Mark Garnier MP: speeches

Yes, I can, from having been on the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016, when we looked at creating the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority, and, more relevantly, on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. Our report recommended that we introduce the measures in the Davies review, which was bringing ringfencing in. The hon. Member may remember that, at the time, the Liikanen review in the European Union looked at ringfences. The subtle difference between our ringfencing and theirs is that it was described as caging the tigers in Europe and as putting a fence around the deer park in the UK. Our retail banks were ringfenced. The problem we have found is that it has become increasingly complex to operate the regime, and the Europeans did not bring it in; as a result the resolution regime on banks—the recent Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 looked at this—actually means that we now have an awful lot of other stuff in place and do not necessarily need the ringfencing. The problem with ringfencing is that banks end up with a cliff edge, where their customers are traversing from the ringfenced bank to the commercial and investment banks, and it becomes very difficult. Only one bank has managed to satisfy itself that it is okay, and it has set that ringfence limit at £100 million worth of turnover; all other banks have been at the lower end, which is close to £5 million or £10 million in turnover. It is costing us more and becoming less internationally competitive to have a ringfencing regime that other countries did not adopt. When we adopted it we were the first mover, but we were not followed. International competitiveness is the key point, as well as the bank resolution. There are MRELs, bullion bonds and a lot of stuff out there that makes up for that, brought in since the financial crisis. It just looks like we have too much. I hope that answers the question from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). Analysis shows that the annual cost to the UK’s banking sector of ringfencing alone is £1.5 billion. At the same time, reports from industry are clear that ringfencing is duplicated and is not responsible for post-crisis improvements. In 2022, the independent review of ringfencing and proprietary trading said that “the reduction in the implicit government guarantee and progress in ending too-big-to-fail was not found to be attributable to ring-fencing.” We understand that the Government are looking at this, and at reforming the ringfencing regime through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I will be spending a lot of time in the coming months going through the minutiae of banks’ balance sheets—frankly, I find it fascinating; I hope she does too. However, like most of the Bill, while welcome, we feel that the Government are not fully utilising the opportunities that the Bill will provide, and that they could go much further. As I say, I will not delve into too much of the detail because we have a long time to go through all this, but I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley will throw his weight behind the Financial Services and Markets Bill when it comes to the House of Commons. I have a second point on taxation. If we are to unlock the future of UK financial services, the other area we have to look at is the level of taxation. In a world where capital, talent and business activity are highly mobile, the UK needs to remain an attractive place to do business. That is especially important given the international nature of the UK’s markets. While our competitors such as the US have a high domestic focus, the UK is the exact opposite: the London Stock Exchange Group found that more than four fifths of the revenues of FTSE 100 constituents now stem from outside the UK. Despite that, data from across the industry shows that the UK is an outlier when it comes to the level of taxation on our financial services sector. Taking the banks as an example, data from UK Finance and PwC in 2025 suggests that the total tax rate on banks in London is 46.5%, which is significantly higher than in other financial centres such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Dublin and New York, as we have already heard. In fact, compared with the US, our banks are paying 60% higher tax than theirs are. Another example is the insurance sector. Data from the Association of British Insurers shows that their membership’s total tax contribution increased by 77% between 2014 and 2024. Analysis suggests that that has mainly been driven by increases in the insurance premium tax.

I will draw my remarks to a close, Mr Twigg—I have been rambling on a bit. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley again for his words. This has been a very intelligent and thoughtful debate. As I say, the most important point is that we have to be incredibly mindful of our international competitiveness, which is so vital for our country. It is so important that we get this right. If we fail, we may find our descendants sitting in this Chamber in 20 or 30 years’ time, wondering what on earth happened to the UK’s financial services sector. We must get it right.

I can see the sense in what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with this reorganisation, and the target of 500,000 people per unitary authority makes a lot of sense—it brings a lot of people together. But why, after Wyre Forest district council voted for the single unitary, did the Secretary of State deliver a two-unitary solution for Worcestershire? North Worcestershire, where Wyre Forest is, will consist of 293,000 people. We are now splitting up adult social care, children’s services, highways, education and refuse disposal. It does not make financial sense. Will the Secretary of State reconsider what is being proposed for Worcestershire, and go with a single unitary authority?

May I associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) about the management of NESO creating a hostile environment for technicians in the distribution centres? Like the Minister, I have met the individuals in the control rooms, and I have nothing but admiration for them, so for them to be condemned as enemies of the company by being whistleblowers is profoundly wrong. We have heard Members raise other problems. In particular, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) spoke about small blackouts in his constituency, and the Minister brushed that off as a little local problem. The reality is that at the moment we use about 36 GW of power, and during the winter we use about 45GW of power, and that is before we have electrified transportation and before we have invested a huge amount in data centres and artificial intelligence. Blackouts are indicators that the grid is not working. A small blackout in Tunbridge Wells is an indicator that there could be big blackouts in the future. What is the Minister doing to resolve these problems?

Can the Minister not understand that people out there, such as my constituent Leanne Vaughan—her daughter was killed by a hooligan driver, and she had to wait 28 months before he was sentenced to 66 months in prison, but then was released after 21 months—do not believe what he is saying? It is appalling. People are heartbroken by their losses, and this Government are not meeting their expectations or ours.

I am not going to give way, because I have very limited time—my apologies. When it comes to fraud and error in the DWP specifically, the Department’s own statistics estimate that around £9.9 billion is overpaid in benefits each year. Two thirds of those overpayments are for universal credit claims, so I hope the Minister will explain why fraud and error are particularly high for universal credit claims and what steps are being taken. In 2017, there were 7,840 convictions for benefit fraud; last year, there were 461. That is a 94% decline in convictions, and fewer than 600 individuals have been convicted in total since the general election. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that we should be making an example of benefit cheats in the courts to disincentivise others. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that I am coming to the end of my speech. Under this Government, hard-working taxpayers are being asked to pay more. Many people would hope that that money would be going towards—for example—increasing the defence budget, but as this estimates day debate has highlighted, it is going to the DWP budget instead. The Government know that this is not right; indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was right when she said that the Government “must not…duck the big challenges facing this country”. —[ Official Report , 1 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 164.] However, when it came to making the tough decisions, they bottled it every time. Maybe the next Government, led by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), will do better. In his speech yesterday, he said that he would control the welfare bill, and told us to “imagine”. We on the Conservative Benches hope that his promises do not turn out to be imaginary.

I thank the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for securing this debate. I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on a great Conservative gain and to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an SNP hold, and I congratulate them both on their maiden speeches. I welcome the opportunity to challenge the Minister on her Department’s spending policies and performance. We cannot pretend that welfare reform is not difficult to achieve. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said recently: “When I speak to former Welfare Secretaries, I hear the same thing again and again. Welfare reform is hard. You will be hated.” That is why we offered our support to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), when she attempted to bring down the benefits bill, because it was the right thing to do. Everyone is paying more in tax to pay benefits to others. That is not fair, and it needs to change. When it comes to our welfare system, we need to be clear what we want from it. The system should be there to help people when they fall into difficulty; at the same time, it should help the most vulnerable people in our society. There are many people who simply cannot work, and they must be protected. However, we have got to a state in which too many people are reliant on the benefits system. Let us take a look at where we have got to today. When we left office, inflation was at 2%. Unemployment was at 4.1%, and youth unemployment was at 14%. Some 6.8 million people were claiming universal credit, and 3.5 million people were claiming personal independence payments. Twenty months later, after Labour came to power, inflation has risen to 2.8%. Unemployment has risen to 4.9%, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. Some 7.9 million people are claiming universal credit, which is 1.1 million more people, and 3.9 million people are claiming PIP—that is 400,000 more people. That is unsustainable. How have we got to this position? Part of it is down to the Government’s policies around employment. The increase in employer national insurance contributions to 15% has added more costs to businesses. That means that many businesses have had to make redundancies and are hiring fewer people than before. That is especially affecting young people, hence why we now have higher youth unemployment than the European average. That is not a good thing after 20 months in power. At the same time, the Government introduced the Employment Rights Act 2025, adding even more costs and complexities to businesses. These costs to businesses are estimated at £5 billion. When the Minister closes the debate, I am sure she will talk about the increased funding in apprenticeships, which is of course welcome. It is all well and good increasing funding for apprenticeships and employment, but it is ultimately pointless if there are no jobs available. That is what this Government seem to fail to understand. This is a crisis of their own making, and they are putting their head in the sand and pretending it is all fine. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if it is all fine, why is the Prime Minister resigning? When it comes to welfare specifically, we are at a point where more than half of all households are net beneficiaries of benefits. Again, that is unsustainable. The Government had the chance to reduce the benefits bill, and the Leader of the Opposition pledged our party’s support in doing that. However, the Government could not face down their own Back Benchers, so we are left waiting for the Timms review of PIP to report in the autumn, which may not even suggest making the necessary savings we should all make on PIP. In this year alone, PIP will cost the Department an extra £3.5 billion, and universal credit will cost nearly £9 billion extra. If we stay on this trajectory, the health and disability-related benefits bill could reach nearly £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. We should be acting now; instead, we are left with dither and delay. Finally, we need to talk about fraud, which is becoming ever more pervasive—the National Audit Office found that it cost the public sector between £55 billion and £81 billion in 2023-24. That figure continues to increase year on year, so there is a real need to tackle fraud and ensure that public money is allocated correctly.

The Pensions Minister likes to spend a lot of time criticising the previous Government for their actions on pensioners. He also spends an awful lot of time talking up his legacy on helping pensioners, but his actions simply do not reflect the narrative. So far, he has capped salary sacrifice, there have been delays to the pensions dashboards, we have had retrospective changes to inheritance tax on pension pots, and—as we have heard—the Government are chasing hard-up pensioners for their winter fuel allowance. All of this creates uncertainty among savers and pensioners alike, so I will repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell): is the Pensions Minister hopeful that his successor will do a better job of looking after pensioners?

May I start by congratulating the former Economic Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion to Chief Secretary? In the eight months that I shadowed her in her previous role, she made a strong impact and gained significant, well-deserved respect from those in the financial services industry. May I also welcome my fourth Economic Secretary, and wish her the very best of luck in the role? As the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, tax and regulation is getting in the way of financial services lending and investing in the UK economy. Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of ensuring growth for this country?

I was going to bang on with a very long and intelligent speech, but in the interests of brevity and keeping everybody happy, I will not. I am delighted that the Minister is introducing legislation relating to the glorious regime of the strong and stable Conservative Government of 2020 and the 2023 Budget. This policy was slightly bonkers. We need to do everything we can to encourage people to save and not put a cap on their savings. I am tempted to go on about salary sacrifice, but I will spare the Minister the embarrassment of reminding him about that. We will certainly not oppose these regulations.

It is interesting that the Minister raises that point. He will no doubt remember that Chancellor Gordon Brown raised the state pension by, I think, 50p a week. Did he support that policy by one of his predecessor Chancellors?

Thank you, Dr Huq, for your stewardship of this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate. Most importantly, I thank the 119,000 people who signed this petition, 247 of whom are from my constituency of Wyre Forest. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) for also raising this issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for bringing up the WASPI women, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who needs hearty congratulations on getting Brexit into this debate—well done to him. This is a timely debate, and I agree with the wider point at the heart of the proposal that the petition seeks to address. We are all facing a higher tax burden thanks to this Government’s choices and policies, and we are all really struggling with cost of living rises—again, thanks to this Government’s tax choices on employment. Pensioners, instead of living with the dignity in retirement that they have worked so hard for and deserve, have a greater financial burden placed on them. Now we have the prospect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer floating more tax rises in the next Budget. That is deeply concerning for all of us, but especially for those on low incomes. I hope that this Minister, who played a key role in the last Budget, will be able to rule out tax rises in the next Budget at the Dispatch Box here today. The thrust behind the petition is very clear, but first we must understand the historical context of how the pension system works. That context goes back over a century to 1921, when the Government of the time struck a deal with future pensioners. The basis of that deal was that people could save money into a fund from untaxed earnings; the Treasury would contribute to that fund the tax that would otherwise have been paid. Then the fund would be allowed to grow without being subject to any tax during its lifetime. At the time of retirement, the fund would be used to provide an income for the pensioner but, importantly, that income would be treated as taxable income. It would be replacing the earnings that that individual would have been generating, had they still been in work. In 1946, when the state pension was introduced, that pension payout was to be subject to tax in exactly the same way that private pensions were back in 1921. That system has remained unchanged ever since. The simple contract between the state and the pensioner has not changed at all since 1921. It is important to underline this point. Successive Governments maintain that a pension, whether state or occupational, is a form of income. Specifically, it is treated as a replacement for earnings. However, there have been breaks for pensioners, most notably the exemption from paying national insurance contributions. Today, a pensioner will be asked to pay income tax above the tax-free threshold, but they will not be asked to pay national insurance, as the working population do. Where we can absolutely agree with the wider sentiment of the petition is that this Government are confusing the pension landscape. In their first 20 months, the Labour Government have not been the pensioner’s best friend. Prior to the last Budget, the Chancellor flew a few kites about reducing the tax-free lump sum. That resulted in pensioners withdrawing £3.9 billion in one-off lump sums from their pensions between October 2024 and October 2025. That was an increase of nearly 30% on the year before. When the Budget was actually announced, the Chancellor raided unused pensions in her inheritance tax calculations—a policy that will bring more families into paying inheritance tax and will mean that fewer people can pass money on to their loved ones when they die. However, this petition talks specifically about the personal allowance. The last Government made a decision to help those in the bottom decile of earnings by increasing the tax-free threshold at an accelerated rate. That helped pensioners as well as lower-earning people, and over time it brought the state pension to a level below that of the tax-free threshold. That has two benefits: first, there is no tax for state pensioners, and secondly there is no tax return to be filled in by state pensioners. But now this Government are choosing to freeze income tax thresholds until 2031, and the Government have extended the freeze because of their economic mismanagement. The Chancellor, in her first Budget, stated: “From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] As I say, that was her first Budget. After promising to not extend the freeze—something we would have supported —she went back on her word and chose not to protect hard-working people. That matters to pensioners, because the state pension will soon rise above the income tax threshold due to the triple lock, which we all agree is a good thing to remedy the ills that happened when the state pension fell to, I think, about 13% or 14% of average earnings. That means that pensioners will now have to start paying income tax on— [Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Minister.

