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?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee and to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and of course to see the Minister. I refer Committee members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my prior career in asset management, which involves some of the structures we are debating today. I thank the Minister for providing such a thorough and clear explanation of the Government’s intentions with the regulations before us today. Whenever we debate regulations, we should always remember that it is essentially a balancing act—in this case between privacy in business and ensuring fairness, governance and transparency. Those aims are not mutually exclusive. It is our job to ensure that we get that balance right as often as we can. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he said that the regulations remove the requirement to provide trust names for applications looking to access unpublished information through the trust disclosure service. Paragraph 5.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that that is because many applicants have been found “unlikely to have this information”, resulting in their request being rejected. The Minister said that just moments ago. Can he therefore tell us how many applications have been made to the trust disclosure service since it was launched in August 2025? How many were rejected for that reason? That would help us understand the basis for the regulatory changes today. By lowering the bar for applications and applicants, Withers law firm has warned that the change could open the door to speculative fishing expeditions. The Minister will be aware of that challenge from Withers, so I wonder what his response is to that specific challenge and concern. Secondly, the regulations seek to introduce a requirement in most cases for the provision of a replacement address for individuals who submit a suppression application to remove their home address from the register of overseas entities. Can the Minister clarify whether those who have already successfully secured suppression of their home address from the public register will now be required to provide a replacement address, and whether it will be retrospective? If so, will they be informed, how will they be informed and what is the timeline for that information to be provided? Finally, on the measures relating to LLPs, which the Minister discussed at the end of his remarks, page 3 of the explanatory memorandum states that these regulations are required because legislation was brought forward and passed in error by the Government last year, before adequate “Companies House systems had been developed”. I understand that the Government intend to bring the service requirement back, so when does the Minister expect Companies House to have the systems up and running so that they can process what they originally intended to last year? When will the reinstating regulations be laid before the House?

• 21 May 2026 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the update on the Minister’s tiling skills, but I did not hear a number showing how he is making progress on the £625 million commitment. Perhaps he can write to me on how they are making progress. One of the existing schemes that supports training is the Construction Industry Training Board, but many industry leaders believe that it is no longer working or delivering. Construction firms are facing significant bills as a direct result of the levy, all while the CITB is reducing training provision. What is the Minister’s view of the CITB, and has he engaged with the construction industry to discuss it?

• 16 Apr 2026 · British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for coming to the House proactively this morning. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my former career in asset management. I very much welcome the Government’s recognition that industrial energy bills remain incredibly high. This is an issue that businesses across the country have been raising for many months. I have heard what the Secretary of State has to say, and there are a number of areas where I would appreciate further clarity. First, according to the Government’s figures, at least 99% of companies will not benefit from the scheme, even after the announced expansion. Pubs, restaurants, farmers and retailers also face energy cost challenges, and innovative companies such as OpenAI have halted planned multibillion-pound investments in our country. What action will the Government take to address those businesses’ concerns? Secondly, although businesses are being told today that they will be supported and that their energy bills will be reduced, no relief will actually come their way until next year, so what plan is there to provide a more timely relief for businesses who have to pay their energy bills right now? Finally, I am not clear on how this one-off additional payment next year will be funded. Just this week, the International Monetary Fund has expressed concern about the UK economy, saying that we are the most exposed of all major advanced economies, so can the Secretary of State provide clarity to the markets this morning about how this will be paid for? High energy costs for British businesses did not start with the conflict in Iran. We all know that energy prices have been far too high for far too long, and we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the whole G7. We should look at the root of the issue at hand: the structural energy challenges that we face as a country. I am pleased that in the regulatory consultation launched today the Government have committed to the removal of carbon price support from April 2028. That is adopting one of the key provisions of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, so I very much welcome that, but why wait until 2028, and why stop there? The Secretary of State could go further and adopt the plan in full, ending the carbon tax and green levies right now, as well as scrapping the 78% tax on North sea oil and gas companies. Those pragmatic and sensible steps are actionable right now, today. If he does those things, he will have our full support.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair presiding over us, Mr Twigg. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for setting out the regulations. It is clear that this is a matter of great importance across Government, and it is an important matter for the Opposition, too. In fact, the regulations carry on work that the Conservatives started—work that the Labour Government are now continuing. The aim has always been for reforms that support our domestic tourism and hospitality industries, while still providing appropriate protections for consumers. That is exactly what our goal should be with all regulations. I am pleased that, in this area at least, the Government seem to recognise that growth is increasingly being held back by red tape that brings little benefit to anyone. At least one of the four changes before us reduces regulation, which is a good thing and something that I applaud. While I welcome the sensible measures to alleviate the regulatory burden, however, we must always remember that there is little point having pro-growth deregulation while increasing anti-growth taxation. Over the past two years, many in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries have felt like a target—in fact, many have felt like target No. 1—when it comes to additional red tape and higher taxes. At least two of the four changes we are considering still act to increase regulation. I have a few questions on those changes. First, as type A linked travel arrangements become absorbed into the package definition, in the explanatory memorandum the Department has clearly set out that this will increase the regulatory burden. The ongoing compliance costs for businesses offering those services will increase. Can the Minister now give us an estimate of how many businesses the Department feels this will impact, and can she confirm that she has at least met with some of those businesses to hear their views on how the regulations will impact their day-to-day operations? Secondly, as the Government Whip set out, the regulations also establish a 14-day period for the refund of cancelled services. Can the Minister therefore set out the rationale for arriving at that 14-day period? When the Government come up with these periods, I am always interested to know how they arrived at, say, 14 days rather than another period. Is there a specific reason for that number of days? Finally, I was contacted overnight by Expedia Group, which has set out its detailed thoughts on the regulations. I will write to the Department with the concerns it has raised. Its requests include that the Government publish guidance defining the terms “single visit” and “facilitate” within the regulations before commencement takes effect, so that operators such as Expedia have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition. On that specific point, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain her views.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister clarify whether she has met any businesses since taking office in this specific industry, and not just relied on the 2023 piece of work?

