Gareth Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Supply Chain Security · Hansard source

  More

  Our most critical supply chains are those that are directly linked to our national security. From autonomous vehicles to blast protection, British small and medium-sized enterprises are the vital link in the supply chain, ensuring that our armed forces have the capabilities to face down our adversaries. The Government have said that the Defence Office for Small Business Growth has an important role to play in supporting the sector, so how is the Minister co-ordinating with the office? If I am a defence SME, how will it help me?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Supply Chain Security · Hansard source

  More

  I just want an answer! Defence SMEs have said that the delay of the defence investment plan caused great uncertainty and disruption to the sector. In addition, they are completely confused by this Government’s endless offices, initiatives and quangos. Will the Minister commit—if he is still in position in a few weeks’ time—to providing more certainty to such an important sector?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s strategic defence review recommended an increase in the Army Reserve by 20%, but at the very same time the Government are closing Grantham’s Prince William of Gloucester barracks, which trains 70% of all Army reservists in the country. Will the Minister review that decision so that we have the capacity to train new Army reservist recruits?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s strategic defence review rightly highlighted the important role of reservists across the country. I am very proud that Grantham’s Prince William of Gloucester barracks trains around 70% of all Army reservists in the country. Can we have a debate on the Government’s decision to close down Grantham’s barracks, and not just the impact on the town of Grantham but the wider national security issues it will cause?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, not least for the promotion that you just gave me—I hope the Whips are listening. It is a genuine pleasure, even before the promotion, to respond to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I am grateful to all colleagues from across the House for what I think were pretty good speeches that supported local businesses and dealt with the issues at hand. I also congratulate the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), on what I thought was an incredibly thoughtful, detailed and typical speech for him. As he will hear, it did not inspire my speech, which was pre-written, but I will echo a number of the points that he made so eloquently just a few minutes ago. The theme of today is that, up and down the country, businesses, entrepreneurs and those they employ are the engine of our economy and the basis for our future prosperity. In so many sectors, it is British business that leads the way. Whether it is life sciences, defence, across professional services or in many other areas, businesses employ millions of people, undertake critical research and attract investment both here and overseas. In the same sense, everyone who has contributed today, as will be the case for all MPs, will know of some SME in their constituency that seeks to grow, create jobs in their community and provide the bedrock of their local economy. The Opposition know that backing British businesses, both big and small, to grow, trade and invest means reducing the tax and regulatory burdens that they face. Over the past year, covered by the estimate before us today, the Government have indicated that they disagree with that. Just this week, as a result, we have seen business confidence fall yet again, according to the Institute of Directors. More than ever, I am afraid that Ministers across this Government, including in the Department for Business and Trade, are failing to drive economic growth. Indeed, do not take my word for it, but listen to the Labour Health Secretary and rival to the Prime Minister, who said that the Chancellor has no economic growth strategy at all in a text message to the disgraced Labour peer, Lord Mandelson. Some may question why the Labour Health Secretary is commenting on the economy, but then again he is used to dealing with things in critical condition. Put simply: British businesses need the Government to create a far better environment for firms big and small to trade and, critically, to hire people. Let me turn specifically, and properly, to the detail of the estimate before us, and I wish to ask a few questions of the Minister. First, to build on the opening remarks of the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the supplementary estimate shows an increase to the Department’s total managed expenditure of £1.5 billion, which is an uplift of 31%. For context, that is much higher than any other Department. In fact, the average in-year uplift for a Department under this Labour Government has been 4.6%—that is 31% versus 4.6%. In fact, last year also saw a large in-year uplift, when the departmental budget increased by some £1.8 billion, which was an uplift of 44.8%. It feels like the Department is developing a pattern of asking Parliament to approve a budget in the main estimate, only to return months later asking for 30% or 40% more. This is far from supplementary; it is a Department that systematically underestimates its budget in the main estimate, and then returns to ask us for even more. As such, can I ask the Minister please to comment on why DBT is such an outlier compared with other Departments, and can I suggest that when its Ministers next come to Parliament with main estimates, they come with a better estimate of how much taxpayers’ money they wish to spend? One item that particularly jumped out to me in the 10 February 2026 estimates was the cost of the intervention in British Steel, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North also alluded to. In a written answer to the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on 15 December 2025, the Minister indicated that the total cost to the Exchequer of keeping operations running at British Steel came to £274 million. However, pages 12 and 13 of the supplementary estimates that we are reviewing and discussing today seem to indicate a total cost of more than £830 million across resource departmental expenditure limit and capital departmental expenditure limit business group funding. That is obviously a significant difference in cost, so when the Minister stands up, I would appreciate it if he could set out the detail of what this is all about. Whatever answer the Minister provides, given that we are still awaiting a steel strategy, as many Members have alluded to, is it not the case that the Government are asking Parliament to approve hundreds of millions of pounds in retrospective spending on an industry they do not really know how to support, and on a company whose future remains undecided and whose costs seem to be open-ended? I would really appreciate it if he could give a detailed answer. Finally, I turn to the British Business Bank—an organisation that I admire, that I like, and that I had the pleasure of overseeing from within the Treasury. When I looked at the supplementary estimate, I noted that the additional capital DEL that is being provided to DBT for the growth guarantee scheme, which supports business lending, is to the tune of £50 million. Meanwhile, the British Business Bank’s financial capacity has increased to £25.6 billion, and it also has a new industrial strategy growth capital initiative. The growth guarantee scheme is a perfectly legitimate use of Government funds—it creates Government-backed business lending and performs an important role in the economy. However, according to page 7 of the supplementary estimate, an additional £50 million has been provided to DBT this year, so it is natural that I want to ask a few more questions about the scheme. First, can the Minister tell us what the default rates are for the loans provided by this scheme, and how does he square that with the additional £50 million of capital? Secondly, it is critical to know whether those loans and that amount of money are complementing private lending, or are actually displacing it. What analysis has the Department done to provide this House with an adequate answer that will get us comfortable with approving that £50 million? From increased taxes to additional red tape, the Government have soured business confidence, and it is working people who are paying the price for their higher unemployment and higher prices. No matter how many billions are spent by the Department and then increased at supplementary estimates, that fact will sadly always remain.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend touches on an important point. What is this for? People know that they have to pay tax. We may disagree on who pays tax and how much, but ultimately, where is the money going? It is going to the surrender of the Chagos islands. It is used to pay public sector workers eyewatering sums, only for them go on strike again. The hard bit for the general public is understanding where on earth all the money that is being raised by record tax hikes is actually going. That is what the Minister needs to be held to account for today. No explanation has been made. We are not in covid times; we are not in times of great crisis. This money is being raised because Labour is in trouble and in the pocket of the unions. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. New clause 10 includes further assessments specifically on domestic equity markets and institutional investors. This will have a negative drag effect on the international climate as it relates to getting more investment in UK equities from institutional investors. Finally, clauses 6 to 8 and schedules 1 and 2 introduce new rates of income tax altogether, this time on property income. Again, those rates are to be set for the tax year 2027-28 at two percentage points higher than the main rate of income tax. Government Members may take great satisfaction in what could be described as a war on landlords, but we should pause and remind ourselves who many landlords are. They are not barons or vast landowners; they are ordinary people doing what we have encouraged them to do for decades: taking responsibility for their future. They are the couple—one parent works long hours in a steady job, and the other juggles work and family life—who save carefully and invest in a small property because they know that the state pension alone might not be enough when they retire. They are the retired couple who inherit a modest flat from their parents—a flat that is not a windfall, but a source of security in later life—and who rent it out to supplement a fixed income. These are not people gaming the system, as many Labour Members have tried to suggest in the past, but people responding to it. They are good people. Forty-four of them are Labour MPs. This new tax does not just hit landlords, though; it hits renters, too. The British Property Federation and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility have both warned that this measure could restrict the supply of private rental properties, adding pressure to an already strained market. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Residential Landlords Association both say that rents will rise faster as a direct result of the Bill. New clause 12 in my name seeks to force the Government not to rely on their stereotypes about landlords, but to assess the impact of their new renters’ tax on both the supply and cost of private rental properties. In summary, these clauses represent a new front in Labour’s war on the middle class and aspirational households in Grantham and Bourne, Chipping Barnet and across the country. These clauses impose not one, not two but three income tax rises on the British public, totalling more than £5.5 billion. This is not a plan for change; it is a savers’ tax onslaught, carefully phrased, politely worded and deeply felt—the same old Labour.