I am sure that the Minister will chunter intelligently at some point. In our 2024 manifesto, the Conservative party proposed the triple lock plus to stop this problem happening. It would have exempted the state pension from income tax, as the threshold would have risen at the same rate as the triple lock. Now it seems that this Government might be considering using our policy, albeit in a slightly cack-handed way. The Government have proposed that basic-rate state pensioners will not have to fill in a tax return, although this seems to be a specific sort of form-filling break for the over-67s rather than an actual hiking of the allowance. However, in a Treasury Committee hearing recently, a director at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Cerys McDonald, stated that the policy would be included in the next Finance Bill. She said: “We will be working with the Treasury and Ministers to bring forward legislation to support the policy intent in the next Finance Bill.” Of course, we welcome the Government effectively taking our policy and exempting those who are on a state pension, but we do not have any detail as to how this plan will work. Pensioners deserve clarity. Perhaps the Minister could confirm today that the proposals to which Cerys McDonald referred will be introduced. It is not just policy that is blighting pensioners. The Sunday Times has highlighted that up to 8.7 million pensioners have been overcharged on their tax bill by an apparently careless taxman. That means that as much as £43.5 million was collected in error last year. I am pleased that HMRC is putting that right and that the fix should be finalised in the summer, but it has been working on this for a year. It is taking far too long. Will the Minister set out what he will do to resolve the situation and confirm to the House when it is fixed? This petition is well-intentioned and it is correct that we are all facing a higher tax burden than ever before. As has been reported, many pensioners are being overcharged on their tax bill. The Government need to get a hold of this situation and do more to reduce the tax burden on pensioners, because, as we have heard from many Members today, they deserve dignity and security in their retirement, but they have been left wanting by this Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is willing to raise the tax-free threshold, as identified in this petition, from £12,500 or thereabouts to £25,140, and will then maintain it at 200% of the working person’s tax-free threshold. Will he agree with the petition, or will he rule out that proposal today? Finally, I have been shadowing the Minister for about 18 months now. He is a very decent gentleman and I enjoy shadowing him. I wish him the very best of luck in the upcoming reshuffle after the by-election on Thursday.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about crossing the Rubicon, given that the Government are taking mandation powers to interfere in people’s savings and assets. We are talking about pension funds here, but once that Rubicon is crossed, there is no reason why the Government would not feel that they could start mandating how investment trusts or other types of savings schemes invest. This issue is not just about pensions; it is about the fundamental relationship between the state and private individuals.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury will know that our financial services industry is a shining example of our international economic might. However, overinterpretation of rules and regulations has led to banks being nervous of taking risks, and that has slowed growth in the City and holds up international trade. For example, overinterpretation of anti-money laundering rules means that foreign inward remittances can take up to two weeks to clear into a UK bank account, while poor classification of risk-rated assets potentially starves businesses of growth debt capital. Will the Economic Secretary please assure the House that this ever-unnecessary tightening of the rules will be addressed in the financial services Bill, due to be announced in the King’s Speech?

With the greatest respect, the Minister is talking nonsense. At the end of the day, every trustee has a fiduciary duty to get the best return for their members. By putting in these mandation powers, the Government are fundamentally going against the most basic principle of the City of London, which is dictum meum pactum—my word is my bond. The Government entered into a pact with the industry, and they are now reneging on that pact by introducing mandation and not allowing the industry to move things forward. The Government are so wrong on this whole point. The Minister should withdraw the mandation powers and get rid of clause 40.

When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women, but when faced with the economic reality of the costs, he and the Secretary of State chose common sense over ideology. In the spirit of that pragmatism, may I ask the Pensions Minister also to take a sensible, thoughtful approach to mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, and to remove clause 40 altogether?

The right hon. Member raises many really important points, much of which we agree with. That is why, I think on Report, the Opposition tabled an amendment to try to understand what the problem was. It specifically asked, “Why are these pension funds not investing in the UK? Is it legislative, is it regulatory or is it cultural?” The Government voted against that. They voted against exactly the work we need to do to understand what the problem is. Could he possibly explain why?

Both sides of this House are going with the grain of what is intended on this. There is a fundamental problem—we all agree on that—but let us get the issues out of the way that are blocking it. We cannot force people into a minefield if the mines are still there; we have to clear the mines and allow them do it. This is the most fundamental point. The Government should not be telling pension fund managers how and where to invest their money. If there is a problem that they are going to encounter, we should get those problems out of the way and managers will go into those assets.

It is a great pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. We have heard quite a lot of depressing stories about how people have been scammed and ripped off, and all colleagues will agree that more needs to be done to tackle fraud and spoofing in the car insurance industry. Whether it is crash-for-cash scams, ghost broking or paid ad spoofing, our constituents are all being ripped off on so many levels; not just the cost itself, but the increase in insurance premiums. These practices are also harming the insurers and our wider financial services industry. The Minister will therefore agree with everyone in the room that more needs to be done to tackle this problem, but I hope she will reflect on colleagues’ comments about whether the Government are actually going far enough to tackle it. To give some context, fraud is a threat that is becoming more prevalent every year. In 2024, fraud accounted for 44% of all crime reported in England and Wales, with about £1.16 billion of fraudulent general insurance claims identified. On the car insurance industry specifically, a 2024 report from the Association of British Insurers said: “Motor insurance continues to be the area where insurers see the most illicit claims occurring, and they detected 51,700 motor scams worth £576 million.” The ABI’s data suggested that that accounted for 53% of all fraudulent claims that year. It is safe to say that there is an issue that needs to be rectified, that we need to do more to protect our constituents and that we need to work closely with the industry to resolve this issue. The thrust of this debate is paid ad spoofing, which is a very problematic but less well-known practice affecting the car insurance industry. According to the ABI, four in five people have never heard of it, so it is welcome that we have the opportunity to discuss it and raise its profile today. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire set out, paid ad spoofing is when fraudsters mimic legitimate businesses. They pay for ads to appear in search results when a customer searches for a legitimate service. In the context of car insurance, the ads usually refer to unscrupulous claims and accident management businesses, and tend to relate to those who have been involved in an accident. As Direct Line states, the practice relies on “the fact that in the aftermath of an accident, you might not be as vigilant as you’d otherwise be, searching quickly on your mobile and clicking on the first option you see.” Fundamentally, these organisations are relying on a consumer believing they are dealing with their own insurer. They then arrange various services that the consumer’s insurer would provide, adding more cost to the process. This is all done with the aim of recovering costs from the insurer, but if the insurer challenges the charges, the drivers are the ones left to pick up the bill. Understandably, those affected—such as the constituents of the hon. Member for North Shropshire—feel ripped off, and the companies that pretend to support them are actually exploiting them. The last Conservative Government understood that, which is why we instructed the Financial Conduct Authority to become responsible for claims management companies in 2019. As a result, firms must be authorised by the FCA to carry out their activities, and repeated violations will result in their authorisation being removed. It also means that customers can escalate complaints to the financial services ombudsman. However, I understand that accident management activities are currently unregulated, so will the Minister outline whether the Government are considering regulating those activities of claims management companies? I would also be grateful if she could provide an assessment of the resolution process for customers, and whether she thinks improvements need to be made. The other central issue is how these practices are allowed in the first place. Fraud is often complicated and involves many different actors. Consumers and insurers have a part to play in tackling it, but the actors, such as technology firms and social media platforms, should also bear responsibility; after all, they are the delivery mechanism for this fraud. We should acknowledge that some technology firms have taken action, and Google is a good example. In 2021, it required companies advertising financial services to demonstrate that they are authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, which is a positive step. But more needs to be done, and we need a joined-up approach. The Government’s fraud strategy was an opportunity to do that. Although it is broadly welcome and recognises the role of technology firms in tackling fraud, not one of its action points requires change from them. Could the Minister set out why that decision was taken and what steps she is taking to ensure that responsibility is correctly allocated when it comes to fraud? Fraud in the car insurance industry is a serious issue, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for bringing it up. Fraud in general is becoming an issue of national security, and we need to get a handle on it. The Government should continue working with all actors to stop these practices, and we will support them when they try to do so. Consumers also need to remain vigilant to these practices. I conclude by flagging to my constituents in Wyre Forest the current advice on how to avoid paid ad spoofing. First, people need to check the website’s URL to ensure that it is their legitimate insurer. Secondly, they should save the phone number on their insurance policy document to their telephone. Thirdly, if people are unsure about who they are speaking to, they should hang up and check their insurance details—caveat emptor.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. As the Minister has said, the draft regulations are pretty uncontroversial, and the Opposition will certainly not oppose them. I have a couple of questions on the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The Minister has quite rightly said that they have been introduced in response to delays in other jurisdictions, including the US and the EU. Of course, it is very important that we remain globally competitive and do not cause any self-inflicted harm. However, can the Minister provide some more detail on why other jurisdictions are delaying the implementation of these rules? Is it procedural, or is it because they have some concerns about the rules that they are being asked to implement? Secondly, the draft regulations allow the Treasury to extend the delay beyond 1 January 2028, which is absolutely fine—we completely understand why that might need to be the case. That will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, there are one or two concerns within the industry that this provision might create uncertainty about when the rules will actually be brought in. It would be very helpful if the Minister gave some idea about what internal tests the Treasury will use to decide whether to pursue such an extension. As I said, the Opposition support the intention behind the draft regulations, and we will certainly not be pressing them to a vote.

What about Rosebank and Jackdaw?

rose —

indicated dissent.

Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on bringing this incredibly important subject up for discussion. At the heart of the debate are individual people—people who have lost their businesses, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their health and, indeed, their lives. Let me be crystal clear: where there has been malpractice, those affected should and must be supported and compensated. Every stakeholder in this issue, from the banks to the business owners—certainly the business owners—should agree with that. I have a certain amount of experience of this. I was a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016 and a member of the parliamentary commission on banking standards. We looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, which created the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to replace the previous regulator, the Financial Services Authority, which had been an abject failure. The FSA was created under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which started the tripartite regime that singularly failed our economy and resulted in the financial crisis in 2008. There is absolutely no question but that what we saw prior to the financial crisis, when we had that credit bubble, were some very bad practices. We looked into this again on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. The legislation that came out of that, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, was originally started due to the LIBOR scandal. None the less, we looked into the fundamental malpractices going on in banks, and what we saw, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt, was a mismatch in the balance of interests between shareholders, customers and staff that was massively in the favour of staff. That is what we found, and that fundamental malpractice by the financial services system is what those two Acts of Parliament were designed to resolve. What we are looking at today is three important areas: those who were sold interest rate hedging products, which most of this debate has been about; those who were placed into RBS’s global restructuring group; and those who were on fixed-rate loans in Northern Ireland. I want briefly to go through each. On the hedging products, it was common practice back in the 2000s for businesses to be sold variable rate loans, as well as interest rate hedging products, which were known as collars and caps. In principle, they are not inherently bad products in themselves, as they offered the borrower greater flexibility. If people are borrowing money at 6% and are capped at 8%, but the quid pro quo is that they are collared at 4%, that actually works for them, because it protects them from a spike in interest rates. Of course, the problem was that we did not see a spike in interest rates; rather, we saw a massive collapse of interest rates during the financial crisis. Interest rates dropped from 575 basis points in 2007 to just 50 basis points in 2009, and that is where borrowers were left out. Of course, we have also seen mismanagement of Government—I am the first to admit that, under Liz Truss’s Government, we saw interest rates spike at 15%. Collar and cap arrangements would have protected borrowers from that, so there is a benefit to them. However, I completely understand that we are looking here at where there has been malpractice behind these contracts. It is incredibly important, though, to look at the problem with the Financial Services Authority, the precursor of the Financial Conduct Authority, which identified that lenders failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk. That is why it was right that the nine banks involved compensated customers to the tune of £2.2 billion. I appreciate that we are talking about those who were not compensated, but there was a recognition that there was a problem. On the global restructuring group, the Financial Conduct Authority identified a number of clear failings in customer service and poor interactions. I understand that NatWest bank has accepted that the conduct fell far below the standards expected and has paid out something in the region of £100 million in compensation. In the grand scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money; none the less, it has accepted that. However, it seems from the results of the regulatory reviews by the FCA, as well as the judicial proceedings, that it has not properly compensated people. I should also point out that banks did a great deal to support businesses around the time of the financial crisis. That might sound counterintuitive to hon. Members, but one of the great discussions we had on the Treasury Committee was about the surprisingly small number of businesses that had gone bust. There was an argument at the time that banks were artificially supporting businesses while they had bad cash flow and damaged balance sheets, and that forcing companies into liquidation would crystallise the deficit of the loan on to the banks’ balance sheets. There was an argument that they were doing the wrong thing by keeping alive what were then referred to as zombie businesses. This whole issue was incredibly complicated after the financial crisis, and there was an awful lot going on in various different parts of all this. I want finally to turn to the fixed-rate loans, which are mostly the ones used by Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland, which again is a subsidiary of NatWest. The allegation is that the banks took out their own interest rate swaps, booking them in customers’ names and adding a related credit bump. That is a serious allegation, suggesting that the bank staff recorded up-front profits for those swaps and earned personal commissions. The FCA was absolutely right to investigate it, but following its investigation, it said: “We have seen no evidence that would lead us to conclude that further supervisory work and/or intervention with Ulster Bank/NatWest was required.” I recognise that many will disagree with that conclusion, but even so, it cannot be argued that the FCA did not look into it. This comes down to what we want the FCA to achieve. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said that the FCA is not accountable, but actually, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, and it is the job of Members on the Committee to ensure that the FCA does the job that we want it to. When we created the FCA in 2012, the idea was that there would be greater focus on consumer protection. The Financial Services Authority was set up to do the prudential regulation and the conduct regulation. The FCA was set up purely to do the financial conduct regulation, which is looking at how people are looked after. The Prudential Regulation Authority was then set up to do the nuts and bolts of the financial system—to make sure that we did not see a failing in the banking system rather like we had during the great financial crisis. I recognise that many colleagues will feel that process has not happened, particularly in the case we are talking about, but we have to accept that the FCA is an independent body. As I say, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, but it is an independent body. In a similar debate in 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said: “We can set the law, but we then must be bound by it and respect the judgment and independence of the FCA.” —[ Official Report , 18 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 1127.] To the extent of the law we created, he is absolutely right. In the same way that we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court, even if we disagree with it, we should respect the judgments of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is up to the Minister to come up with a solution, but does she agree with that, or has the FCA got this fundamentally wrong? If so, what line will the Government take? Will they deliver the judge-led judicial review that people are looking for? I hope she will be able to answer that. In closing, I want to return to those who have been affected. SMEs make up 99% of all businesses in the UK, so it is not an exaggeration that they are the lifeblood of our economy. When they succeed, we all benefit. They need confidence that institutions and financial services are backing them and are there to serve them and to make their businesses work. This issue has damaged that trust, and many have experienced painful losses. We need to rebuild that trust. I am not sure whether a judge-led inquiry is the right step, but I am open to it. The decision on whether to undertake one, however, is ultimately for the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. This scandal affects tens of thousands of people, and it could end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds. NS&I is supposed to be as safe a place as anywhere for people to put their savings—a place where savers can trust that their money will be looked after. As we have heard, 24 million people do so. It is also a savings scheme that the Government can use as a benefit to taxpayers, borrowing to provide funds for the running of the country. It needs to be demonstrably secure. In reality, bereaved families have been short-changed, with NS&I losing track of investments, delaying transfers and withholding premium bond payments. Customers have faced a complete breakdown in communication at the most difficult time, adding stress and worry. In the breaking newspaper reporting today, we have heard how people have had to chase up their own cases, only to be told that they would have to wait a further six to nine months for a resolution. Some families have also had to call in lawyers to obtain money that is rightfully theirs, and there are examples of bereaved family members receiving letters incorrectly addressed to their dead relatives. NS&I has in the past tried to blame some of these failures on covid and the outsourcing of staff, but whatever its excuse, this is unacceptable and a complete failure of management. NS&I is letting down its customers, and complaints have more than doubled in just over three years. At the same time, the digital transformation of NS&I that was meant to cost £1.3 billion has now ballooned to £3 billion. Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee was damning about the digitalisation plan, calling it a “full-spectrum disaster” and concluding that NS&I is “over-confident” and “has no workable plan, and no idea of eventual cost.” If the Public Accounts Committee could see it, why have this Government been sitting on their hands? Poor performance and a botched digital transformation mean that NS&I is short-changing savers at a time when raising money for the Government has never been needed more. NS&I is an arm’s length body overseen by the Treasury. Specifically, it is an Executive agency of the Chancellor, so it is concerning that the Minister has today admitted that NS&I notified the Treasury of these operational failings on 18 December last year. It has apparently taken a breaking news story in The Daily Telegraph for the Government to make a statement today. Can the Minister please explain why it has taken him over three months to come forward with this statement? He also says that the previous Government failed to act. That implies that there was something to act on. Can he set out what actions he has taken between coming to power on 4 July 2024 and 18 December 2025? I have some further questions for the Minister. What provision has been made for compensation and who will pay for it? Where bonuses have been paid to senior staff over the period of poor performance, will they be recovered? On that note, we have seen reports that the chief executive will be resigning as a result of this issue and the botched digital transformation process. Can the Minister confirm whether he has resigned, or has he been sacked? Can he confirm whether the chief executive received bonuses over this period of poor performance? Finally, what confidence do the Minister and the Government have that this is the true depth of the problem affecting bereaved families? What work is he doing to identify whether this might be the tip of an iceberg? I am not trying to imply that it is the tip of an iceberg, but I ask the question to ensure that this is the limit of the problem. People have been let down. While NS&I has apologised for the mistakes, it will be of little comfort to those thousands of people who have lost out. The Government need to act swiftly and the families need to be compensated. The Opposition will work collaboratively with the Government to ensure a swift resolution.

