Gareth Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman is accusing you, Mr Vickers, rather than me. I simply say to him that increasing the threshold made a big difference to the 28,000 businesses that were taken out of registration. I encourage him to speak to businesses in his constituency that benefited from what is essentially a tax cut, in addition to all the other measures that I mentioned that we introduced. The contrast between what the Conservatives did in office and the approach of the Labour Government in their first year is quite stark, and the consequences are even starker. Insolvency rates are at a 15-year high, new registrations have fallen at the fastest rate since the financial crisis, payroll employment is falling, and inflation is well above target and will be higher for longer. It is no wonder that only 14% of companies with fewer than 10 employees have confidence in the Chancellor’s growth plans. According to one survey, just 29% of UK small businesses are now predicting growth this year. Meanwhile, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that its members now view the tax burden as their second biggest barrier to growth. Here we see very clearly the vicious cycle that Labour has fallen into, just as it did in the 1970s: higher taxes and higher inflation, leading to lower growth and lower revenues, leading to still higher taxation. That is why, even though the Chancellor promised British businesses that she would not be back for more, she is now refusing to rule out even more taxes and tax rises in the autumn Budget. That is no wonder, because the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts a £60 billion shortfall in the public finances—and that was before we had Labour MPs in open revolt about the slightly tiny welfare reforms and an unfunded commitment to increase defence spending by £40 billion. In that worrying context, I hope the Minister can stand up and provide some certainty to SMEs by giving his assurance that the next Budget will not see a reduction in the registration threshold, or indeed an increase in the rate of VAT. I would like him to stand up and rule those out right now, for all of us to hear. I know that these assurances will fall short of the increase in the registration threshold that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire and other Members are looking for today, but it will provide more certainty if the Minister rules those things out. I would also be grateful for an update on the so-called new business growth service, which the Government promised would be a “one-stop shop” for advice and support. That was supposed to launch in the first half of this year, but the Government’s industrial strategy has apparently now had to push that back to later this summer. Perhaps one reason for the delay is that the best advice a business growth service could possibly give anybody is “Do not vote Labour”. That is clear for us all to see. SMEs probably have quite a lot of advice of their own for the Government, but unfortunately the going rate for speaking to a Labour Minister is apparently £55,000, and one has to endure the inevitable gloom of the Labour party conference. In the spirit of this debate, perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the price tag for meeting him is before or after VAT. Either way, like most Labour policies, I expect it will bring in less revenue than was first hoped.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Belarus) (Revocation) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief (Russian Federation) (Revocation) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister. It has been so long since we last saw each other—it must be at least two hours. I am grateful to the Minister for laying these statutory instruments, which will revoke the double taxation conventions with Belarus and Russia. Russia fell out of compliance with all material provisions of its convention with the UK in August 2023, with Belarus following in March 2024. The UK did not immediately accept the suspensions and urged both countries to reverse their decisions and return to compliance with the conventions. However, given Russia and Belarus’s persistent refusal to comply with their international obligations, the UK has now rightly taken the decision to revoke both the 2018 and 1994 orders. I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s Opposition support these statutory instruments, which are a proportionate and sensible step given Russia and Belarus’s continuing breach of their international obligations. Of course, the measures build on steps taken by the previous Government in response to the invasion of Ukraine and the non-compliance with international obligations. For example, back in March 2022, we suspended co-operation with Russia and Belarus on exchanging and sharing tax information. We support today’s measures, but I end by asking for one small point of clarification. The conventions state that signatories must give six months’ notice to terminate the agreement. Has the UK provided that notice, or did Russia’s unilateral suspension of the convention mean that such notice was no longer required?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. As the Minister said, the first statutory instrument sets rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions for the 2025-26 tax year. It covers the rate of class 2 NICs, the small profits threshold, the rate of voluntary class 3 NICs, the zero-rate relief on secondary class 1 NICs for qualifying armed forces veterans—a Conservative Government legacy that we are very proud of—and the various upper secondary thresholds and the upper limits and thresholds that determine class 1 NICs. These regulations also allow for payments of a Treasury grant not exceeding 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for the 2025-26 tax year. This is to be made into the national insurance fund, with a corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. We welcome the uprating with CPI of the class 1 lower earnings limit and the class 2 small profits