literally as soon as the Chancellor announced the changes in clause 4, investment managers were warning that the change completely contradicts the Government’s stated desire to encourage more investors to hold UK equities—many of which, by the way, are pretty good income-paying stocks. International investors come to the UK to buy dividend-yielding stocks, yet these measures will discourage that even further.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. We would not be doing this, and we should not be here, but clearly the policy has been executed without a plan—without serious thought, analysis or engagement. I would welcome anything that the Government can do to make this less painful for those affected and to get the numbers right. The Minister explained that the Government expect to raise around £300 million even with the U-turn, but the initial costing was labelled in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook as “highly uncertain”. For those not familiar with this, there are different categories of uncertainty in the EFO, and “highly uncertain” is the most uncertain that one can be about a figure. Surely this new figure of £300 million is uncertain, just as the £500 million was. What assurance can the Minister provide that the Exchequer will not in fact lose out overall, despite the pain that the Government are determined to inflict? How confident is he in these numbers? Secondly, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, family businesses and farmers have had to make many difficult decisions. Family Business UK and Make UK say that 55% of BPR-affected and 49% of APR-affected businesses have paused or cancelled investments. Family-run farms are putting off the purchase of new, more efficient machinery and family-run shops no longer see the point of expanding to an additional site or another high street, or of taking on more staff. It comes back to the questionable figures I talked about and the CBI’s analysis of the impact on the wider economy. Finally, we should have no confidence in the practicality of the measures before us. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that extending 10 annual interest-free instalments to APR and BPR property does not solve the problem; those instalments will still be a significant burden. In practice, it is unlikely that many families will be able to pay the tax without selling up.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly right. I will let the Minister address that point, but let me pay tribute again to my hon. Friend, who has been a forceful champion for farmers across the country and has consistently raised these issues. That goes back to my point about the warnings provided to the Government about the practical implications of the changes, with their impact on family farms in particular. They were ignored until this point. The Minister will have to explain why that was. Indeed, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that schedule 12’s failure to allow allowances to be allocated to specific property could undermine many wills as currently drafted. This creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, disputes and real hardship. Where the cap is exceeded, the first inheritance tax payment will fall just six months after death. If that deadline is missed, the estate will be hit with a punishing interest rate. Within six months, family farms must secure probate, value complex agricultural and business assets, calculate the liability and then raise the cash—often by selling parts of the estate to make the first payment. The NFU has been clear that expecting probate within six months is “unrealistic” given the complexity of valuing agricultural businesses, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In practice, families and personal representatives will miss the deadline—through no fault of their own—without a confirmed tax bill and without the funds to pay for it. The Government’s expectation is simply unrealistic. The approach is flawed, and the window must be extended. If clause 62 is agreed to and the Government do not finally concede, family farmers and businesses in my community of Lincolnshire and those across the country will not rest until these changes are fully reversed. The only consolation I can offer farmers and businesses watching the votes closely tonight—they will be watching every single one—is that the next Conservative Government will scrap these immoral changes.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. We are trying to create a savings culture. We are trying to get people to take responsibility, and to put their income away for a rainy day and for their retirement. As I will go on to say, the Opposition’s position is that the Bill does not achieve that; in fact, it does the very opposite. As I was saying, clause 4 increases the ordinary and upper rates of income tax charged on dividend income by 2%, a fact the Minister seemed to miss out in his opening remarks. The income tax rate hike will apply from the tax year 2026-27. Clause 5 sets the savings rate of income tax for the tax year 2027-28 two percentage points higher than it is this year, and than the rate set in the Bill for 2026-27.