I would also like to start by thanking the Lords for their very hard work. I do not think the Government won a single vote during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Over the past few months, we have seen how enthusiastic the Government are to raid savings. In particular, they are very keen to raid pension pots. Whether by taking powers to mandate private pension funds to invest in Government white elephants or through the Bill we are debating tonight, the Government have established beyond any doubt that they have no interest whatsoever in savers and strivers. Pensions are important. They provide for security in retirement. The pact that has been established between the state and the pension saver, which goes back to the 1920s, is all about not just helping savers but taking the strain off the state: encourage saving now and there will not be a burden on the state of an impoverished pension in the future. Under the previous Government, we saw the roll-out of auto-enrolment, bringing 10 million people into the savings culture, and we introduced the triple lock to reverse the decline in the value of the state pension under the previous Labour Government. Despite those positive steps, we recognise that people are still not saving enough for their retirement. As the Government’s own analysis shows, 50% of savers are projected to miss their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, so we need to do better. I know there is cross-party consensus on that point, if nothing else, so let us be honest: the changes to salary sacrifice arrangements will do the complete opposite. As the Association of British Insurers and Pensions UK have outlined, we should be improving our current offering and providing new opportunities. Instead, the Government are making the situation worse in a desperate attempt to balance the Government’s books, conveniently in three years’ time. Frankly, it makes little sense and that is why we oppose this legislation. The point of salary sacrifice arrangements is that they incentivise certain behaviours. That is why people are allowed to use these schemes to put money towards not just pensions but workplace nurseries, childcare vouchers and cycle-to-work schemes. Those are all good things. However, in this case the Government have singled out pensions and are attacking one of the most important things that people should be saving towards—their pensions. This is hard-earned taxpayers’ money that could be going towards a good thing. Instead, the Bill will remove an avenue that 7.7 million employees are currently using. The Bill will add even more cost to the 290,000 businesses and charities that use it. It will pile more cost on to students already saddled with student loans. It will harm pensions adequacy and force more people to rely on the state, pushing more costs on to the next generation. I am proud that my colleagues in the Lords, as well as Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, understand those concerns. The Opposition remain opposed to the Bill, but the amendments do go some way to address those issues and support the stated objectives of this policy, even though we disagree with the fundamental policy. Lords amendments 1 and 7 would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from this policy. That would protect a group who typically under-save and allow them to continue to put savings into their pensions. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) may be interested in listening to this, because he raised a very important point about lower rate taxpayers. The amendments are identical to the amendment we tabled in the Commons and that Labour MPs decided to vote down. As the Government’s own impact assessment clearly states, they are trying to target higher earners or those making larger contributions. While that might be the stated purpose and the political justification, in reality that is not the case for two reasons. First, the cap will still affect 858,000 basic rate taxpayers, according to the Society of Pension Professionals. In fact, reporting from the Financial Times has highlighted how the Bill will disproportionately affect those people, compared to those on a higher rate of tax. Those on the basic rate of tax pay 8% national insurance contributions, while those on the higher rate of tax pay 2% NICs. That means that on national insurance contributions alone, lower earners are being hit four times as hard by this policy—four times. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister how that could be fair. He did not answer my question then, but I hope he will be able to answer it when he winds up. Maybe he can tell us how the policy is fair for those hard-working people, or whether they are just casualties of rushed policymaking. Secondly, a behavioural outcome may be that employers will remove salary sacrifice as an option for all their employees. We already recognise that salary sacrifice is mutually beneficial for employees and employers. It is also more attractive to both sides, as it is simple to understand. By enforcing the cap, it will change not only the viability of salary sacrifice arrangements, but employers’ perception of them.This may result in many employers removing them as an option altogether, meaning that 4.4 million people who are supposedly protected may be affected. If this Government were really serious about their policy objective, they would exempt basic rate taxpayers altogether. These amendments give them the chance to do just that and to back hard-working people.

I thank the Minister for his statement. One characteristic of volatile energy markets is that when wholesale prices rise, consumer prices tend to rise like a rocket, and when the wholesale price stabilises the consumer price tends to fall like a feather. Can the Minister assure me and my constituents that in the conversations that he is having with the Competition and Markets Authority he is also looking at whether, when the market returns to normality, prices will fall as quickly as they have risen in this volatile moment?

Thanks to this Government’s policies on pensions, which actively disincentivise saving into private pension schemes, people will increasingly rely on the support of the state. This is not sustainable. I asked the Minister about this yesterday, and he dodged the question, so I will ask him again: will the Government cancel pension fund mandation and abandon salary sacrifice caps—yes or no?

Helping millions of people ensure financial security in their retirement is a cornerstone of the Minister’s Department, but in the Government’s first 18 months, they have disincentivised pension savings by introducing inheritance tax on pensions, removing pensions from their lifetime ISA reforms, forcing pension trustees into mandation and, most recently, introducing a cap on salary sacrifice savings incentives. Through their actions, this Government are pushing people to be more reliant on the state pension, rather than encouraging people to take control of their own financial future. Which will be the next Government U-turn: cancelling mandation, or abandoning salary sacrifice caps?

I should alert Members that I am the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. On that point about mental health issues, does the hon. Gentleman agree that medical markers on doctors’ records would be a perfect solution to that problem, rather than necessarily doing what is proposed in the petition?

We welcome the uprating for both the mesothelioma lump sum payments and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act payments. This has been done on an annual basis and over many Governments. Today’s regulations specifically provide a 3.8% increase in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index rate. We welcome that inflation-linked increase so that the compensation amounts are more representative of today’s cost of living. That is especially important in this instance, given how debilitating these diseases can be. Colleagues will know that mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer with known links to asbestos exposure. Pneumoconiosis is equally serious, often affecting those who worked in heavy industries such as coalmining. What is cruel about both those diseases is that it can take years for symptoms to start presenting themselves, and therefore, by the time that someone receives a diagnosis, in most cases it is already advanced and leaves them with little time to react. The other issue with the latency of diagnosis is that many sufferers struggle to pursue civil claims against employers. These schemes help to address those issues and provide decency for people affected. They also underpin the point that our benefits system should be a critical safety net for the some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I reiterate that the Opposition welcome this compensation lump sum uplift today and support the Government’s proposals.

The Secretary of State is being incredibly kind. He talks about the settlement, but the settlement does not work. Wyre Forest district council has had a 0% increase in core funding. Dare I say that across the whole of Worcestershire, where there is a district council with a Conservative Member of Parliament, there has been a 0% increase, but where there is a district council with a Labour Member of Parliament, there has been an increase of up to 5%. Can he explain why that has happened?

rose—

I was going to say thank you for the Pride in Place money, actually; I am very grateful that the Government have given £20 million to my constituency. On the subject of funding for councils, the Government are requiring district councils to pay for food waste recycling. That is not an unreasonable proposition, but there was a principle under the previous Government of new burdens funding, whereby when a new burden was presented to a council, the Government would sort it out. Why have the Secretary of State’s Government decided not to support councils with new burdens funding?

My hon. Friend and neighbour is raising incredibly important points about how our constituents were promised that their council tax would be cut and have been royally let down by Reform councillors. Can I embarrass my hon. Friend? It is worth remembering that many Conservative district councils do well. My hon. Friend led Wychavon district council within the last 14 years, and for five years it was deemed the most financially resilient district council in the country, and at the same time it did not increase council tax by a single penny. That is what Conservative councils deliver.

On exactly this point about the democratic process, my constituents were promised by the Reform candidates that they would cut council tax, but Worcestershire county council’s council tax is going up by 9%. It is a shame that not a single Reform Member of Parliament has turned up to defend what they have done. The worrying point is that we are being denied a referendum even though this goes above the 5% threshold. That bit of the democratic process has been removed from Worcestershire.

The Minister is nodding, and I am sure he agrees with us on this point. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the Government have committed to extending this relief for the next two years. However, I point out that the Government said in the Budget document: “The government will extend the employer NICs relief for employers hiring veterans in their first civilian role to April 2028, from which point support for veterans into employment will be covered through spending review settlements rather than through this tax relief.” The Government have committed to consult on which way would be best to do that, which is positive, and I hope the Minister is open to considering continuing this relief as an option if a suitable alternative cannot be found. In due course, it would be great if he or the Government could let us know what is being planned and on what timeframe, so we may understand what will be happening for veterans. The child benefit and guardian’s order will uprate the allowances in line with CPI for the 2026-27 tax year. Again, we welcome the increases as these benefits are an important part of our welfare system. Guardian’s allowance is designed to provide further support to people who care for someone else’s child—for example, if the child’s parents have died. When these people step as guardians, they are incredibly important in the upbringing of young children, and we have a duty to support them so that they can ensure that the children they care for have the best start in life. Although these state benefits are important, the Government are abandoning their responsibilities to tackle the wider benefits bill. In this debate last year, the former Exchequer Secretary, who is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: “the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for taxpayers while providing support to those who need it.” —[ Official Report , 4 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 716.] When it came down to it, however, this Government did not take the opportunity to make those savings. Instead, it appears that they caved in to their Back Benchers, and we are now in a position where the benefits bill continues to balloon. According to The Times , even the Prime Minister has vetoed plans to reform the welfare system, simply to avoid the embarrassment of yet another U-turn. That is not fair to taxpayers, or to those who need support the most. In due course, I hope the Minister will set out when the needed benefit reforms will be brought forward and what steps he is taking to ensure that taxpayers’ money goes to those who need it most. The Conservatives will not stand in the way of any of the statutory instruments before us today, but we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say—not necessarily this afternoon, I stress—on the points I have raised.

It is a great pleasure to debate these two statutory instruments with the Exchequer Secretary. As he stated, they are made each year, and the precedent is for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. I am glad to see that that practice continues, and I hope that the Government will keep this going for the remainder of the current premiership, however long that may last. I want to make it clear that we will not be voting against the measures before us when the debate concludes. However, I would like to comment on each SI and the wider political discourse around them. First, the social security regulations set the rates of certain national insurance contribution classes and the level of certain thresholds for the 2026-27 tax year. Specifically, they uprate the lower earnings limit, the small profit threshold and the rates of class 2 and class 3 national insurance contributions. The increase will be 3.8%, which is the consumer prices index figure from September 2025. All other limits and thresholds that these regulations cover will remain frozen at their current level. This highlights that the increase last year was 1.7% compared with 3.8% this year. Both these percentages represent the rate of inflation that our constituents are suffering, but the 1.7% is of course what we left the Government when they came to power, and 3.8% is the level of inflation they are now delivering for consumers. When we left office, inflation was at 2%. We had managed to get it down following a once-in-a-generation pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis. Since Labour has come in, inflation has risen almost every month and is now stuck at about 3.6%. Why is that? It is because the Government are relentlessly pursuing policies instead of making practical solutions—for example, the drive towards net zero. We of course want net zero and to get to the point where we clean up our carbon footprints, but by going too far they have managed to put up energy bills by £300 since they were elected. Is it any wonder that inflation is so high and shows little sign of coming down any time soon? I do not want to press the Minister on too many questions, but could he in due course let us know when the Government expect inflation to return to the target rate of 2%, which everybody agrees is where it should be? The other point that I want to make about the statutory instrument is that it extends the employer national insurance contributions relief for veterans to 2028, which means businesses will continue to pay no employer NICs on salaries up to the veterans upper secondary threshold of £50,000 or £270 for the first year of their employment, which is a very good thing, as I think the Minister will agree. We introduced this relief in 2022, as we wanted to encourage as many employers as possible to help our veterans. These people have done a huge amount to protect our country, and it is important that we show our gratitude to them.

I am grateful to my constituency next door neighbour for allowing me to intervene. Some of the post that goes to the southern part of his constituency may well be sorted through the Kidderminster postal sorting office. He mentioned that people are not getting their letters, and we have heard from other Members that urgent mail is not getting there. I too have raised this on Facebook and, independent from my residents in Stourport, Kidderminster and Bewdley—towns that should be well served—I have had 700 uninvited comments from people who are thoroughly fed up with the postal service in our part of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Ofcom requirement is not being met in any way, shape or form?

We did have a war and a pandemic.

I think we all agree with the sincerity of the intention, but the problem is that there is always a grey area at the boundary. The question is how we define that area so that we make certain that a legitimate person does not get wrongly drawn in, while a bad actor gets away with it.

This is all pretty uncontroversial, but there is one concern with clause 246, which states that the commencement date will be May this year. Although they have pushed this back by a month, are the Government not concerned that this is an insufficient length of time for tax advisers to register? From representations we have had from the industry, they are very concerned that the timeframe is too short. Indeed, is HMRC fully equipped to take on this extra workload? I expect that the Minister will say that advisers can do it all online, but I am slightly worried that things like that do not always work. There is a real concern in the advice industry of the widespread unintended effect that may come out of these measures. It is important that we get this right and that people have time to prepare. Would the Minister take that on board and have a think about how we can make sure that the process is efficient and works well?

That was sterling support for a terrible idea. The Office for Budget Responsibility was brought in back in 2010 to try to keep an eye on what had been going on through the financial crisis, the big problems as a result of the financial crash and, interestingly, the austerity measures brought in by Chancellor Alistair Darling before the 2010 general election, which were necessary to carry on and to sort out the public finances. It is really important that the Government are held to account, that Members of this House do so, and that they do so with as much information as they can possibly have. The Office for Budget Responsibility is there to mark the homework of the Government. To reduce that homework marking to just once a year—I appreciate that there are two events, but only measuring fiscal ability once a year—is not a good idea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came along about a year ago and proudly said that she had managed to repair the public finances, only for us to discover a year later that in fact the public finances had not been sorted out and we had to see huge amounts more taxation come in. To remove the opportunity for the OBR to have a look at the public finances is a bad idea and we do not support it.

