Gareth Davies MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026 Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. Alternative dispute resolution is intended to provide a low-cost, efficient alternative for resolving disputes between consumers and businesses. I thank the Minister for setting out what these regulations seek to achieve. The regulations follow various pieces of work that were carried out by both Conservative and Labour Governments over many years, with the overall goal of securing a fair deal for consumers and a fair operating environment for businesses. Although the Opposition of course remain supportive of the goals of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, we in this place should always be mindful of the adverse impacts of introducing any kind of red tape on British businesses, no matter how well-intentioned it might be. As the Committee would expect from the official Opposition, we have a few questions to probe some of the elements in these measures. First, will the Minister set out the current status of the ADR provider sector, and how the Government see the sector changing as a direct result of the regulations? More specifically, how many ADR providers are there in the UK, and how many of those are currently unaccredited and would therefore be impacted by these measures? Do the Government expect the number of ADR providers to reduce as a result of the requirements? If so, what impact does the Minister believe that that reduction will have on consumers and businesses that use those services? Finally, what is the Government’s view of the impact the regulations will have on those who operate ADR businesses? The explanatory memorandum to the regulations states that the Government expect there to be no impact on businesses, and that “the instrument does not impose regulatory obligations”. However, that is exactly what is being done today, so that looks like an error. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether that is an error, and explained the language in the explanatory memorandum for the benefit of the Committee.

• 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 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.

• 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.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

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

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

  Mobilising more investment from the UK pension fund market is critical to driving regional economic growth. The Chancellor says that she is a builder, not a blocker, but her proposed builders tax threatens to drastically increase the cost of building anything from homes and roads to nuclear power stations. This will make investing in UK infrastructure increasingly unviable. To avoid even more investment-killing uncertainty, will the Minister agree to scrap Labour’s proposed landfill tax reforms and let Britain get back to building?

• 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—