• 6 Jan 2026 · The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell, and I wish a happy new year to the Minister. I thank him for setting out how the regulations will help provide legal clarity on the scope of part 8C. As he outlined, the regulations put beyond doubt that the rules do not apply to claimants who are entitled to awards of simple interest at a rate equivalent to, or lower than, a similar rate under the taxes Acts. I understand that HMRC currently applies the legislation as originally intended, which the Minister set out clearly, and that these changes simply reflect the policy as set out in part 8C. Therefore, it will not surprise the Committee that the Opposition will not oppose this measure.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank Members across the House for their contributions to the debate, in particular those on the Conservative Benches, and notably my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who has been a ferocious champion of farmers not just in Yorkshire but across the country. He also spoke well about the family business tax and his business, Fibreline, which has been adversely impacted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) sought to give those on the Labour Front Bench a maths lesson, although I am afraid it is a little late for that and entirely futile. I enjoyed very much the speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I enjoyed his A. A. Milne reference almost as much as I enjoyed the unexpected mention of Tinder. Of course, when it comes to politics, I encourage everybody to swipe right. [ Laughter. ] I thought I would give it a go. Let me highlight how prominent the family farm tax has been in this debate and acknowledge the contributions from the hon. Members for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who spoke well, speaking out against their own party’s policy when it comes to farmers. That is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do, and we appreciate it. For my part, I am struck by a sense of déjà vu. Here we are again, with another Finance Bill that targets working people’s pockets while failing on the Government’s No. 1 mission of economic growth. This Finance Bill is actually double the length of Labour’s first Finance Bill, and I fear it will bring double the pain to the British public. Last year we had the now infamous Halloween Budget, which scared the living daylights out of business, and this year we have the nightmare-before-Christmas Budget, which is essentially finishing off the rest of the country. This Bill feels less like a carefully wrapped present and more like something hastily stuffed into a stocking at five minutes to midnight, with the receipt missing and the instructions written in a different language. We were promised a gift to working people, but what we have instead are higher burdens and lower incentives.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As always, my hon. Friend points out something that is important for the whole House to consider. I will come on later to the broader assessment of the OBR, which does not make for pleasant reading for Labour Members. Tonight, Labour Members must decide whether they are content to vote for a Bill that makes their working constituents poorer, punishes family farmers and family businesses, and breaks promise after promise that they made to secure their seats. For all the bravado that we may hear later from the Minister, there is now a growing gap between what Ministers are saying, and what families and businesses are living. That gap has now become so visible that it has followed Labour Members out of the Chamber and into the real world. At this time of year, pubs should be putting up mistletoe; instead they are hanging up signs saying, “No Labour MPs welcome.” This is a Christmas tradition that this Government have invented all on their own. When a Government cannot get a warm welcome or a pint in the local pub that so badly needs the trade, it might be a good idea to reflect on why. There is another growing gap between what Labour Members told the public before the election, what they repeated after it, and what is in the Bill. First, the Bill is anti-working people. Only last year, Ministers stood up and promised the House that this Government would not freeze income tax thresholds. They could have stopped there, but they did not. They went further and said that to do so would amount to a tax rise on working people’s payslips. Yet here we are today, with this Bill that freezes income tax thresholds to 2030-31. The message to working families could not be clearer: if someone gets up early, goes to work, does the right thing and provides for their family, Labour will not back them; it will tax them. What will the Labour Government do with all the money they are raising? They will not pay down the national debt—debt is going up. They will not employ more teachers; there are fewer of them now. They will not employ more police officers, either; there are fewer of those, too. In fact, they will fail to deliver on almost everything they promised while in opposition. Instead, they will turn hard-working taxpayers’ money into handouts to appease their left-wing Back Benchers. This Bill is anti-aspirational and anti-business. If someone decides to start their own business, or wants to take over a business or a farm from their family, what does this Labour Government think of them? As we have heard extensively today, this Budget takes further what they introduced at the last Budget: the family farm tax, as spoken about by so many colleagues, and a family business tax that will destroy aspiration and entrepreneurialism. Time after time, the Chancellor has been warned of the impact of these changes to inheritance tax. She has repeatedly dodged questions in the House, as she is doing this very moment. She has ignored concerns from the business community, and run scared of meeting the National Farmers’ Union. That is not leadership; that is not owning one’s decisions. Finally, we were promised economic stability and management, yet the OBR’s own assessment of the Bill tells a very different story. Growth will be slower over the forecast; inflation will be higher. Debt will rise every single year of the forecast, and taxes will rise to their highest level on record. Just this morning, we learned that unemployment continues to spiral to levels that we have not seen in years. This was not a Budget for the wellbeing of the country; this was a Budget to try to preserve the careers of the embattled Prime Minister and the embattled Chancellor. As we approach Christmas, it is traditional to reflect on who has been naughty and who has been nice. We are told that Father Christmas checks his list twice, but the British public need only glance once at this Finance Bill to know that they have been seriously let down. They know exactly which list the Chancellor belongs on. It does not matter if they work hard, run a family business or farm, and have saved responsibly for their retirement; even in death, through the Bill, the taxman still comes a-calling. Under the Bill, there is simply no way that hard-working British families do not end up poorer. Nobody voted for that, and we will certainly not be voting for it tonight, either.