Clauses 174 to 185 relate to anti-avoidance information notices. They also provide that they can be issued to connected persons, third parties and financial institutions. The make mostly technical amendments, but there are two technical amendments that we believe are missing from this grouping. Rather than go through every clause, I will concentrate on two. First, clause 182 restricts how recipients may disclose or publicise anti-avoidance notices. We follow the logic of this clause, as one would want to prevent people who receive a notice from tipping off the promoters or specified persons being investigated. However, what we would not want is for recipients of a notice, who often will not be the main targets of HMRC, to be prevented from accessing professional or legal advice. The wording of the clause, whether that be the title or the text, insinuates that this is not an option that is available. Therefore, we feel that clarity is required from the Government. The Chartered Institute of Taxation recommends adding the words: “making representations against the notice” to clause 182(2). This is a sensible recommendation, and I hope that the Minister will see it as such and commit to looking at adding these words before the Bill returns on Report. The other issue that has been raised with us is regarding clause 183. This clause sets out which categories of information cannot be required under anti-avoidance notices. More simply, this means that material that may be legally privileged between a lawyer and a client would be exempt from these notices. That is important, and we are not arguing that the Government should remove that exemption. However, the point has been made to us by industry bodies that legal professional privilege does not extend to advice provided by tax advisers or accountants. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is the expert on the Government Benches, looks up and—I hope—understands that point. That is despite the fact that a person would ask for advice on tax policy from an adviser or an accountant in the same manner that a person would ask for legal advice from a lawyer. Again, we understand that this clause is about tackling tax avoidance and the promoters of it. However, without additional exemptions it could result in people or entities being disincentivised from seeking advice from tax advisers or accountants based in the UK. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the rationale to protect legally privileged material but to exclude other types of advice from the list of exemptions, and to say whether the Government would consider—again—introducing changes to this clause to level the playing field.

The broad thrust of the measure is perfectly reasonable. As we go into a more digital world, it is perfectly acceptable that people should be required to interact with HMRC online. The only problem is that not everybody is as computer literate, so what measures will be in place to support people if they are genuinely struggling? That aside, we are in favour of the measure.

We would all agree that there is certainly a need to enhance HMRC’s ability to catch promoters of tax avoidance schemes. According to HMRC, there is currently a tax gap of about £500 million related to marketed avoidance schemes sold to individuals. HMRC has identified approximately 20 to 30 active promoters responsible for that. It seems that clauses 163 to 173 would theoretically affect only those engaging in highly risky schemes that HMRC has already disapproved of. We support the work of HMRC to protect the public from those groups and the overarching principles that drive these clauses but, on closer inspection, the scope of the proposals is wide. We have concerns that the proposals could inflict collateral damage on legitimate actors in the wider markets. Clause 163 outlines the process that HMRC undertakes to officially deem a person as a certified promoter. The big issue, however, is the difficulty of completing the process to officially certify what a promoter actually is. These promoters can be notoriously difficult to catch because some of them are based offshore and hide behind complex corporate structures, so although we support the purpose of clause 163, we are not entirely certain that it will achieve its intended result of tackling promoters offshore. Clause 164 has the same problem: it outlines how HMRC will require people who engage with promoters to disengage by issuing them with a promoter action notice. Will the Minister outline whether the Government are considering further steps to make the clauses enforceable? What steps are being taken with other countries to catch promoters not residing in but operating in the UK? That is an important point. Clause 165 is about the notification of a personal business that HMRC reasonably suspects is enabling a promoter. It is sensible to have that soft approach—to be followed, if necessary, by harder enforcement action later in the process. Our concern, however, is about the chilling effect that a preliminary notice might have on a legitimate actor. Once a recipient receives a preliminary notice, they may choose to pre-emptively sever ties with somebody whom HMRC has flagged as a suspected promoter, despite the fact that a preliminary notice is based on suspicion and is not an official conclusion. That means that preliminary notices will require a lower threshold of evidence in comparison with a promoter action notice, with no judicial oversight. In its technical consultation last year, UK Finance raised the fact that that could affect financial institutions as well. Clause 166 is similar. It specifies the information that an authorised HMRC officer and recipient of a preliminary notice or promoter action notice can disclose. Following the issuance of a notice, the investigation process keeps a suspected promoter completely unaware. That potential overreach could have chilling effects on people whom HMRC merely suspects. As clause 165 states, a person may sever ties with an entity being investigated even if that entity is only under suspicion. I encourage the Minister and officials to consider the safeguards that can protect legitimate actors from that prospect.

The clauses follow a recent Delegated Legislation Committee debate that the Minister and I had, as a result of which we are going to get together with some members of the industry to talk about the confusion on this issue. One thing that worries me about the clauses is that they fail to differentiate between a cryptoasset and a stablecoin or tokenised currency. It is important to recognise that those are two different things. As I understand it, HMRC will take reporting on interest paid on deposit accounts, for example, so that it can understand what is going on in the economy and in individuals’ accounts. However, a bitcoin is not a currency; it is a tradeable asset. It can behave like a currency, or it can behave like a share, whereby it has its own intrinsic value and people can buy it with a view to selling it when it goes up in price. Similarly, people can use it, as we saw in the case of Tesla: Elon Musk was prepared to take bitcoin as payment for Tesla cars, although not for very long. However, it is not the same as a fiat currency and is not the same as a tokenised pound or stablecoin; those so-called cryptoassets act as part of a payment system. This is where we find ourselves getting into a potentially complicated area. We may be making legislation without necessarily understanding the difference between bitcoin, dogecoin and ethereum, which are tradeable assets, and a mechanism that enhances the payment system. It would be helpful if the Minister explained a more detail what, specifically, the clauses mean by “cryptoasset”. Standing back from the minute detail of what a cryptoasset is, as opposed to what a stablecoin is, the general thrust—participation in the wider reporting of what is going on with this stuff—is probably a good idea. We need to understand how it works, get things proportionate and not become over-regulated, because if we become over-regulated we become uncompetitive. There are a number of issues that cause me concern, so I will be grateful if the Minister can offer some explanations now, and then we can have more discussions when we meet in a week or two. If we go down the wrong track, it could put us a long way behind our international competitors.

Clauses 156 to 162 will place a statutory ban on promoting tax avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success. The clauses also set out the civil and criminal penalties. The Opposition absolutely support the Government’s efforts to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion, both of which are variations on a theme. It is important to remember exactly what they are. Tax planning is to be encouraged; tax evasion should lead to being sent to prison; and as for tax avoidance, we should try to persuade people not to use the letter of the law to avoid the spirit of the law in their tax planning. However, some concerns, which I hope the Minister can answer, have been raised with us about the clauses. Clauses 157 and 162 define what is meant by “promotion”, as well as other key definitions that are applicable to these clauses. Those definitions are welcome, but the Chartered Institute of Taxation has flagged concerns about the wording. For example, the clauses use the terms “marketed” and “likely to be” marketed but never define what they mean. The intention to prevent ineffective tax avoidance arrangements at source is noble, but “likely to be” marketed is too loose. What evidence would constitute an arrangement being classed as likely to be marketed? What evidence would an adviser need in order to show that advice was not likely to be marketed? Clarity is needed because the provision, if left unchanged, could accidentally catch normal tax advice. Will the Minister therefore commit to tightening up the wording of the clauses and providing specific details, either before Report or in any follow-up regulations? Secondly, how can the Government prove that someone is promoting arrangements that have “no realistic prospect” of success? Will it be for individual officers of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to determine, or will clarity be provided in the statutory instrument that will eventually follow? I ask because, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, the term was not in the draft Finance Bill. Originally, the Government wanted to introduce a new criminal offence of failing to notify a tax avoidance arrangement under the rules on disclosure of tax avoidance schemes. We welcome the fact that the Government have consulted and, following the responses from industry, have decided to change tack. However, the new terminology of “no realistic prospect” of success was first raised only on 12 November last year. That was followed by a consultation that the industry has described as “very short, limited and confidential”. Will the Minister and HMRC therefore consider running a more open consultation?

These clauses are wide and important, but they have also drawn significant criticism. The Government have decided to amend “dishonest conduct” rules to “sanctionable conduct” rules in schedule 21. That may seem like a minor change, but it changes the current high threshold of dishonesty to one that is lower and potentially ambiguous. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has described the definition of “sanctionable conduct” as “exceptionally broad;…based on inferred intention; and…not limited to unethical, unprofessional or deliberately incorrect behaviour.” Couple that with significant increases in penalties for conduct in scope, and it is unsurprising that the change causes a fair amount of concern in the industry. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, the objective of the Government’s policy is to target deliberate behaviour. This change seems inadvertently to miss that objective entirely. Frankly, it seems to be the wrong move, and there is significant strength of feeling in the industry that the terminology should revert to its original wording. Can the Minister provide more detail on the decision to change the wording? What representations have the Government received from the industry about it? Will he also please commit to engaging further with industry stakeholders before Report stage, and to making the necessary changes to accomplish the well-intentioned aim of the policy? I have had other representations from groups such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales about related issues. There are a number of other issues about the way this is working. I will not trouble the Committee with them now, but we may follow up with a letter to the to the Minister about where parts of the Bill seem to be spreading into slightly negative territory.

I agree. At the end of the day, we want to nail down people who have promoted those dodgy things, but at the same time we are a country with justice. If it takes more than 30 days on a regular basis to respond to such things, it is absolutely right that we would have longer time in order to help—but as with all such things, it is always a fine balance. Clause 167 outlines the appeal process for people who receive a promoter action notice. Under the clause, the recipient can only appeal if they are not providing a critical service to the promoter specified, or the goods and services are not being used wholly or partly for the promoter’s avoidance arrangements. The Association of Taxation Technicians has outlined the unfairness of that, given that promoters are able to challenge HMRC’s core allegations at a tribunal. Recipients, on the other hand, will only be able to address the technicalities of the arrangements, with no opportunity to have the wider picture taken into consideration. The recipient may just be an unwitting enabler, unable fully to appeal the notice. Therefore, will the Minister again outline how the Government will ensure that individuals can appeal against the notices? Clause 168 outlines the civil penalty regime. Under the Government proposals, the recipient of a promoter action notice will be required to pay £1,000 per day for non-compliance. A recipient of a promoter action notice may challenge that at a tribunal, which is good. However, there is no suspension period provision. Should a recipient challenge HMRC at a tribunal, the penalty of £1,000 per day will still apply as the tribunal considers the appeal. As the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants pointed out, the first-tier tribunal can take a significant amount of time. Therefore, is the Minister certain that HMRC has the resources to compensate for the increased workload? Will he consider implementing a suspension period provision? At the end of the day, if that drags on for too long, a provider could be put in financial jeopardy of business failure. Finally, clause 170 sets out when HMRC can report a recipient of a promoter action notice to a regulator, representative or trade body. I agree that regulators, and representative and trade bodies should be involved in the informative process, as their integrity and reputation could be at stake, too. However, the clause echoes similar concerns of mine regarding clauses 167 to 169. It means that reporting a recipient to the regulator in combination with publishing recipient details, as well as applying civil penalties, would all run concurrently before the recipient has even had a chance to reach a tribunal. Again, will the Minister outline what discussions have been had to ensure that there is not excessive duplication?

This is all fairly straightforward. We are delighted that, since coming to power 18 months ago, the Government have decided that they are going to follow on with the great initiatives of the last Government, and I thank the Minister for so enthusiastically celebrating our achievements. However, there is one bit that we are slightly worried about. Clause 258 will require individual users of HMRC online services to provide and keep up to date their digital contact details. That is a perfectly reasonable request, but to enforce it, people can be subject to financial penalties of up to £1,000. As the Association of Taxation Technicians has said, the proposed £1,000 penalty is “unprecedented and disproportionate”. Much more importantly, there is no comparable HMRC penalty for failing to update a postal address or traditional form of contact. Are the Government not going a bit too far? I remind them that this is about regular taxpayers, and this penalty could catch out people who are more vulnerable or less financially literate. Can the Minister commit to reviewing whether this £1,000 fine is too high and, indeed, whether we should be bringing it in? We are completely behind the thrust of the clauses, but this penalty seems disproportionate. There is no fine for not updating a postal address, so why would there be one for not updating an email address?

I thank the Minister for explaining what the clauses are all about. We are slightly worried about what they do not set out, which is the threshold for HMRC to pursue a criminal conviction that would result in a prison sentence. Prison sentences should be reserved for the most serious breaches. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more clarity in any correspondence that may be published. Clauses 191 to 196 set out the civil sanctions for non-compliance with an anti-avoidance information notice. As we heard, the sanctions will consistently apply a fine of up to £5,000 for a breach, as well as daily penalties for continued breaches. Additionally, clause 196 allows for the daily penalty to be increased if the person continues to offend for more than 30 days since the original notice. Overall, these are important deterrents and strong sanctions to ensure that bad actors pay the price. At the same time, they seem to be fairly balanced with the safeguards in clauses 197 to 206. We are therefore generally content with the drive and execution of these clauses.

Could I ask for a little clarity on that? Does that mean that there will be a list, and that an adviser will get three months from the point at which they are published on the list? Can they elect when to go on to that list? I am not quite clear what the Minister meant.

Welcome to your position, Mrs Harris. I hope you will indulge me a little if I go back into some of the history of this place. I have been here for 15 years, which I think is greater than the collective experience of most members of this Committee, although that is not something to brag about. However, we sometimes forget the lessons from history. Back in 2011 and 2012, when I was a newly elected MP, we started looking at the retail distribution review. The Financial Conduct Authority felt strongly that people needed better advice from their wealth managers, and the retail distribution review was brought in to do a number of different things. One of the things the review did was require wealth managers to have proper qualifications, which is not an unreasonable proposition. Slightly more controversially, it also resulted in wealth managers potentially having unlimited liability, to the end of their life, if they messed up, which was a bit of a problem. A third measure was about the compensation of wealth managers. At the time, wealth managers were paid a commission by the providers of the products they sold. That was changed to a fee-based system, where somebody seeking the services of a wealth manager would not potentially be ripped off as a result of commissions being paid, and we would therefore have a level playing field.

I wholeheartedly agree. The more we discuss it in public, the more the general public will realise that avoiding tax is a very bad thing. Anything that highlights that point is to be welcomed, so I strongly urge the Government to do the right thing so that we can make this prohibition work and protect advisers who may simply have made an error. Clause 159 lays out the civil penalties, including a financial penalty of up to £1 million if the prohibition is breached. Additionally, it sets out an individual fine of £5,000 that can be issued for each person who has participated in the arrangements. We agree with the Government’s aim of creating a deterrent, but given how steep the sanctions are, there is a concern that the 30-day window for making representations is not enough of a safeguard. At the moment, that is the only recourse: a person cannot make a formal appeal to the tax tribunal. Subsequent clauses, which the Committee will discuss later, include a “reasonable excuse” defence. Not having such a defence leaves open the possibility that the bad behaviour of one rogue actor will lead to the prosecution of the wider organisation. Will the Minister and her officials agree to take those points away and consider tabling a new clause on Report?

Clauses 206 to 212 introduce measures to address the involvement of some legal professionals in tax avoidance schemes, and I reassure the Minister that we support what the clauses look to achieve. Clause 206 allows lawyers to make a formal declaration of material protected by legal professional privilege that may support HMRC’s investigations. That means that the vast majority of lawyers will be able to flag concerns and demonstrate compliance with HMRC without breaking that privilege. At the same time, clause 207 introduces a penalty of £10,000 for a lawyer who makes a deliberately false declaration in an effort to cover their involvement in the promotion or marketing of tax avoidance, although I cannot imagine a situation where a lawyer would do anything that was not 100% honest. The clauses work well together, and there is widespread agreement from those in industry about the positivity of the changes. We certainly agree with industry that these are good measures. Question put and agreed to. Clause 206 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 207 to 212 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 213 Penalties for non-disclosure of tax avoidance schemes Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clauses focus on compliance notices and ineligibility orders. Again, we support the thrust of the clauses, but the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has asked for further clarity in some areas. First, clause 230(3) makes provisions for an adviser to be notified of a compliance notice. However, it does not impose a time limit and could lead to delays. Given tax advisers and relevant individuals are being subject to strict timeframes, with some exceptions or extensions, should HMRC not have to abide by similar rules and timeframes? Secondly, clauses 233 and 234 are specifically on ineligibility orders being issued to tax advisers and relevant individuals. Those are important as they will help to temporarily or permanently remove an entity from being officially registered. However, given the gravitas of the orders, clarity is needed to ensure they are issued in a reasonable manner. There should also be a mechanism for an ineligibility order to be cancelled if an appeal or a review finds in favour of the tax adviser. Finally, we agree with the ICAEW. The suspension or ineligibility orders should only apply once an order is final. I am sure the Minister would agree that it would be unfair on a business to notify clients of an order to only then have it withdrawn. The orders are serious sanctions, so the initial reputational damage could genuinely put a tax adviser out of business even if they have not done anything wrong. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that that is something they will reasonably consider.