threshold, but the overall picture in these regulations is one of continuity, not of change. The secondary threshold, however, is the exception. Although the regulations leave it unchanged, that will not last for very long. They will be overridden by the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, which is under consideration in the other place. It will cut the secondary threshold from a weekly level of £176 to £96 in the coming tax year, on top of raising the secondary class 1 NICs rate to 15%. The disastrous, job-destroying consequences of Labour’s £25 billion tax on working people are well known by now, and have been debated in this place many times. They are also widely acknowledged, from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to the left-wing Resolution Foundation. This time last year, when in opposition, the Minister put on record his concern over the distributional impact of the freezes on allowances, limits and thresholds, which his Government are in large part continuing. We accept that these are difficult decisions, but we took them to return the public finances to a sustainable footing in the aftermath of the double crisis of the pandemic and the energy price shock driven by the disgraceful invasion of Ukraine. If the Minister was concerned about the distributional impact back then, and in particular about “the post-tax income for low and middle earners” —[ Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7 February 2024; c. 6.] , I wonder just how concerned he is now, in the context of his own party’s Budget. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the largest percentage increases in labour costs will be inflicted on lower-wage workers; meanwhile, as much as 76% of the additional tax burden will be passed on to those same workers in the form of lower real wages, according to the independent OBR. Does the Minister agree with the OBR and the IFS on the distributional impact of the NICs tax hike?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the intervention. Our position in government and in opposition has been that we should do whatever it takes to hold Russia to account and to ensure that Russia pays, and we support Ukraine. I have set out a number of ways, financial and other, in which we did that in government. Whether in government or in opposition, we clearly have concerns about legal obstacles, which may or may not exist, and it is right that we debate that today, as well as the impact on markets, sentiment and investor confidence. The issue is not as simple as some perhaps suggest. There are a number of factors, but we should leave the option open and continue to explore all options when it comes to supporting Ukraine, and holding Russia to account and ensuring that it pays.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I will take one more intervention.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the intervention by my right hon. Friend, who is extremely diligent in his assessment of such matters. I will allow the Minister, who is actually in the Government, to provide their legal assessment of what may or may not be possible. I have set out our concerns, which we are happy to continue to debate and discuss, as I have said, but it is right that throughout the House we continue in our support for Ukraine. It is right that we continue to discuss all the ways we can support the Ukrainians. If there is a way, we should look at it.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate and giving an incredibly moving speech, in which he told the story of Sasha—and, of course, 19,000 other children. What is happening in Ukraine is absolutely heartbreaking, and he is right to raise those concerns in the House today. Last week, many people started 2025, just as we start every new year, with hope, optimism and determination that this year will be better than the last. It is therefore right that our first debate this year is about our united resolve to ensure that Ukraine can continue to oppose Russian aggression, and about ways that we in this country can continue to support our friend and ally in this task. We have heard a number of excellent speeches from across the House, which have been both informed and incredibly moving. For 1,047 days now, Ukrainian men, women and children have been suffering the consequences of the most recent stage of a war that they did not ask for and did not start, and that continues to claim the lives of so many of their friends, family and fellow countrymen. We Conservative Members are proud of our record of support for the people of Ukraine. In government, we provided over £12 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support. Because of this, the United Kingdom has rightly taken its place as a global leader in defending Ukraine. The UK was a first mover in providing vital aid, from helmets and body armour to, yes, Storm Shadow missiles and Challenger 2 battle tanks. We created safer routes for those fleeing the conflict, through the Ukrainian family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme, in which many Members participated. We established Operation Interflex, which has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion in 2022, and we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions Russia has ever seen, with 2,000 individuals, countries and groups sanctioned. This ensures that we are targeting not just the sectors of strategic significance to the Russian Government, and that those in and around the Kremlin are left with nowhere to hide, no matter where they are based. Just as President Putin has so far sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen on the altar of his personal imperial ambitions, he seems determined to destroy the future prosperity of the Russian people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, Putin must be made to pay for his actions, and a number of other Members also made that clear. Ukraine must continue to be supported in its fight against Putin’s war machine, so we welcome the fact that this Government are continuing much of the vital work