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s position on defence stocks. I wonder whether she could do the same for oil and gas.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I will follow the Minister’s lead by starting with the ESG ratings order before moving on to the draft regulations. The Minister usefully and clearly set out the Government’s view of the ESG ratings order and what it aims to achieve. I want to ask two questions in particular, straight out of the gate. First, although she referred to this slightly in answering the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, could she go into more depth about the approaches taken in other jurisdictions—particularly the United States and the EU? What are the specific implications for our competitiveness? She mentioned that she is open to alignment with other jurisdictions, and she specifically said that she is open to allowing the ratings of overseas ratings providers to be recognised in this country. But will she address the specific point about competitiveness and where the order stands in the global ecosystem of ESG ratings regulation? It would be helpful to understand that. Secondly, I understand that in the responses to the consultation concerns were raised about charities being granted an exemption. Is the Minister concerned that charities, and particularly household names, might publish ESG scores against certain companies and sectors that investors take seriously, despite there being a lack of transparency on how those scores were reached? I have taken a particular interest as that legitimate concern stood out from the consultation. As the Minister considers those answers, it is useful for us to step back as we think about ESG to ensure that, as we scrutinise the draft order, we talk about the overall effectiveness of ESG in supporting the interests of savers and investors in the country. My view, having led an ESG team in my previous life—I think this view is shared by a lot of savers and investors in the industry— is that investment managers should always act with the aim of delivering sustainable returns for investors. From the teacher who has paid into their pension their whole life to the entrepreneur who has just sold their business and invested all their money, many people from all walks of life entrust their money to investment firms and portfolio managers, and they rightly expect financial professionals to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities. In recent years, however, many, including me, have expressed the view that the rise of ESG has allowed and encouraged some fund managers to impose their own values on investment portfolios, thereby potentially impacting the returns achieved for thousands of investors. Of course, where individuals have enough money for a separate account, or where other retail investors choose to invest in a dedicated ESG fund, that is their choice. They may well pay a premium for not investing in certain industries and be comfortable with that.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point. It is a very hot topic right now, in terms of our national security, and I think there are implications when it comes to ESG ratings and the overall ESG approach that many fund managers take. As I was saying, the overall picture is that there is a risk that everyday savers might miss out on returns because of the values and ideals pursued by a particular fund or fund manager, without their expressed wishes necessarily being taken into account. If we accept, as many do, that this is a problem for funds, it follows that it extends to those who provide ESG ratings, too. Therefore, more transparency, which this measure achieves, could and should help to mitigate the risk for savers. At a broader level, I have made very clear my personal opinion that ESG has gone too far towards values-driven investing, while neglecting to include our collective national, strategic and economic interest. At a time when the world is increasingly geopolitically unstable, and with an aggressive Russia at the door of Europe, is it really responsible or ethical to shun investment in defence companies? I believe this mindset undermines our national security effort, but it also means that savers and investors could miss out on better returns. The FTSE 100 index is up around 19% for the year to date, compared with shares in Rolls-Royce, which are up 77%; shares in BAE, which are up 38%; and shares in Babcock, which are up 118%. Those companies form the bedrock of the British defence industry. Over the past year, they would have delivered better-than-average investment returns for savers, but so many savers have been excluded from investing in such companies, perhaps without their knowledge. Similar national importance could be attached to oil and gas companies and investments. Even the Climate Change Committee has been clear that the consumption of oil and gas will be needed for years to come as part of our energy security. Yet just last week, the National Energy System Operator warned that Britain could face gas shortages by 2030 if the industry—

• 2 Dec 2025 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Harris. This is related to ESG, which is about environmental, social and governance principles, and accordingly an investment approach and ratings. I was talking about defence as part of the “S”, and oil and gas as part of the environment.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will end my point by simply suggesting that it is not serving investors or the country well by being excluded from oil and gas companies or defence stocks as part of an ESG strategy that they perhaps did not know about. I now turn to the draft regulations, which revoke assimilated EU law relating to financial services and replace it with rules set by the Bank of England and the PRA. This is part of an ongoing process to repeal and replace assimilated EU financial services law following our departure from the European Union. The purpose of the draft regulations is largely to revoke the relevant parts of the assimilated prudential regime, as set out in the capital requirements regulation, and replace them with the PRA rules, as the Minister set out. As the Minister made clear, the draft regulations make consequential technical amendments to UK legislation for the purpose of legal coherence. In practice, any references to revoked CRR provisions will be read as references to the corresponding PRA rules. Where no PRA rule exists, the amendments will help to avoid gaps in the legal framework, with which I think we can all agree. This instrument continues the process begun under the previous Government, as the Minister said, and therefore the Opposition do not oppose it.