Clause 241 and schedule 20 provide more details about the review and appeals process that HMRC will operate. They also confirm that HMRC must offer a review where there is an opportunity for a person to appeal a decision. The clarity is welcome, but there are still some issues that the Government need to consider further. First, paragraph 6 of the schedule provides that a statutory review automatically concludes in HMRC’s favour if it simply does not deal with the review request. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation puts it, that “seems particularly inappropriate here, given an appeal is one of the few ways that a firm can challenge this regulatory decision (in which HMRC has a conflict of interest).” We agree that it is unfair for HMRC to find in its own favour because it failed to carry out something in a timely manner. With that in mind, will the Minister commit to taking this away, and potentially removing paragraph 6(7)? The other issue comes back to the temporary relief from suspension, as previously discussed. Under schedule 20, the decision to grant temporary relief rests with an individual authorised HMRC officer, who can be the same officer who issued the suspension. It goes further: the schedule stipulates that the officer must take into account the prospect of the review or appeal succeeding. Could that not create conflicts of interest and be fundamentally unfair to the applicant? Would it be better practice to mandate that either another authorised officer or the commissioners make the decision to grant temporary relief from the suspension? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity.

The Minister is being very indulgent. The Liberal Democrats and I are probably as one on this point. The reason it is incredibly important that we get this right, and the reason I brought up the retail distribution review, is that there can be unintended consequences. We should remind ourselves that the Bill is 539 pages long. The tax code is 21,000 pages long—10 million words. More importantly, the tax code costs us £15.3 billion a year to comply with—it is really complicated. We already have a very complicated system, and if we do anything that inadvertently makes it more complicated—if we get this wrong—it will be really bad news for the whole of our economy. We must not do something that inadvertently—I was going to say, screws it up—

As with earlier clauses, we agree with these measures, which will help to streamline the process and allow HMRC to quickly cancel benefits such as gross payment status where there is deliberate non-compliance or fraud. That will allow the authorities to stay ahead of bad actors and ultimately protect taxpayers’ money. We broadly welcome the thrust of these measures. I have one or two questions. There is a lack of clarity that needs addressing, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it. The clauses allow HMRC to remove gross payment status from parties that “knew or should have known” of inaccuracies with the CIS that were being carried out by another party. In the same vein as my earlier comments on the terminology “likely to be” marketed, the words “should have known” extend the liability beyond deliberate fraud. We recognise that, in this instance, the terminology follows European Court of Justice and High Court judgments that established the Kittel principle, which means that a business that “should have known” is aiding the perpetrators of fraud and is effectively an accomplice. However, there is no concrete definition of this term, and by extension there is a lack of clarity for innocent parties that make genuine errors. Getting this wrong could result in significant cash-flow issues, contract terminations and reputational damage for subcontractors, so we need to be sure the provision is airtight. Will the Minister commit to looking at this point again and providing the clarity that industry is asking for? If not, it would be useful to understand how HMRC proposes to ensure that mistakes are not made in decision making and whether it intends to publish any corresponding guidance for businesses and interested parties.

Clause 109 shifts the responsibility for the remaining two inland border facilities from the Government to the port authorities. The switching of inland border facilities services and operations to a commercial basis was something that the last Government were exploring. However, we query whether clause 109 goes a little too far. It would require the ports to prepare to take on the additional responsibility of providing equivalent infrastructure. We appreciate why the ports received the additional Government assistance in the first place, especially considering the far-reaching effects that any disruption in Dover could have. However, while I agree that the ports must be able to stand on their own feet, clause 109 risks the ports’ introducing additional import and export charges being applied to every lorry and trailer that passes through. The magnitude of the price increases could be substantial for businesses, which may end up passing on the additional costs to consumers—not to mention that they would be in addition to the port inventory charges that the port of Dover implemented from 1 January this year. I recommend that the Government assess the impact that the legislative changes in clause 109 would have on these ports, the businesses and hauliers that rely on them and consumers, who will have to pay a higher price. We get the principle of the clause, but we are concerned about whether there are any adverse knock-on effects on trade through the ports.

The ATED was originally brought in back in 2013 under the coalition Government to discourage the use of corporate structures to hold high-value residential properties. Reliefs were built into the system to ensure that genuine commercial property businesses were not caught by the charge. However, those reliefs were subject to a clear 12-month time limit for making a claim. That was for two reasons: first, it helps ensure that relief claims are made while the facts are still reasonably clear. Secondly, it simply aligns with normal tax time limits. Now the Government want to remove that time limit entirely. Without a deadline, if claims are made over the original 12-month period, HMRC could be required to revisit historical ATED returns long after they were filed. Given service levels in HMRC are already stretched, it is unclear why the Government have chosen to do that. It could increase, rather than reduce, administrative burdens on HMRC. Have the Government assessed the resource implications for HMRC of processing claims made more than a year after the relevant adjustment period?

Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation. We support measures that tackle any unfair trading practices, including dumping and subsidisation. We are also supportive of measures that bring power back into the hands of Secretaries of State and Ministers. That is especially important when it comes to practices that could harm our industries and our constituents. One example of that is the steel industry. Back in 2016, it was reported that Tata Steel had suffered more than 1,000 job losses, including 750 from Port Talbot alone. Tata stated that the reason for this was the flooding of cheap imports, particularly from China. This will continue to be a problem. According to the OECD, Chinese steel imports surged to a record level of 118 million tonnes in 2024. Interestingly, there are different points of view on this. For those in the building industry, the idea of having an awful lot of cheap steel coming into the country is not that unattractive, but it would affect our domestic industries. How the Government curb dumping and subsidisation must be accompanied by, at least in part, a deterrent effect. That is crucial for investigations that implicate large and powerful countries. Clause 107 removes the opportunity to implement any deterrent effect because it caps duties imposed on the dumping margin or subsidy amount, not at the injury margin. I acknowledge that this is in line with World Trade Organisation rules. However, injury margins can often exceed dumping and subsidy margins due to their accurate reflection of the true economic harm inflicted on UK industries. Each time, they have been overridden due to the lesser duty rules, and the removal of this rule could have given the Government the opportunity to apply a regime that reflects injury margins better in dumping and subsidy investigations. That would not only protect UK industries but send a clear message to those who engage in these abhorrent trade practices that this will not be tolerated and will be met with serious repercussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s rationale not to cut duties at the injury margin. It is quite a technical question, and if he feels the urge to write back, that might save him the trouble of getting into a lot of technical detail. We are supportive of the thrust of amendments 44 and 45, tabled by the hon. Member for Maidenhead. It is important for decision makers to be accountable to Parliament for their decisions, whether that is the Secretary of State or the Trade Remedies Authority. I suspect that these amendments will be voted down, so could the Minister help the Committee understand what safeguards are in place to address the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Maidenhead? Clause 108 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a safeguarding investigation. It is important that the UK has the necessary defensive measures where there is injury to UK industries. However, clause 108 requires clarity on the conditions that enable the Secretary of State to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate an investigation. I have two points on this. First, on the requirement of evidence of increased quantities in a good, clause 108 does not introduce any parameters or a threshold that would distinguish a legitimate increase in quantity of goods from an increase that warrants investigation. Secondly, there is no definition or guidance on what constitutes “serious injury”; the clause does not make clear what serious injury means. Without the clarification, the clause grants the Secretary of State substantial discretion in determining whether those conditions have been met. Fundamentally, though, on both these clauses, we must ensure that these important decisions are made with technical rigour and on the evidence. It is incredibly important that they are not driven solely by political whim. I ask the Minister for an assurance on that point.

The Minister talks about value for money and the cost, but the alternative is that there will be no listings, so it does not cost anything because this is revenue that the Government would not otherwise have. If they levy this stamp duty, people will not list—they will go to other markets. If they remove it, people will list. There is not actually any change in the revenue to the Government. I do not understand why they cannot extend it. It is not lost revenue because it never would have been generated in the first place.

Before I go into the details of the clause, and before the Committee discusses the subsequent two clauses, it is worth getting on record how much the Opposition object to trade wars and increasing tariffs. Such tariffs harm the country that introduces them. Take what has been going on in America as an example. On its “liberation day”—as I think its Government called it—it introduced very heavy tariffs, including on something as simple as the iPhone, which the American people would consider to be one of the greatest inventions and greatest products they have ever had. It seemed that the person who introduced those tariffs had completely failed to observe that 95% of an iPhone is made in Vietnam and China, as a result of which the tariffs increased the price of iPhones for the American people, which was completely against the intentions of that Government. Tariffs are really bad, and we have been trying to get them down for an awfully long time. However, I completely understand the point that the Government are trying to make with the Trade Remedies Authority and the toolkit that the Government need in order to respond to certain issues. It is vital that we have the ability to move on things such as tariffs, and I suspect that the Minister is 100% aligned with me on this, but I stress that we have lessons from history, from when such actions have gone hideously wrong. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, introduced by President Hoover, was designed by Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley to try to help American businesses and American farmers by increasing tariffs. The net result was a global trade war that resulted in a 65% drop in global trade. That is what happens when people muck around with tariffs; that is where the damage can come. I completely appreciate that these measures are, I suspect, a very necessary response to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, where there is a very unpredictable trade policy, so it is the right thing to do. However, I urge the Minister to talk to all his colleagues about this matter, and to reassure the Committee that these measures are not about having our own version of that policy, and about increasing tariffs in order to have a trade war, but about having a set of relevant measures that mean that the Government can act in defence to what could be a hostile attack on trade.

It is great to hear the Minister talking about making the City of London a pre-eminent place in which to grow and list companies, and this is a very welcome measure. However, if he accepts that stamp duty is what has been holding back the listing of shares, why do the Government not go the whole hog and get rid of stamp duty altogether, thereby making the City of London comparable with pretty much every other major developed stock market in the world?

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly good point about the inflationary effect of these taxes. He has mentioned houses, and we know that the Bank of England is charged with using monetary policy to keep inflation under control. The direct effect of this measure could be an increase in interest rates, and therefore an increase in the cost of mortgages. Does he think that the Government would be happy with that?

The previous Conservative Government introduced the levy back in 2022 as a proactive measure to combat money laundering and strengthen our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), now the shadow Business Secretary, said when he brought it in, “the levy will provide an important private sector contribution from those industries at highest risk of being abused for money laundering.” We support robust action against money laundering, but we have one or two concerns about the scale. The introduction of a new band C, with a £500,000 levy for businesses with a revenue of between £500 million and £1 billion, is a substantial new burden on businesses that are already heavily regulated and are already investing significant sums in anti-money laundering compliance. To be clear, a business with £500 million to £1 billion revenue used to pay £36,000 and will now have to pay half a million—a 1,289% increase. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that between 100 and 110 businesses will be affected by the levy rise in this band C. It is a really big rise, so it would be helpful if the Minister could justify the nearly 1,300% rise for firms moving into the new band C. Perhaps he could also say whether he has had any representations from any businesses about the effect it could have on investment, staffing level, productivity and all the rest of it. The simultaneous reduction in the threshold for the “very large” band, band D, means that more businesses fall into the higher levy. Will the Minister talk about the rationale for that? Has he considered the potential impact on the UK’s competitiveness, particularly mid-sized firms that may now face substantially higher costs?

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government. In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that “the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.] She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said: “Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.] Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was “fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption: “MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.” It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them. If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing. That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women. I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes? This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [ Interruption. ] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap? Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those really important points. I am the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which brings together 15 leading shooting sports organisations, and an enthusiastic shooter, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I have yet to find anybody who disagrees with the points that he is making. My hon. Friend made a point about the wider licensing regime. This issue is partly about the licensing regime for firearms, but there is an interesting carry-over. I also have a pilot’s licence, and the pilot’s licensing regime—particularly the commercial pilot’s licensing regime—takes into account medical fitness to fly, which includes mental health. There are examples out there of how this can be done if we get the licensing regime right and get the buy-in of GPs.

On clause 36, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance and close the tax gap. Under the previous Government, the tax gap of the total theoretical tax liabilities fell from 7.5% in 2005-06 to 5.3% in 2023-24. But it is crucial that legislation is not so broad to the extent that people entering into arrangements for legitimate commercial reasons face the brunt of HMRC’s enforcement powers. The scale of genuine tax avoidance as a proportion of the total tax gap is important to note. According to HMRC, in 2023-24, avoidance behaviour as a share of the tax gap was just 1%. It was also 1% in the 2022-23 tax year and was 2% in 2021-22, 2020-21 and in 2019-20. Avoidance ranked lowest among the behaviours that contributed to the tax gap. Contrast that with 31% due to failure to take reasonable care, 15% due to error and 12% due to legal interpretation. What those behaviours have in common is they involve genuine mistakes being made, so pursuing the route set out in clauses 36 and 37 risks hurting those who enter arrangements for solely commercial purposes who may have simply made honest mistakes. With regard to clause 37, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance to close the tax gap. The methods of deferring tax for general company reconstructions and share exchanges are identical to each other’s and to that for collective investment schemes. The key difference between clauses 36 and 37 is the business practice to which the anti-avoidance measures apply when arrangements are made to avoid tax liability. Clause 36 applies to CISs, and clause 37 applies to share exchanges and company reconstructions, so the argument pertaining to the general principle and practicality of the Government’s new anti-avoidance measures also applies to those clauses. With regard to clause 38, we support tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance to close the tax gap. The clause seeks to change the no gain/no loss rules if HMRC suspects that a transfer of business has taken place to secure a tax advantage. Those rules have been instrumental in the process of transferring a business. They are especially useful for arrangements between complex structures. No gain/no loss rules can ensure fluidity throughout the transfer process, and they stave off cash-flow issues during the process itself. While we support tackling tax avoidance, we must also recognise the role that no gain/no loss rules play during delicate business practice. We understand that there are already safeguards in place from HMRC, such as the general anti-abuse rule. Nevertheless, we must also ensure that no business that utilises no gain/no loss for legitimate commercial purposes is penalised or hung out to dry through denied relief claims.

Clause 35 introduces a 50% chargeable gain on shares sold by a company to an EOT. That will have a direct effect on trustees’ ability to benefit company employees. The 2014 Conservative Government introduced 100% capital gains tax relief to incentivise companies to transition to EOT models. EOTs have benefited employees by rewarding and motivating them—for example, by distributing annual tax-free bonuses of up to £3,600 a year to each employee. These tax changes would hurt employees most of all. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” from November 2025 forecasted that this will raise just £900 million a year on average from 2027 to 2028. However, the OBR also gave this measure a “very high” uncertainty ranking. The OBR highlighted the fact that these tax changes could have a behavioural effect: company owners would instead hold on to their shares for longer before realising gains. That means that company owners will slow the flow of shares they sell to trustees, so trustees will receive far fewer shares and, as a result, less value will be passed on to employees. It is worth mentioning the commentary from other organisations. The Financial Times reported that tax advisers have warned against this measure and are concerned that entrepreneurs would have to cover the tax bill before they receive the proceeds of the sale. Chris Etherington of RSM UK is concerned that these changes will slow the pace of change to EOTs. The Centre for the Analysis of Taxation stated that this was a “good reform” and supports withdrawing relief entirely. This is not very popular, and there is a high uncertainty of it even raising any revenue.