• 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

  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.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement today, but here we are again: another day, another Government takeover of a key British manufacturing plant, another 1,500 jobs—1,500 people—facing an incredibly uncertain future, and the prospect of significant job losses alongside the wider economic impact across supply chains and in aerospace, defence and power generation that would result from the collapse of this specialist steelworks. Despite so many warm words about the steel industry, despite so many Labour promises to the people who have worked their whole lives in that industry, and despite the impression of superiority while in opposition, this Labour Government are failing British industry. They are failing to provide certainty of policy and the economic growth that they said was their central mission, and they are failing to get a grip on the issues that affect thousands of working people’s lives. The Minister says she wants to provide certainty to the steel industry and the people who work in it. She says that we can expect a bold steel strategy for the UK, but where is it? The Government are not new any more; they have been in power for a year now, and there is still no clarity on this supposedly bold strategy. The British steel industry faces a fierce dual set of pressures: new 25% US tariffs and continued high energy costs. We all know that the energy costs in this country are too high, yet they have been driven only higher by this Government’s ideological obsession with prioritising decarbonisation over economic growth. Back in May, Liberty Steel warned that it faced significant challenges due to soaring energy costs, but instead of focusing on tackling the underlying causes of expensive energy, the Energy Secretary is backing windmills while leaving Britain’s oil and gas industry in the doldrums. He is leaving our amazing British oil and gas—our greatest energy source—trapped under the North sea. This is economic illiteracy aimed at satisfying their own green obsessions. From steel to chemicals to cars, builders and makers across Britain are paying the price of this Government’s socialist green agenda, and it is their workers and investors who will lose out. On tariffs, despite the economic prosperity deal agreed by the Prime Minister and President Trump, the agreement’s provisions lowering US tariffs on UK-produced steel and steel derivative products have still not come into effect. The Government have repeatedly avoided answering questions in this House on when the agreement will come into effect. We heard no mention whatsoever of it in the statement today or in the note yesterday, so I ask again: when will the provisions lowering US tariffs on UK steel come into effect? Of course, even if those provisions do eventually come to fruition, steelworkers should beware of this Government, who have overpromised and under-delivered before, with devastating impacts for workers. Just look at Jaguar Land Rover. The Prime Minister looked workers dead in the eyes and promised that he would protect their industry and save their jobs. He then used those workers as a Labour propaganda photo opportunity across television and the front pages when the UK-US deal was announced, but little over two months later, Jaguar Land Rover announced it was cutting 500 jobs. The very same workers who were promised everything by the Prime Minister were left out in the cold by this Labour Government’s inability to secure a better trading relationship with our closest ally. Let us today try to get some clarity on what exactly this Minister has done and will do for the British workers impacted at Liberty Steel. First, she announced that the Government had agreed to funding the official receiver and that total—