that we started to strengthen the Ukrainian response. However, British support for Ukraine is underpinned by our willingness, and that of our NATO allies, to also invest in our own defence. That is why I hope that the Government will keep to their pre-election pledge of increasing defence spending in this country to 2.5% of GDP. As I have said before, I am pleased that there is such clear consensus on support for Ukraine in this House. On military support, humanitarian aid and indeed sanctions, where the Government take responsible and sensible further steps, the official Opposition will of course support them. The last Conservative Government were one of the most vocal proponents of repurposing frozen Russian assets, and we drove our G7 and European allies to coalesce around the most ambitious solution. The announcement by the Treasury on 22 October that the UK would contribute £2.26 billion to the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme represents progress on that journey, and we very much welcome that, but we should never stop looking for innovative ways to legally mobilise frozen sovereign assets. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what further steps the Government are exploring. Given that the House is debating frozen Russian assets, it would be helpful for it to be provided with the most up-to-date information. First, can the Minister update the House on the total value today of Russian assets frozen by the G7 and of the total assets frozen by UK jurisdictions? Secondly, can he give some indication of the allocation of frozen assets by type? There has been some discussion of that today, but it would be helpful if the Government gave that breakdown to colleagues. Today’s debate is focused on the seizure of frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine. The Minister will be well aware—this has been discussed at length today—of the various legal considerations, internationally and domestically, relating to seizure. Given recent comments by the EU’s chief diplomat, I look forward to the Minister clarifying exactly what the Government’s position is. Will he update the House on the Government’s latest discussions—many have called for this today—with our G7 partners and other allies on seizure? We should never allow ourselves to forget what this debate is ultimately all about. Many of us are returning to this place after a restful and perhaps indulgent Christmas break, but I remind the House that the people of Ukraine faced a very different Christmas. Nothing illustrates that better than the fact that on Christmas day, as Ukrainians gathered together at St Michael’s cathedral in Kyiv, praying for peace and victory in 2025, their prayers were cruelly interrupted by the piercing sound of air raid sirens. Be in no doubt that the fight continues, not just for those on the frontline, but for all those who want their country to be free again.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Sir Roger. It is worth remembering that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was founded in 1991 to support the transition to market-oriented economies in central and eastern Europe following the collapse of socialist and communist regimes. Since then, the bank has invested more than €200 billion in more than 7,000 projects across three continents. As a founding member of the EBRD, the UK is a generous contributor to the bank’s work. It was one of the first donors to contribute to the bank’s Ukraine stabilisation and sustainable growth multi-donor account and, in October 2023, it signed a statement of intent with the bank to help UK companies do business in Ukraine. The draft order enables the Government to make a payment of €343.6 million to the EBRD for the purchase of additional capital stock. As the Minister rightly said, this follows a decision by the EBRD’s board of governors in December 2023 to increase the bank’s capital by €4 billion. The Opposition fully support the Government’s decision to purchase additional stock in the EBRD. Alongside ensuring that the UK maintains its stake and voting power in the EBRD, the capital increase is vital to sustaining the ongoing work in Ukraine and ensuring the bank’s ability to meet the needs of other countries in its portfolio. However, given the size of the UK’s investment, it is right that the Opposition should seek clarity on three specific, simple points, which I hope will be straightforward for the Government. First, can the Minister tell us whether other member countries of the EBRD are increasing, decreasing or maintaining their stock shares in the bank? Secondly, as she mentioned, the EBRD has green objectives, so is support for Ukraine subject to the EBRD’s target for at least half of its business volume to be green and does that allow for Ukraine’s most urgent funding needs to be prioritised? Finally, does she believe that this capital increase will be sufficient for the EBRD to fulfil its overall mandate, or should we expect further capital requests in the future? We support the draft order, but we would be grateful for clarification of those points.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall start by paying tribute to and thanking my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor for his service on our Front Bench. I had the pleasure of serving him in government, as Parliamentary Private Secretary and then as Exchequer Secretary; we worked very closely together. If I may say so, there are very few people who match his ability, but also his decency. I thank him for that. This debate has had a number of excellent contributions. I will come to the maiden speeches in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, made important points about the pension fund industry and the importance of getting it to invest in infrastructure—something that we worked on very hard in government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly highlighted the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which has undoubtedly had a massive impact on our economy, but we were showing the signs of recovery, as he pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) rightly focused on the new tax on education, and especially the impact on displaced children, which I appreciated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) gave a great speech, first highlighting the importance of pubs and the hospitality industry, but then the importance to our economy of enterprise more broadly. As a vet, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) made excellent points—as usual—about the importance of farming, and mentioned in particular the devastating impact of the Budget on family farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made excellent remarks, not least about Margaret Thatcher and, in particular, the importance of private sector investment to our economy. Those speeches were part of a debate that has included some excellent maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) will, as an engineer, bring great talent and experience to the House. He was right to highlight the importance of innovation in our economy. I personally appreciated his comments about his predecessor, who worked very hard for the people of Worcester, as I am sure will he. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) made an excellent speech about her home. She comes to this place not just as a local MP but as a strong advocate for workers throughout her constituency, and I wish her well. The hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) represents the home of one of my favourite drinks. Scottish whisky is one of our great exports, and I wish him well in championing that sector as well as his constituents. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) painted a wonderful picture of her constituency. Her dad clearly made a good decision in raising his family there, and if I may say so, he would be extremely proud of what she has achieved, but I feel that she is only getting started. Let me turn to today’s subject. The Government are calling it “Fixing the foundations,” but frankly I think the OBR would call it “Breaking the foundations,” because in just one hour Labour broke our economic fundamentals. Labour has broken trust with the British people, and the spirit of aspiration and opportunity, which it will never understand or accept is the true foundation of growth in our economy. Our country woke up this morning to a new but darker dawn, with fear and a feeling of betrayal. People woke up to a number of headlines that I am not sure the Chancellor was expecting or hoping for, including “Halloween horror show,” “£40bn tax bombshell for Britain’s strivers,” “Things can only debt better”—which I particularly liked—and even The Guardian laments the “Return of tax and spend” under Labour. It is indeed a Budget that has broken our economic fundamentals. Labour has performed its biggest U-turn yet and reversed our economic recovery. Let us never forget that the Labour Government inherited the fastest growth in the G7, inflation at target, and a deficit that is half what we inherited from Labour. Their first act was to spook consumer and business confidence, which fell more sharply than at any time since the pandemic. Now we see those worst fears being realised. Across almost every conceivable metric, the latest figures on our economy make for grim reading, even for Halloween: the highest tax burden in history, debt up and rising as a share of GDP in every year of the forecast, and debt interest payments above £100 billion in every year of the forecast—the first time ever that that has happened. The OBR says that inflation will be higher, interest rates will be higher for longer, mortgage rates will be revised up. Gilt rates are today soaring, real household incomes are declining, and employment will undoubtedly be down, as anybody who has run a business would tell us. And for what? Unbelievably, and perhaps most humiliatingly, growth—the No. 1 pledge and priority for this Chancellor—has been downgraded by the OBR as a result of the Budget. The Government used to talk about pulling the growth lever, but they have gone and pulled us into reverse. It is unbelievable. The Labour Government have also broken trust with the British people. They promised that they would not raise national insurance, but the Budget increases it by £25 billion. They promised that their plans were fully funded, but the OBR calls the Budget the largest increase in borrowing as a result of policies in nearly three decades. They promised that they would not fiddle the fiscal rules, but they have done just that to fund their borrowing spree. They promised that they would crowd in private sector investment; the OBR now says that it is being crowded out by this Budget. They promised to boost business investment; the OBR says that it will now fall. They promised to cut energy bills by £300; we questioned them countless times on that, and the OBR now says that we will experience “higher gas and electricity prices”. To justify all of this, the Government concocted a fictitious black hole, which the OBR yesterday refused to endorse. Let me quote this to Labour Members, because it is important that we clear this up once and for all: Richard Hughes of the OBR was directly asked this question live on television. He said: “Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion.” Nobody believes it; nobody is backing it up. Finally, Labour has broken the spirit of aspiration that, as I said, is the true foundation of growth. We on the Conservative Benches recognise that it is the British people and British businesses who drive growth and prosperity in our country, not the Government, and certainly not this Labour Government. This Budget said to Britain, “If you want to invest—to expand, to take risks, to innovate—and to build a better life for yourself and your children, Labour will not back you; it will tax you.” Far from fixing the foundations, this is a Budget of broken promises, a Budget of betrayal, and a Budget that will set us back, push us down and kill aspiration. It is a Budget that the public will never forget and will never forgive.