Clause 40 tackles the use by UK non-residents of protected cell companies to avoid paying non-resident capital gains tax. We agree that corporate structures should not be exploited to shelter people from paying their fair share of tax. However, we must consider the practicalities of how an audit of one cell may affect other cells and the PCC itself. PCCs have their benefits. For example, the ringfencing of assets and liabilities can ensure that any issue with one cell does not spread to others. In that sense, PCCs can be more robust and durable. Audits, of course, are absolutely necessary to ensure compliance and legality. However, they can also prove costly and stressful for a company owner who is simultaneously running a business. Cells do not have full autonomy; much of that resides in the core of the PCC. Different cells may behave differently from each other or have differing risk appetites—therein lies the risk. A situation where one cell is investigated by HMRC, and the audit process proves frustrating because that cell’s conduct is aggressive or inappropriate, risks tarnishing the entire PCC in the assumption that the other cells behave similarly. Subsequent audits could then become more aggressive and difficult. As I said, we support measures that tackle any exploitation of the corporate structure to avoid paying tax. The Government must ensure that the implementation of clause 40 protects innocent parties that may be affected. Clause 41 focuses on non-UK residents, individuals and companies in collective investment vehicles who sell UK land or property connected to CIVs under double taxation treaties. Under the clause, non-UK residents in CIVs will no longer be required to register for corporation tax or claim capital gains tax relief if the double taxation treaties fully cover the gains they have made. The Government’s rationale for that is to streamline paperwork and reduce redundant filing—hurrah! I cannot begin to explain my happiness about trying to reduce red tape. It is fantastic to get rid of it where we can. Our tax code is 22,000 pages long and has 10 million words. Anything that makes that easier is hugely welcome.

Clause 39 requires taxpayers to claim incorporation relief or pay CGT up front. It is key that sole traders and other eligible people understand the changes the clause makes. What concerns us is whether enough awareness has been made to affected people, and that is crucial as claiming incorporation relief has always been a passive process because it happens automatically. Soon, people who have been accustomed to this passiveness must acutely manage their relief claims. We do not want anybody who has been conducting legitimate business to suddenly be hit with an unexpected tax bill. Landlords, for example, are a common entity who claim incorporation relief. They do so by transferring their rental property portfolio into a limited company. Should a landlord undertake that process and then find themselves receiving an unexpected tax bill, that could add significant pressure on their investments, which in this case involve houses occupied by tenants. It is not clear how awareness will be raised so that those eligible for relief do not pay such a tax bill. While I know HMRC has outlined the proposal and will provide guidance, there is no mass communication or awareness campaign. That means that any information campaign that does eventually happen may be too late.

The Chancellor has been very proud that the FTSE 100 has passed through the 10,000-point barrier, citing that as an endorsement of her policies. Does she not realise that that still leaves FTSE 100 on lower valuations than comparable markets and that, in any event, over 80% of the earnings of the FTSE 100 are generated outside the UK? Is it not clear that the FTSE 100 performance is despite this Government’s policies, not because of them?

We have already heard this morning that businesses are suffering harm from business rates and national insurance contributions going up, but on top of that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the energy bills of non-energy intensive industries such as hospitality and retail have increased under this Government by up to 10% in the last year. The Conservative are proposing our cheap power plan, which would save small businesses up to £5,000 a year on their energy bills. What is the Minister doing to help small businesses with their energy bills?

Clause 20 will introduce specific exemptions for minor expenses incurred by an employee on behalf of their employer. The Opposition particularly welcome subsections (3) to (6). As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales says, it is a positive step that focuses on prevention rather than cures. It is also about the trade-off between tax relief and reduced future healthcare spending. As the Association of Taxation Technicians has asked, will the Minister consider whether the covid-19 vaccination could be included in this provision? The Government’s explanatory notes state that corresponding changes to NICs for influenza vaccines and homeworking equipment will be made through separate regulations. Will the Minister provide more detail on when we can expect those regulations to be introduced? On clause 21, the Government’s policy paper suggests that there will be no direct impact on business. However, there may be an indirect impact, as employers feel pressured to change their policies on reimbursement. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out: “This creates an uneven situation in which two employees with identical working arrangements and costs are treated differently for tax purposes solely on the basis of their employer’s reimbursement policy.” It also seems to follow our party’s scepticism about solely remote working. During the passage of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Government said repeatedly that the right to work from home boosts productivity. Clause 21 seems to go against that by making it more difficult to work from home. It also seems to be a further attack on private sector employees, despite the fact that in 2024 HMRC spent £82 million on remote working devices for its workers, while the Home Office spent £53 million. Is this another example of the Government hitting the private sector while protecting the public sector? Clauses 22 and 23 confirm that payments received in Great Britain for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts are subject to income tax. In the explanatory notes, the Government state that this would also allow for “the introduction of regulations to ensure that payments are also subject to National Insurance contributions”. We think it would help to provide fairness in the tax system to support the clarity that the clause provides, so can the Minister confirm when the Government will seek to introduce those specific changes? More generally, I want to make a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) made on the Employment Rights Bill Committee. While the clause provides fairness in the system between employees, the Government are still providing little support for businesses if they have to cancel, move or curtail shifts in circumstances that are unexpected or out of their control. Will the Minister commit to working with her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to assess how they can better support businesses when such situations arise?

It is of course standard practice—as with income tax—for the Government to legislate the charge for corporation tax every year. These rate levels have remained unchanged since Labour came into office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) pointed out last year, Labour promised to cap the corporation tax rate at 25% for the whole of this Parliament. That has not been done in legislation, although we have had an indication from the Minister that that is still the Government’s intention. I will make just one small political point. The Government did promise that they would not increase taxes on working people, but we have seen national insurance contributions increase—that was obviously in a different Bill. None the less, the more the Minister can say about capping corporation tax at 25%, the more confident businesses and our economy will be that something will not be slipped in during the next three and a half years before the general election. We have no other objection to this measure.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir Roger. I am very grateful that you are in the Chair, because although I have been doing this for 15 years, as you know, and this is about my fifth Finance Bill, I do not have a clue how any of it works.

I thank the Minister for her comments, but we are concerned about the unintended consequences of the three clauses. We are concerned about how clause 17 will affect automotive industry jobs and vehicle sales. Approximately 76,000 workers use ECOS, across 1,900 medium-sized and large businesses. Those workers have utilised ECOS for essential, affordable and reliable personal transport. We believe that the clause risks making ECOS vehicles unaffordable for the workers who currently use them. In fact, using the scheme arrangements and paying tax from 2030 to 2032 onwards means that such workers face, in effect, a pay cut. That is especially unfair because those people who most use the schemes rely on a vehicle for their job much more than those in most other industries. There is a risk of further knock-on effects on the automotive industry if workers abandon ECOS completely. The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Mike Hawes, who is one of the leading voices in the automotive industry, has expressed strong disapproval of the Government proposal to change ECOS. That is because 100,000 cars are provided through the schemes each and every year, which alone amounts to 5% of the new-car market in the UK. The SMMT predicts that changing the schemes will endanger 5,000 manufacturing jobs in the UK; it claims that that will bring about a loss of half a billion pounds a year due to fewer sales, lost VAT and lost vehicle excise duty receipts. That more than outweighs the £275 million in revenue that the Treasury predicts it will take within the first year of the tax changes taking effect. We do not feel that clause 18 adequately protects the automotive industry and its workers. Under current ECOS arrangements, employers can sell a vehicle to an employee below market value, at a discounted price. For many employers, that has acted as an additional benefit to form a competitive employee recruitment package and has helped to improve staff retention. These criteria effectively stipulate that vehicles must be sold on the same terms as in the open market. Although exempt employers will not pay benefit-in-kind tax, they will inevitably have to pay a higher price for the vehicle itself. The SMMT estimates that that could become unaffordable for its members’ staff and automotive workers. The knock-on effects outlined in the discussion of clause 17 will remain. Fewer employees will be attracted to purchasing a vehicle. That will lead to fewer employers purchasing vehicles from car manufacturers, and the risk to manufacturing jobs and lost revenue will therefore still apply. Clause 19 aims temporarily to ease the benefit-in-kind tax treatment for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. We understand the intention behind this legislative change. We want people to take up low-emission electric vehicles, and the taxation system is an effective tool to encourage that. We are also conscious that stricter emission tests will be implemented over time. That could push plug-in hybrid emission vehicles into higher emission bands, and more tax will therefore be paid on them in the future. The knock-on effects on electric car manufacturers and the environment could be stark. Clause 19 is part of the same package that endangers jobs in the automotive manufacturing industry, which will lead to a loss of about £500 million in VAT and vehicle excise duty receipts. Automotive News has reported on the progress of electrified vehicle registrations: it says that in October 2025 PHEV registrations rose by 27.2%, and that electrified vehicles represented the majority of new car registrations, at 50.8%. The SMMT says that in 2025 the new car market reached 2 million units for the first time since 2019. It predicts that the removal of ECOS could undo the progress that electrified vehicles, including PHEVs, have achieved by denying workers affordable access to new and increasingly zero emission vehicles. CBVC Vehicle Management has said that these measures continue to make PHEVs look attractive in the short term, but the chief executive, Mike Manners, has advised people considering a PHEV to look at the benefit-in-kind tax implications and avoid their lease running into the tax year 2028-29. The benefit-in-kind easement is temporary until 6 April 2028. Anthony Cox of RSM UK says that manufacturers do not expect that the reforms will push people into using electric cars. He states that employees of manufacturers and retailers could instead seek out older or less clean cars to purchase, outside any employer or employee management arrangements. The point is that there are unintended consequences to the clauses. Although we will not oppose them, we want the Minister to take into account the fact that the Government may not get what they want out of them.

The Conservatives welcome the independent review and the thrust of clause 25. If we were to have a criticism, it would be to do with fairness, on which we had concerns shared with us by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. A key objective of the McCann review, which the Minister referred to and which was set up by the Government, was to ensure fairness for all taxpayers. However, by not extending the more generous settlement opportunity to those who have already fully settled and/or paid the loan charge, the provision arguably does not achieve fairness for all taxpayers. It will effectively put those who chose not to comply with their tax obligations in a better position than those who did. That could create perverse incentives, harm future tax compliance and damage trust in the tax system. Could the Minister provide a little more detail as to why the Government have excluded those who have already settled their claims?

Back in 2023, the Conservative Government opened a consultation on how to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market, because there was evidence of widespread non-compliance that deprived workers of their employment rights, distorted competition in the labour market and led to a significant tax loss to the Exchequer. In the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced that she would follow up the consultation, hence this clause. The Government state in their explanatory notes that the clause seeks “to drive behavioural change among businesses that use umbrella companies in the supply of workers by giving them a financial stake in the compliance of the umbrella companies that they use.” I think there is broad agreement about the need for this measure in tackling tax non-compliance in the umbrella company market. However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised two particular issues, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on them. First, there seems to be an absence of safeguards. Currently, HMRC can transfer liability to the agency regardless of its circumstances. When an agency has done all it can to ensure the integrity of the supply chain, but has been the victim of fraud by the umbrella company, we think there should be safeguards in place to prevent the transfer of debts. Secondly, there is some concern that the definition of “purported umbrella company” is too wide. The clause defines such a company so as to include any entity supplying an individual with services where that individual has a material interest in the entity. That means that, for instance, personal service company arrangements could fall within the definition. Is it the Government’s intention to include personal service company arrangements within the definition of a purported umbrella company? I should declare an interest: I have a personal service company. Can the Minister expand on what discussions on the clause have taken place with industry organisations such as the Freelancer and Contractor Services Association, which provides accreditation for many umbrella companies?

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I had better add my sympathies for your poor leg to those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). The Labour party has performed, frankly, a spectacular U-turn on its support for WASPI women, but now it finds itself bogged down in judicial reviews and accusations of incompetence. If the Government cannot even deliver literally nothing for the WASPI women without messing up, what hope is there for them delivering wider welfare reforms?

I completely agree. That is a fundamental problem. We are doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We are disincentivising people taking responsibility for their future at a time when the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure. It is expected in 11 or 12 years, I think, that less money will be paid into the pension schemes pot than is withdrawn by those of us who are approaching retirement—I declare an interest, in my own case.

I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 10, after “income tax” insert— “at the higher or additional rate”. This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.

It is a great pleasure to be with you yet again, Ms Nokes. I enjoyed our last sparring with the Pensions Minister just before Christmas, which cheered us up to no end. Let me speak to amendments 5, 7, 6 and 8 as well as new clause 4, which all stand in my name. It will not surprise the Pensions Minister to hear that we are not at all happy with this Bill, which actually will do nothing to enhance pension savings. I will go through each of our amendments in the reverse order of importance. New clause 4 would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, before and after its implementation in 2029. We think it is important that the Government do their homework before implementing policies. We asked for something similar in the Pension Schemes Bill, but the Pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, the Government seem not to have listened to industry, to experts or to savers. Our new clause asks the Government to do that, so that we can better understand the impact. First, how will the Bill affect pensions adequacy? That will be after the pensions review has concluded, so we do need to know. Secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional remuneration arrangements? Thirdly, what are the investment capability of UK pensions? There has been a certain amount of commentary on this matter. The Association of British Insurers has said: “We have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension salary sacrifice on both people’s savings and employers’ resources.” There are some issues that are of great concern to many people on this matter, so have the Government fully considered the knock-on effect that it will have on investment from UK pension funds? Also, will the Government update the terms of reference for the pensions commissioner, which is being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered? We are unlikely to press new clause 4 to a vote. However, I believe that the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would have a similar effect. Should the Liberal Democrats wish to move the new clause, we would support it. Amendments 7 and 8 concern the indexation of the cap. These amendments look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer prices index. We have brought these amendments forward because if the cap remains static, it will become increasingly meaningless. We have seen today, when we have had an above-expectation inflation rise of 3.4%, that would clearly devalue the value of the cap, even by the time that it is implemented in 2029. Our amendments seek to address that so that salary sacrifice arrangements do not become redundant without parliamentary intervention. Obviously, we use CPI because it is the basis for inflation. Again, the ABI has made a similar argument, as the cap does not allow for inflationary changes. Having said that, we do not propose to press those amendments. Let me move on to amendments 5 and 6, which we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other. Importantly, we are trying to make what we feel is a very poor Bill into something that is less poor. The amendments would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap. They would support the group in the UK that typically under-saves and is the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, who will be hit by the changes that this Bill brings in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap. More fundamental to that is the fact that this group of people—lower-paid workers—will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer. We all understand that, but it not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance, as with all pension contributions, but allows national insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension, in the case of an employee national insurance, and allows for employer national insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer. The employee element—the national insurance that we all pay as employees—is the important part of this matter. While higher rate taxpayers will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the national insurance is just 2 percentage points—around one-twentieth of the tax break on the income tax. While a basic rate taxpayer enjoys just 20% income tax breaks, their national insurance contribution is 8%. The effect on lower-paid workers is four times that on higher-paid workers. That is not a good thing—indeed, 8% is two-fifths of the value of the other contribution for which they benefit from their income tax savings. In absolute terms, as I have said, the marginal rate is four times more expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers, but there is an even bigger problem: this is a harder attack on other types of savers than we had anticipated. Another group of people affected are those paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass the thresholds of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. Graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% that goes into student loans being paid into a pension will not see it being paid into their pension because of the salary sacrifice cap. The effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%. Graduates on the basic rate of tax will see not just a loss of 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total loss of 17% of the benefit at the marginal level above the £2,000 cap. The director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees. She said: “The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay.” At a time when we are trying to get people to do the right thing and save for the future, it seems that the Government want to whack the lower-paid harder. Because of the way that this system works, they will whack the lower paid. They also want to whack a younger generation even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. That younger generation cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for university education. The Government have made it far harder to get a job, with their jobs tax, and at a time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they are making it harder to save for a pension. I challenge Labour MPs. Why are they being whipped to vote against these measures and against the interests of lower-paid people? Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people and vote for a regressive tax?