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise. As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories. I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today. These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly? As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise. As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories. I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today. These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly? As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss, and to see the Minister. This is our second interaction in a week, and, under the direction of the Chair, it will be a lot shorter than the last. I congratulate my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), on securing this debate. I commend his commitment to this issue over many years. Many of us turn up to these debates as one-offs, but he is a consistent champion for builders and against rogue builders. My hon. Friend again raises a very fair and well-intentioned question: how can we in this place best protect our constituents from the scourge of rogue builders? He is right that the issue is caused by a minority of people and organisations in the construction industry, who exploit people’s good nature and certainly do not deliver for their customers. We all know someone who has faced this issue, whether that is homeowners or subcontractors, particularly those in the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We have seen the best of Westminster Hall today. I have been struck by the many excellent examples given by hon. Members from many different parties and from across the country of people who have suffered the consequences of cowboy builders. I genuinely thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. This issue is not simply aesthetic or material; it can and often does have very serious consequences. That is why I am pleased that, in recent years, there has been some progress to address some of the problems set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. For example, there are various competent person schemes that allow builders to self-certify, ensuring that they follow certain rules to comply with building regulations. These schemes ensure that customers are provided with the appropriate financial protection for a minimum of six years to correct work in dwellings that are non-compliant with building regulations. For our part, the previous Conservative Government passed the Building Safety Act 2022, which introduced competence requirements on anyone doing design or building work. The legislation also brought about the creation of the Building Safety Regulator and the Industry Competence Committee, both of which help to encourage and monitor industry competence. I am nevertheless really looking forward to hearing from the Minister about what specific plans she and her Government have to build on that work to further address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and many other Members from both sides of the House. Another part of what we can do to push out rogue builders must surely be to encourage those builders who follow the law, play by the rules and deliver for customers. I would not be doing my job if I did not reflect the concerns of the builders I spoke to in preparation for the debate by pointing out that, unfortunately, builders feel that that is not happening under this Labour Government. Instead of backing builders who are not rogue and who work hard, the Government are determined to make sure that doing the right thing just does not pay. I have spoken many times about the impact of the national insurance hike on the construction industry, but I want to use the last moments of my speech to ask the Minister directly, on behalf of the National Federation of Builders, about the builders tax that the Chancellor is proposing in the upcoming Budget. That will add another £28,000 to the cost of building a new home and drive up the cost of critical national infrastructure, including roads, schools, factories and even nuclear power stations. It will add significant costs to construction and the building sector, and I was asked to ask the Minister what is going on with this Government if they are proposing this tax by way of a formal consultation. On behalf of the official Opposition, I want to be clear that this tax cannot go ahead. Builders and construction workers want to hear her response to that specific point. There are so many hard-working builders in this country, and so many people who make something, and we must get behind them.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be able to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. Let me start by thanking everybody from both sides of the House for their contributions, but in particular those on my side of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the impact of the family farm tax on his farms in Shropshire and that 6,000 farms across the country have closed. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is sadly not in his place—probably on the phone to his mother—spoke well about Harlow and his mum. I particularly enjoyed the bromance emerging between him and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke well about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions on the Gosport employment market. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said a good quote by Margaret Thatcher. As the MP for Grantham, I particularly appreciated it, but it still rings true today about spending other people’s money wisely. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) rightly highlighted that not a single Liberal Democrat Back-Bench MP has turned up, which I agree is completely shameful. We did hear from the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who had the temerity to talk about our country’s reputation when it is his leader who is prancing about in a wetsuit falling off paddleboards—slightly ironic. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who made a number of important interventions, pointed out that every Labour Member should ask themselves the same question every morning when they wake up, “Who voted for this?” None of them have a mandate for further tax rises, just as they did not have a mandate for last year’s jobs tax increase. They must know this. The proof is right in front of them. Labour has over 400 Members of Parliament and fewer than 10 have shown up. I was going to say that they have come to defend the indefensible, but they have not even done that. None tried to defend the indefensible; we just heard more and more speeches about the past, while their constituents are living in the present. I think that Labour Members know that the upcoming Budget is surely the beginning of the end. The Government have lost control. Just when the Prime Minister should be focused on fixing their mistakes, he is instead having to oversee co-ordinated briefings against the apparent plots to depose him by his own Health Secretary. It is troubling, to say the least, that the Prime Minister seems more worried about the damage coming from inside his own Cabinet than about the damage already done outside it. The truth is that the Labour party will not be forgiven. Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has ever been tried. We should not forget that Labour won the last election because it promised not to be a socialist Labour Government. It said that it would not fiddle with the fiscal rules to borrow more money. It said that it would not increase national insurance, income tax or VAT. It said that it would not pursue ideologically driven policies that would push up energy bills—in fact, it said that it would cut those bills by £300. Unfortunately for the country, this has very much turned out to be a socialist Labour Government after all: higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower confidence, and an economy put into reverse—back to the 1970s. That is felt in every boardroom, every workshop, every pub and every place of work across this country. The best thing that the Government can do right now is take responsibility for their actions and show leadership. After just 16 months of Labour, inflation has doubled, taxes are heading for record highs, borrowing has risen rapidly and unemployment has surged to the highest level since the pandemic. And none of that takes into account what may yet be to come. We know that the Chancellor deliberately picked the latest time possible for her upcoming Budget, in a last-ditch hope that someone, somewhere might come up with something that makes it all better. The date of 26 November is a highly unusual one for an autumn Budget. The last time we had a Budget this late, phones still had aerials, Mark Morrison was “returning the mack”, and we had to rewind VHS tapes before taking them back to Blockbuster. If only we could rewind the past 16 months; sadly, we cannot.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. In fact, markets and investors have now endured week after week of reckless and irresponsible speculation, not about whether Labour will put up their taxes, but about which taxes will go up. The endless uncertainty that my hon. Friend mentions has caused relentless Treasury kite-flying that has damaged confidence. There are so many kites in the air but none of them is tied to an actual plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said it well: everyone seems to be looking over their shoulder to see who the Chancellor will come for next. That cannot be what Labour MPs want in the run-up to Christmas. They have a chance tonight to reaffirm the promises that they made to all their constituents. It should be their easiest vote this year. Their core manifesto commitment, which won them the election, is printed in black and white in the motion. To fail to support the motion is to confirm to each and every one of their constituents that Labour is content to betray their trust. Be in no doubt, the country is watching.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the relatively new Minister to her first delegated legislation Committee; I am sure there will be many more. It is a great pleasure to see her for the first time in her place. I welcome the opportunity to address this statutory instrument on behalf of the official Opposition. As the Minister helpfully set out, the instrument gives effect to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 in Northern Ireland and allows it to be legally enforced. The radio equipment directive requires that the radio equipment sold or used within the EU market must meet what are known as essential requirements. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland remains subject to EU regulations in this area, specifically on radio equipment. The Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 have been amended on numerous occasions, as the Minister will be aware. Today’s instrument makes further amendments to requirements relating to internet-connected radio equipment such as smartphones and fitness trackers. The Minister alluded to this in her speech, but the Department for Business and Trade states that these regulations enhance cyber-security, and that many businesses are already compliant with the regulations because they export to the EU; therefore, in the Department’s view, there should be no significant impact on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Despite that assessment, let me ask for clarification on two points. The explanatory memorandum says, “Many UK businesses also supply the EU markets…and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive.” What estimate does the Minister have of the percentage of radio manufacturers who are likely to be compliant? It would be helpful for colleagues to have an understanding of the progress made already, without this regulation in place. Secondly, will the Minister outline whether the standards are in keeping with those in other international markets, in particular the United States? What assessment has the Department made of the competitiveness of these regulations in relation to those other markets? Other than that, we will not oppose the measure and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Regional Economic Growth: Pension Funds · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s industrial strategy recognises that housing and infrastructure are vital to driving regional investment. But as I hope the Minister will know, across the road, the Treasury has been quietly consulting on changes to the landfill tax, ending the decades-long exemption for quarries. That change would add millions of pounds on to infra- structure projects and increase tax costs for construction businesses across the country. How would such a move help grow our economy and build the homes and infra- structure that we need?