• 28 Oct 2024 · Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I wondered whether the Chancellor’s announcement of changes to the fiscal rules would survive the weekend, given the five fictitious freeports that came and went. It was a cautionary tale about the uncertainty and confusion that can be created when policy is not announced in the proper way in Parliament. I welcome the delayed statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am grateful for advance sight of it. Making a £50-billion announcement at an overseas conference, and not at a fiscal event in this House, has understandably and notably moved markets, creating further uncertainty for an already nervous business community. Although the Chancellor announced change last week, she did not provide any details about what that change would be—a common approach by Labour that is now coming back to bite them as the realities of government set in. The Prime Minister has admitted as much in recent days, speaking of the need to “embrace…fiscal reality” by adopting measures that were never listed in Labour’s manifesto. In fact, the Chancellor explicitly said before the election that she would not change the fiscal rules because that would be “to fiddle the figures”. By going ahead with this latest U-turn and broken promise, she has compromised trust and credibility ahead of her first Budget. That joins the long list of promises already broken by the Labour Government in such a short time: the promise to cut energy bills by £300—broken; the promise that their manifesto was fully costed—broken; the promise to be on the side of pensioners—so obviously broken; and we know that their promise not to raise taxes on working people is about to be broken, too. Try as they might to sell a different story, just like Government bonds right now, people ain’t buying it. We are left in the ludicrous position in which the UK—the sixth-largest economy in the world—does not have an operative definition of public debt. Quite understandably, markets have responded to this latest uncertainty by applying a premium to UK sovereign debt at a time when they have been discounting the sovereign debt of our international peers. The markets are also perplexed as to why these changes were announced without an accompanying OBR report. In the words of the Chancellor, “Never have a Government borrowed so much and explained so little.” —[ Official Report , 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 941.] The Government may think that this will all go unnoticed, and that most people do not know enough about the fiscal rules to know what is really going on here, but let me be very clear: the people will know about this. They will know it and feel it when interest rates stay higher for longer. Treasury advice to us was consistently clear: interest rates would stay higher if the rules were changed. What advice did Treasury officials give the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the impact on interest rates? Does he agree with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that the change will mean “more debt, more debt interest”, and that it is “no free lunch”? Of course, we all want to see investment in our public services and infrastructure. We oversaw the largest ever increase in funding for the NHS, we increased defence spending to the highest levels since the cold war, and we attracted the second-greatest foreign direct investment in the world, but we sought that investment with a view to boosting productivity by investing in technology—that approach has now been scrapped by Labour—and spreading opportunity around this country through freeports and investment zones. This Labour Government are quick to spend but unwilling to explain. Finally, on behalf of the British people, and the markets, which are watching this statement so very nervously, I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: what definition of public debt is the UK offering to lenders today, and how much do the Government plan to borrow under an expanded definition? He will say that we have to wait for the Budget, but the Chancellor did not wait last week, so why should we?

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We support the OBR. I have been clear on that. We created the OBR, so to suggest that we do not support it is incorrect. I would just pull the hon. Member up on some economic facts. The reason interest rates were so high and mortgages went up is that we faced a global challenge, which this Government will now experience. In office, the Government have to deal with events, and what caused inflation around the world was two things: the war in Ukraine, which pushed up wholesale gas prices to record highs; and the fallout from a once-in-a-century pandemic that the Labour party seems to have forgotten about. Those two factors resulted in 11% inflation, which resulted in the Chancellor and Prime Minister at the time prioritising bringing down inflation, which we did, to 2%. We have now handed this Government 2% inflation, half the deficit we inherited in 2010, half the unemployment and the fastest growth in the G7, so it is a little bit rich to suggest that we take lessons from the Labour party on economic performance. Our third and final concern—we have others, but I am in keeping this short on Second Reading—is that, in the event that the lock is triggered, the OBR does not need to produce one of its standard reports, even though the Treasury, under the Bill, is required to request such a report to avoid breaking the lock. The Bill creates, therefore, the possibility of an entirely new OBR report, which is not envisaged by the original Act. I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary explained that and what it means in practice when he sums up. Although standard OBR reports must be published, it is not clear whether that applies to other reports that the OBR may prepare. If this requirement does not apply, are the Government happy to give the OBR the power to decide whether its costings are published? That is potentially very concerning for transparency. The official Opposition look forward to more detailed scrutiny of the Bill and its practical implications. Be in no doubt: we support the OBR, which we created to bring in much-needed transparency to our fiscal framework after years of fiscal folly and false promises by the Labour party. At the same time, let us not pretend that the OBR should be the ultimate judge of good policy, that nothing bad can happen under its watchful eye and that nothing good can happen beyond its gaze. Labour Members know this: it is precisely what they argued 15 years ago when we first debated the Bill that led to the OBR’s creation. The OBR should not become too political. It should be a referee, not a player, in the fight for fiscal accountability. In the end, we stand by the principle that the British people, through their elected representatives, should always have the deciding say on public policy. We look forward to debating this further in the months ahead. We will not be voting against this Bill on Second Reading. I look forward to the debate.