I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech. This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.

I thank the Minister very much.

The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister. First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment. Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated. The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment. The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth. Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround. Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker! Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November, “Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.” How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place. Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.

I start by welcoming the general thrust of this incredibly important legislation. The Minister and I have sparred a number of times in the past, and so far we have managed to keep it to under five minutes; I must now apologise to the Committee, as I might take a little longer. As the Minister said, work on this piece of legislation was started under the previous Government, and it is absolutely vital for the City of London to maintain its presence as a global financial leader. The City of London has been innovative and thought-leading for a few hundred years now. Jonathan’s Coffee House was the first to advertise share prices, from which the London Stock Exchange grew, setting the model for equity ownership the world over; similarly, Lloyd’s Coffee House created the insurance market that we see today. As new technology comes forward, it is vital that the City of London, or the UK’s financial services sector, not just adopts this new technology but leads on it, and leads on it with the intelligence and experience that we have gained over the previous centuries of legislating in this area. As we move forward in the age of new technology, we need to legislate. This SI is possibly the best example of how we can embrace that change. Indeed, the short time that we have been given to debate this piece of legislation belies its importance and the months of consulting that lie behind it. While the Opposition are absolutely behind the thrust of the SI, we believe that it is slightly flawed in its drafting. It appears to draw together two separate things: in very simple terms, it appears to confuse cryptoassets with stablecoins. Cryptoassets—bitcoin and the like—are commodities in the same way as a bond, a share or other commodities. They are items that are bought and sold with a view to their value changing. However, a stablecoin is an asset fully backed by a fiat currency, and thus a proxy of that underlying fiat currency. A stablecoin is part of the payment system and should be regulated as such. I am someone who understands the principles of this legislation, but sometimes it is important to have the help of people who really get the law. I am grateful to a couple of people who have helped me to put this argument forward today, in particular Mike Ringer, who is the founder of ReStabilise, but more importantly Professor Sarah Green, who was a law commissioner for commercial and common law at the Law Commission of England and Wales from 2020 to 2024. She was responsible for the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 and the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. As I have discussed, this draft legislation establishes the regulatory parameter for cryptoassets in the UK, including stablecoins. As such, what we are discussing is crucial for the delivery of HM Treasury’s often repeated policy intention for the UK to become a global hub for digital assets and blockchain technologies—something that we are 100% behind. That means that a properly drafted Bill is mission critical. The ability of the UK to become a global leader in the digital economy, and to retain its position as a leading international financial centre, depends on the ability of this piece of legislation to set out clearly, decisively and unambiguously how it will distinguish between different types of cryptoassets. Without strong, decisive and nuanced categories, the potential for effective regulation, and therefore optimum growth, will be lost. This is not an opportunity to be squandered, yet the current drafting threatens to do just that. The Government’s policy note that accompanied the original draft SI, published in April last year, states: “This is a draft SI and should not be treated as final. It is being published for technical checks, such as any significant errors or oversights in the legal drafting that would mean that the provisions in this SI would not achieve the desired outcomes explained in this note, or that could lead to other significant unintended consequences.” My goal today is to explain why an oversight in the current drafting means that the SI’s provisions do not achieve their stated aim. Let me explain. A critical component of the successful development of digital asset markets is an effective form of digital settlement asset—that is, digital cash. There are three forms of digital cash: first, there are central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs; secondly, there are tokenised commercial bank deposits; and thirdly, there are regulated stablecoins. If the UK is to establish itself as a global hub for digital assets, it is essential that all of those can be used interchangeably with traditional fiat money, or state-backed money. For that to happen, each form needs to be regulated in a way that recognises its particular nature and function. In the case of stablecoins, that will be achieved by regulating issuers under the new regulatory regime brought in by this legislation, which will be introduced and supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority. Also, in the case of sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, issuers will be subject to dual regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England. In its consultation paper on its proposed regulatory regime for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, published in November last year, the Bank of England confirmed that the use of regulated stablecoins could lead to faster, cheaper retail and wholesale payments, with greater functionality, both at home and across borders. It therefore wants to support such a role for stablecoins as part of a “multi-money” system alongside commercial bank money, including tokenised bank deposits, so in effect they would be part of the payments system itself. Similarly, we know that as the world progresses, capital markets, foreign exchange and asset management will increasingly be settled through digitalised blockchain technologies. For the UK to maintain its leading global position in those markets and others, it is vital that we take a leading role in adopting blockchain technologies in the payments system. Used in this way, stablecoins will bring immense benefits in terms of speed, lower costs and programmability. In other words, they are the key to growth both in our economy and in our financial services industry. However, importantly, without a proper treatment of stablecoins that recognises the way in which the assets actually function in practice, the UK risks not only missing out on positive growth benefits but, crucially, losing ground to other jurisdictions. That ground will be difficult to recover because market provision will already have been established elsewhere, where providers can be certain of their legislative position. We will be trying to catch up where other jurisdictions will have made progress and secured their lead. With the current wording of the SI, that important lead, which provides much economic benefit to the winner, will not be here in the UK. The SI does not achieve what I hope we all agree we want, which is the UK to lead the way in cryptoassets, including stablecoins and the wider payments opportunity that distributive ledger technology—DLT—provides. However, the solution is simple, straightforward and easily achieved. Essentially, market participants should be able to use regulated stablecoins and tokenised commercial bank deposits in place of traditional fiat currency for the purposes I have mentioned—to make payments, settle capital markets and foreign exchange transactions, and for collateral and corporate treasury management. But crucially, they must do that without suddenly needing to apply for additional licences from the Financial Conduct Authority. If that is the effect of the SI, these new forms of money will not be used because of the unnecessary regulatory hurdle put in the way of market participants. As a result, the development of digital assets and blockchain technologies in the UK could simply grind to a halt. That will take all its growth potential with it, as well as the chance of the UK remaining the pre-eminent force in the financial world. Unfortunately, the likely need for those additional licences is precisely the effect of the wording in the draft regulations, despite the fact that it appears to run counter to the Government’s often stated, and highly laudable, policy intention. There appears to be a simple drafting error that could be easily rectified. There is currently no defined distinction for the majority of the new regulated activities between “qualifying stablecoins” specifically and “qualifying cryptoassets” generally, which has a number of cascading and adverse effects. The most adverse is that, under the current wording, stablecoins, including those regulated by the FCA and the Bank of England, are treated in the same way as unbacked cryptoassets such as bitcoin. Given that the risk profile of those assets is starkly different from that of a fiat-pegged stablecoin, which is, crucially, simply another form of regulated money, that makes no sense. Lumping unbacked assets together with stablecoins for regulatory purposes is rather like buying a car instead of a horse, but still tying the car to a post in case it runs off. Of course, both need securing, but in ways that recognise the fundamental difference between the two. From a practical perspective, applying the new “dealing” and “arranging” activities to regulated stablecoins has the effect of potentially requiring market participants who are seeking to use or facilitate the use of regulated stablecoins for the purposes I have mentioned to apply for new licences from the FCA, purely because they are using regulated stablecoins instead of traditional fiat money. In that world, market participants simply will not use them, and the principal benefit and advantage of stablecoins may never be realised. The Government appear to have attempted to address the issue in the case of payments, by copying across the legacy purpose-based sale of goods and services exemption from the traditional regulatory regime, which disapplies the new “dealing” and “arranging” activities for the use of stablecoins to buy or sell goods. That does not, however, achieve the aim of exempting all those who are crucial to the stablecoin payments process. Significantly, it is not clear that it covers those who exchange fiat money for stablecoins and stablecoins for fiat money. The payments process stands and falls by the ability of users to convert the fiat currency into stablecoins and back again, yet the exemption as currently drafted is likely to deter market participants from providing those essential services because it is not clear that it applies to them. It would be far clearer and simpler to have an exemption drafted in a way that is bespoke to stablecoins, rather than attempting to shoehorn them into a legacy definition that was not drafted with the stablecoin payment process in mind. Alternatively, an existing statutory definition could be used that accommodates the full range of payment activities, such as referring to the use of stablecoins and providing “payment services” in the way that the Payment Services Regulations 2017 do. Equally as important is the fact that there is, in the current draft, no similar purpose-based exemption for the use of stablecoins in capital markets or foreign exchange transactions, nor in asset or corporate treasury management. Again, those would be straightforward to introduce and should be entirely uncontroversial from a policy perspective. To allow that in the legislation would provide immense benefits to the City. A failure to make those simple and textually minor clarificatory changes would not only make it very difficult for the UK to become a global hub for digital assets and blockchain technologies, but would risk the UK losing its position as a leading international financial centre. This piece of legislation is intended to be ground-moving in terms of seizing an opportunity for our financial services industry, and it would be tragic if it were reduced to a minor tremor for the sake of simple loose drafting. Those concerns go into great detail, but we need to address them to ensure that we do not mess up a golden opportunity to get this right. One or two other concerns have been raised with me, but I think we can talk about them at a different time. The principle behind this is something that fundamentally we are 100% behind. It is a very good policy, and it is really important that we get this right, but issues have been raised by legal experts who are cleverer than me—but probably not cleverer than the Minister, who I think started at Slaughter and May. Obviously, we are very keen to work with the Government to get this right; I was hopeful that the Minister would agree to meet me and some experts in this area to look at the drafting of this legislation to see if that is possible. We will support it if she is happy to do that, and then we can move forward, get something together and hopefully get this right. It is important that we get this right, but I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts.

My hon. Friend has been very indulgent of me. I suspect one interesting point was not taken into account by the survey. That would be the fantastic cost of splitting up all the county-wide services, which range from adult and children’s social care to waste disposal. To divide that into two and then merge the district authorities would in itself be an unnecessary cost if we have two authorities rather than one.

My hon. Friend and Worcestershire neighbour is making a strong argument about the risks of a north-south divide, in which the north could be subsumed under a greater Birmingham. That is a very important point. Is he as surprised as I am that, of the district and city councils across Worcestershire, Wyre Forest was the only one to advocate a single Worcestershire unitary authority rather than the split model?

I have to say that it is a joy to yet again be locking horns with the Pensions Minister on a topic that is important to us all: saving for our retirement. And it is important to note that there are many things that we agree on. We all acknowledge there is an impending issue with pension adequacy: when 50% of savers are projected to miss a retirement income target set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, we agree there is a problem that needs dealing with. We also all acknowledge that UK pension funds are not investing into the UK equity market to the extent that we would all want, although I would caveat that with a fundamental disagreement: on this side, we want to understand the problem; the Minister wants to tell fund managers what they should and should not be doing in terms of where their investment goes. But we also agree with the noble aim of delivering growth in the UK economy, even if the Government are making a little bit of a mess of delivering that aim— growth slowing, inflation up, unemployment up—but we hope they get the hang of it in due course. But that is why the Chancellor’s Budget is disappointing. For pensioners, she has flown kites about the tax-free lump sum, frozen the personal allowance threshold, and forced millions of pensioners to start paying income tax. Those are her choices. For savers, she has reduced the cash ISA limit to £12,000, scrapped the lifetime ISA for new investors, and increased tax on dividends and savings by two percentage points. Those are her choices. For hard-working people, this Government have reduced real household disposable income, pulled millions more people into paying the higher rate of income tax, and created perverse incentives that make some better off on benefits. These are her choices. So it is no wonder that this Budget has been dubbed the smorgasbord of misery. It has now got to the stage where our economy has never been taxed so much, and it will get worse. When coming into office, the tax take was 36.4% of GDP. By the time Labour leaves office in four years’ time, it will be 38.2%. It is worth looking at examples of how it is levied. For example, a basic rate taxpayer earning £100 will pay 20% tax, but they will also pay 12% national insurance—an actual tax rate of 32%. Add to that their employer’s contribution, and for a headline basic rate taxpayer on up to £50,000, for each £100 they earn, the taxman takes £47. For a higher rate taxpayer, the marginal rate goes to 57%. The taxman takes more than the employee. Given the hit to payrolls, both at the employee and employer level, it is no wonder that saving into a pension through salary sacrifice has become popular. Even the Government think it is a brilliant idea, using it for 10% of government employees. It is no wonder, therefore, that people use incentives such as salary sacrifice to make the most of their money, to do the right thing, to save a little bit more, to take responsibility for their futures, and to not rely on the state in their retirement. It is no surprise then that 7.7 million people take advantage of that. Here we are with something that is popular and that incentivises the right behaviour, and the Government say, “No, we don’t like it.” The Government’s proposal, which we are discussing today, is a tax on 3.3 million people and 290,000 employers—those in the highest levels of pay. How much are they being asked to contribute? How much are we going to whack savers? Some £4.48 billion. That is right—if you do the right thing, if you work and save, this Government will come after you. The Office for Budget Responsibility gets it. It realises—unlike, apparently, the Government—that this will change behaviour and so the tax take drops to £2.6 billion in the second year because people will change their behaviour. Even the Government lose out. The Government’s contradictions are legion. The financial inclusion strategy, published recently, stated very clearly: “Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.” A brilliant idea. [ Interruption. ] Thumbs up from the Pensions Minister! But even after that very clear message, the Government reduced the cash ISA limit, scrapped lifetime ISAs for new investors, and introduced a 2% increase to dividend tax and, the icing on the cake, a £4.8 billion tax on pension savers.