• 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?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Start-ups and Scale-ups: Access to New Markets · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but I asked specifically about VCT rate relief. The last time that rate relief was cut, under the last Labour Government, fundraising was cut by two thirds and it took a decade for that to recover in the sector. Specifically on VCT rate relief, which has been cut from 30% to 20%, will he commit to meeting the Venture Capital Trust Association, the industry body, and will he take its concerns to the Chancellor and ask her to reverse course?

• 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.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to be in this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. The regulations before us continue vital work that occurred under both Conservative and Labour Governments, as the Minister rightly said. I am pleased but not surprised that that work attracts genuine cross-party support. For a baby to lose their mother or primary caregiver is a tragedy for that child, and for the father and wider family. In this place, whenever possible and where it is practical to do so, we should support those families with their grief and as they continue to care for their child. It is with those families in mind that I can of course confirm that the official Opposition support the regulations. Just one questioned has emerged as I have engaged with businesses, so I would appreciate a simple clarification on their behalf. I understand and welcome the fact that guidance will be provided for businesses, and the Minister acknowledged the £0.9 million impact on them. The Government have made it clear that they will publish details for businesses on the relevant website. The regulations are to come into force in April this year—just 40 working days away—so will the Minister provide a specific date as to when, between now and 40 days’ time, the guidance will be published? Businesses have raised that specific question with me. I repeat the Opposition’s position that we fully support the regulations. I join the Minister in praising the great work of the former MP for Broxtowe, Darren Henry, the great work of the hon. Member for Bridgend through a private Member’s Bill, and the tremendous campaigning efforts of Mr Horsey, who is in the Public Gallery to witness proceedings. I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations, and we are pleased to support them. Question put and agreed to. Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. —(Kate Dearden.) Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has consider the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. —(Kate Dearden.)

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

  More

  I wish to speak to new clauses 13 to 15, which are in my name, but first I will cover what the clauses in this group mean for British taxpayers. If you will forgive me, Madam Chair, I will do so slightly out of numerical order. Clause 9 sets the starting rate limit for savings for tax years 2026-27 to 2030-31, keeping it fixed at £5,000. That is an important allowance for so many with relatively low incomes, including those who work part-time or are retired. Clause 69 fixes the various inheritance tax thresholds at their current level for a further tax year, 2030-31. Clause 10 freezes the basic rate limit for income tax at £37,700, and sets the personal allowance at £12,570 for tax years 2028-29, 2029-30, and 2030-31. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Labour Government’s freeze to income tax thresholds will raise around £7.6 billion in 2029-30 alone, and more than £12 billion in 2030-31. This is a £23 billion tax rise; clause 10 alone is a £23 billion broken promise. The OBR is clear: 920,000 more people will be pushed into the higher rate, and 780,000 more people will be pushed into income tax altogether. We have already heard the Minister try to explain away Labour’s breach of the promises that it made to the British people. The best the Chancellor can manage is to say that it is not her fault, because she was very clear in the small print—a technicality dressed up as an excuse. But people are not stupid. It would not be quite so embarrassing if the Chancellor herself had not proclaimed so theatrically in her first disastrous Budget that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. Yet here we are, and it is no surprise that the Prime Minister is breaking records for unpopularity. New clause 13 would ensure that the Government undertook an assessment of the impact of clause 10 on the average earner, because we all know that working people will be hurt very badly by this clause.

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

  More

  Exactly. I have nothing to add to that; the right hon. Gentleman puts it perfectly. New clause 14 would require a proper assessment of clause 10’s impact on state pensioners, and new clause 15 would require an assessment of the cost of the Chancellor’s so-called exemption from small amounts of tax—let her define that in a piece of legislation; I do not think she will be able to. Clause 10 is simple: another Labour tax promise has been broken and pensioners will pay the price. I hope that Members from across the Committee can see that and that they will vote with the official Opposition tonight.

• 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.

• 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 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

  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.