Absolutely. The Government are really keen to get people to save for their futures and then they do everything they can to try to stop them doing that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are just going to kick another problem down the road. By the way, when the Minister talks about hip replacements and so on, it is savers’ money. It is just that they are taxing them less. At the same time as the Government look to improve pensions adequacy, they will be taking £4.8 billion from savers and employers. They identify a problem, say they will work to make it better, and then make it worse. Surely, when they were writing the Budget—I know the Pensions Minister has been a significant penholder in that process—they must have seen the extraordinary contradictions in their proposals? The House would expect me to bang on about this—I am the shadow Minister and that is my job—but let us listen to the verdict from a few experts about the policy we are debating today. Pensions UK stated: “Any change to salary sacrifice would inject uncertainty into a system that needs long-term trust, not sudden shocks…Introducing a cap would weaken incentives to save when we are facing a generation retiring with inadequate retirement savings.” The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales stated: “This cap will make it more complex for employers to offer a simple and flexible solution for retirement savings.” The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries stated: “The decision to impose a £2,000 limit…will undermine current efforts to improve retirement outcomes for individuals. In doing so, the act of saving into a pension will now be more expensive, more complex and less attractive to both employees and employers.” Evelyn Partners stated: “Restricting this sensible tax benefit that makes private sector saving more attractive adds insult to injury in a two-tier pension system”. PwC stated: “In a bid to bolster the public purse…Budget risks reducing employees’ take-home pay while placing additional pressure on businesses through rising employment costs”. Hargreaves Lansdown stated: “Restricting salary sacrifice on pension contribution could cause long-term damage to people’s retirement prospects. We could see employees less likely to increase pension contributions beyond auto-enrolment minimums”. The Society of Pension Professionals—it goes on and on. Are the Government proud of this rousing endorsement by the industry? It is absurd. When I was quizzing the Minister about this last week at oral questions—he will remember it well—he proudly held up the report that was commissioned under the previous Government—

Indeed—our report, though it was published in May this year. It is a weighty tome. Even its title is pretty dry: “Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions”. The Minister proudly told us that this document underscored the rationale for— [ Interruption. ] Oh—because it is important stuff. He told us that it underscored the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, having read the report, I can tell the House that it actually concludes that: “All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”, including the £2,000 cap, “were viewed negatively” by those interviewed. The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees and disincentivise pension savings. The report the Minister is using tells him not to do this. The report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pensions is used by employers in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension, stating that extra benefits include: savings for employees, so that they have more to spend on essentials, tackling the cost of living crisis; savings for employers, which they can then invest back into their business and staff; and incentives for recruitment and retention. These are all good things—this is the stuff of delivering growth and the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. Why would this Government want to take it away? The report came to the conclusion that of the three proposed options for change, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. [ Interruption. ] The Minister talks about it being a secret plan—it is a published document. What is he talking about? It is the most extraordinary thing. He refers to it in terms that none of us recognises. But he has brought this in—this is the point. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least worst option for everyone? Here is the truth: it was the Chancellor’s choice to introduce this policy, and this Government are the ones implementing it—they are the ones who are in government. Let us get to the measures and the impact of the Bill. To be fair, it is a very even Bill; there is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle-income earners, who are typically in their 30s, and who earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where the attack on savings starts. This is right at the point in life where people should be doing their very best for their future retirement. It is a perfect target market for the Government’s savings ambitions. However, it does not stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million savers will be affected, which is 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people who work hard—people on whom the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes. In fact, middle-income employees will be affected more than higher earners. According to the Financial Times , under the Bill, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £80,000. If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, meaning that an employee earning £50,000 will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The Government keep telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit—the very people we should be encouraging to save more. The Bill will also potentially hit low earners. Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add it to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom, because the accounting looks at regular payments, not one-offs. [ Interruption. ] I am slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pairing Whip has a rather bad cough; I hope he gets better. This will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects. Finally, the Bill hits employers. In the previous Budget, the Government absolutely hammered business. They increased employer national insurance contributions to 15% and, at the same time, reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured by the Chancellor’s promise that she would not come back for more, yet here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses. Let us look at the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will hit 290,000 employers. A business highlighted in the 2025 report that “If salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be additional cost of £600,000 to £700,000 per annum to the company in national insurance”. While the Government are not abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice— [ Interruption. ] I am worried; the pairing Whip is coughing. Anyway, there is going to be a cost, and that money will be taken away from businesses. This is going to be— [ Interruption. ] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; he is obviously proud of what he is doing to the pensions industry. Furthermore, the change will create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system, there are few administrative issues; the only thing that businesses have to bear in mind is ensuring that their employees’ pay does not fall below the national living wage—that is it. So what do the Government do? They go for the most complicated option that the report considered. That was explicitly stated by those involved in the research. As a pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said, “We’d have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job.” The National Audit Office estimates that the annual cost on business just to comply with this Government’s tax system is £15.4 billion, yet the Government feel that the time is right to put more costs on businesses. I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor’s pledge to cut red tape by a quarter? I think I will move on to my conclusion in order to save people. [ Laughter. ] There was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and wrap their Christmas stockings—particularly the Pensions Minister who, like the Grinch, is taking a lot of money away. To conclude, the Government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to do more to encourage them to save for their retirement. I know that the Minister would agree with that, so I hope that he hears the genuine concerns I have raised on behalf of a lot of people. Many people and businesses and are very worried about this policy, and he needs to take it away and think carefully about it. Fundamentally, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business. Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives such as salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that, “If you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out.” It is the wrong policy to pursue and we will definitely vote against it tonight.

In the recently published financial inclusion strategy, the Government state: “Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.” What is not to like about that, Mr Speaker? But that makes the Chancellor’s political decisions in the Budget even more confusing. Just look at what was announced: reducing the cash individual savings account limit to £12,000; scrapping the lifetime ISA; capping salary sacrifice schemes at £2,000; increasing tax on dividends by two percentage points; increasing savings income tax by two percentage points; freezing the repayment thresholds for student loans; freezing income tax thresholds for working people; freezing personal allowance thresholds for pensioners—

The Chancellor’s Budget put a cap on salary sacrifice for pension savers at just £2,000. That was to raise an extra £4.8 billion in 2029, and it will affect 3.3 million savers and 290,000 employers. What research has the Pensions Minister done to understand and quantify the negative effects that this will have on pension savings?

Well, it was not us who put it in place; it was Labour. This policy hits the private sector disproportionately: 14 times as many people save through salary sacrifice in the private sector as they do in the public sector. Whether it is kite-flying about lump sum withdrawal or taxing inherited pension pots, in a week when Labour Together is canvassing Labour members about a new Labour leader, is it not the case that the Chancellor is more interested in throwing red meat to her sad and unfortunate Back Benchers in a vain attempt to save her job than she is in the interests of the savings of our hard-working constituents?

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Conservatives are the party of aspiration. We believe that work is not just a payslip; it is a pathway to opportunity, dignity and hope, but for too many young people across the country, those words may ring hollow. The number of people who are NEET has soared to nearly 1 million, meaning that one in eight people aged 16 to 24 is currently deprived of the sense of purpose that comes from holding down a stable job or training for a future career. In 2024, over half of the NEETs had a health condition, and around one in five had a mental health condition. These are young people with talent and potential; they could, one day, set up a social enterprise or make the next scientific breakthrough, or they could join the workforce as postmen, plumbers and paramedics, as well as countless other roles that form the backbone of our economy and our country. However, they are currently languishing at home with no purpose and no hope for the future. Being out of work at a young age can cost over £1 million in lost earnings over a lifetime, according to the “Keep Britain Working” review. Every single day of worklessness is a day of wasted opportunity, damaged ambition and diminished income. So far, this Government have not demonstrated an incredible plan to turn the tide; the benefits bill is ballooning, with 1 million more people on welfare than when Labour first entered office, and they are kicking the can down the road with the independent investigation into youth inactivity led by Alan Milburn—we will not hear its findings until summer 2026. Meanwhile, the number of NEETs will continue to grow, with each one costing the economy nearly £200,000. By contrast, previous Conservative Governments have demonstrated a strong track record of supporting young people into work. [ Laughter. ] I am glad that some Members find that amusing. We cut youth unemployment by 43.8% between 2010 and 2023, despite the rocky economic terrain that we inherited after the 2008 financial crisis. We oversaw the creation of 1 million more apprenticeships. Our new plan to get Britain working again will give young people a first job bonus, redirecting the first £5,000 of national insurance that they would have paid into a savings account instead, which they can then use to save towards their first home, for example. However, this Government’s policies are effectively locking young people out of work, denying them the chance to build their own future. The Government have announced a youth guarantee, a new jobs and careers service, and foundation apprenticeships, which are available only to young people. To me, those sound like empty assurances. Labour should not be promising more apprentices on the one hand while slashing accessible jobs in hospitality and retail on the other. If we are serious about reducing the number of NEETs, we must increase the number of jobs available overall, yet jobs in hospitality and retail have plummeted after Labour’s damaging hikes in employers’ national insurance contributions, with 150,000 jobs having been lost since the last Budget. Between October 2024 and August 2025, a staggering 89,000 jobs were lost in restaurants, bars and hotels, according to UKHospitality. Additionally, the Employment Rights Bill has rightly been labelled the “Barriers to Work Bill”. Banning probation periods will discourage employers from giving young people a chance. We should be rewarding employers for taking a risk and hiring an inexperienced recruit, not narrowing the talent pool by taking this option off the table. To truly tackle worklessness, we must trust our small and medium-sized businesses to make their own staffing decisions. Increased employment rights mean nothing if there are no jobs in the first place. Shortly after I was elected, I set up the Wyre Forest jobs fair to connect private and public sector employers with local jobseekers, including young people. I recognise that looking for work can, in itself, be hard work, and that was one way to broaden people’s horizons. Supporting this nation’s NEETs comes with great rewards. If we could get just 5% of unemployed under-25s back into work, the Government would save £903 million over the course of this Parliament, according to research commissioned by the Work and Pensions Committee. Indeed, it found that spending £1 in return-to-work schemes could save the taxpayer £6 through consequential cuts to benefits and increased tax intake from the subsequent jobs. Most importantly, we would also be offering young people the confidence boost that comes from discovering a job where they can thrive. To conclude, we must ensure that there is targeted support for all young people, no matter what barriers they face, so that they can start and succeed in work. We urge the Government to reverse their damaging economic policies that are crippling the very sectors that offer many young people their first stint in employment. We must back our small and medium-sized enterprises to the hilt, rather than strangle them with ever more costly regulations. Having stronger businesses means more and better jobs for everyone. We cannot afford to waste a generation.

While we are talking about bonds, does my hon. Friend agree that, given the fact that we have an unusually large amount of index-linked gilts in the market and inflation is running at a higher rate than it was when Labour came to power, the cost of paying off the debt is going up at a disproportionately fast rate, thanks to Labour’s policies?

I suspect the name of this statutory instrument is probably longer than my speech will be. I am grateful to the Minister for his words about the details of this instrument. Its intention is to bring more people who are not saving into pensions into the pension schemes. In that respect, it builds on work done by the previous Conservative Government, which I think we would all agree were 14 years of strong and stable Government [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much. We are 100% behind this. It continues the work of the previous Government. It has the intention that we always had—to get more people saving into pension schemes. In the broader sense, it follows the intentions of the Pension Schemes Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, and on which we disagree with one or two things. But we are in agreement on the overall thrust of this statutory instrument, so I will not trouble the Committee any longer.

The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point. We need a balance of risk, and I will come to that point later. Consumers of repair, maintenance and improvement building services have no protection whatsoever. There is no practical protection for consumers to avoid the highly risky, unbelievably expensive and emotionally draining prospect of prosecuting contract law. Indeed, subcontractors working on my home were also victims of the rogue builder because they were not paid, either. It is extraordinary that consumers are unprotected. When we think about the whole process of refurbishing a home or building an extension, it looks even more astonishing. The proud homeowner seeking to improve their home will go to an architect regulated by the Architects Registration Board. They might contract a quantity surveyor regulated by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. They will probably need to borrow money, so they might approach a mortgage broker regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. They will get help with a mortgage provided by a lender—again, regulated by the FCA, and possibly the Prudential Regulation Authority—with advice from a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The money will then be deposited in a bank, again regulated by the FCA and the PRA. The whole process is laden with consumer protection right up to the point where the money is handed over to someone with absolutely no regulation, possibly no qualifications, and no protection mechanism for consumers. As I said before, the problem gets worse, but it is worth repeating. The victim may well prosecute the case in court and win both damages and costs. But at that point the rogue builder goes bust with no assets, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), and starts a new business the following day to continue the process of ripping off consumers. Meanwhile, the victim’s costs are unpaid and run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The consumer ends up winning the moral victory but losing an enormous amount of money, while the rogue builder goes on to do the same again without any consequence.

Yes. It is shameful how these builders can get away with it—it is absolutely astonishing. By the way, this campaign has been going on for a number of years. It is very good to see, behind the Minister, the official who has worked with me in the past, although we have yet to achieve what we want to achieve. How do victims of rogue builders seek redress? The answer, as we know, is not simple. They go to trading standards in the first instance but, with a rogue builder being, by definition, a rogue, the sanctions available are weak at best. Ultimately, the homeowner or small business owner who finds themselves a victim has no recourse other than the courts. However, the reality is that contract law simply does not work for people with problems above the small claims limit but below around £1 million. The reality is that anyone can make up a fictitious bill that they want us to pay, and we have to negotiate. To challenge or defend that type of bill requires a commitment of between £100,000 and £200,000 in legal and court fees to prosecute a court case, and in professional fees to demonstrate the loss. I spoke to any number of friends and colleagues with very senior legal experience, and everyone said that this type of problem has absolutely nothing to do with justice and everything to do with negotiation. One even said that it is like being mugged and then being charged for the knife, with the backing of the law. For many reasons, our legal system is so clogged up that it serves no one properly, allowing it to be abused by rogue traders.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The current system does not satisfy people in any way, shape or form. Also, there is an inequality of risk, which I will come to in my speech. Although large firms working on major commercial and civil engineering projects have embraced health and safety legislation, a blitz of small refurbishment sites by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in 2016 found that a stunning 49% of sites fell below the standards set for compliance with health and safety requirements. More alarmingly, that cavalier attitude to health and safety reveals the potential problem of cowboy builders leaving dangerous sites. When someone has an extension built, might they be risking life and limb when they climb those stairs? Poor-quality building results in not just shoddy work, but dangerous and potentially fatal work. Rogue builders have an effect beyond their own unhappy activities. By undercutting reputable, high-standard builders that make up the majority of the market, they force them to cut their margins. Price competition is fine, but not when a worthwhile and reputable SME builder is competing against someone with no care for safety, honesty or customer satisfaction. Given that the RMI market is dominated by occasional customers—we are not doing this very often—it is quite likely that the key element of choice is price. Unhealthy price competition drives down standards, even if reputable firms are unhappy being forced to cut standards to compete. In an extreme example of the problem—this is an important point—I recently met Andrew Bennett, who had engaged a local firm in Liverpool to refurbish a six-bedroom property that he owned—a job that was to be worth around £100,000. He checked out the firm and was happy with references and testimonials. He engaged the firm, but it turned out that the work was dangerously below standard. When he started to seek redress, he discovered that the company in question was not what he had been led to believe. It was a rogue builder passing off as a well-known, reputable company. Moreover, this dubious company had nine county court judgments against it and therefore had no money to pay the award to Mr Bennett when he won his case. That company was passing off as another. It was seeking to take money off an individual customer by deliberately misleading him, and it failed to deliver the work contracted by that customer under the cover of misleading him—fraud, by any other name, or by the actual name. Mr Bennett went to the police, who told him that it was a civil matter. He tried all the avenues available to him to get this individual bang to rights, but to absolutely no avail. The company continues to rip off people, in full knowledge of the local law enforcers, trading standards, the local council and planning department, and multiple victims of its activities.

Absolutely. Not only that, but if we think about the consequences, those 97 emails could have been sent for any one of the 100,000 constituents that we each have. We should not be doing this, and there should be a mechanism to sort it out. The important reality of all this is that there is no disincentive at all for the cowboy builder to present fictitious bills and do bad work. While the consumer must engage in a risky legal process, the rogue builder can game the system with no jeopardy whatever. As we learned from Mr Bennett's story in Merseyside and the many other people who contacted me, the police will not investigate a case with regard to fraud and rogue builders, as they deem it a civil matter. So what is the solution? How do we protect honest builders, subcontractors, merchants and, importantly, our constituents and consumers? How do we redress the balance of risk so that it does not favour the rogue builder but gives equal weight to both consumer and builder? The builder is not always in the wrong, so the solution must be balanced. Builders may occasionally need to be protected from rogue customers. The answer must lie in a scheme of regulation and licensing. In essence, what I am seeking to do—I have had a couple of presentation Bills on this topic—is get the Government to come up with a scheme of compulsory licensing for SME building firms working in the renovation and domestic improvement space. We do not know what it will be, but we need a system in which there is an equivalence of risk on both sides. There must be something that the builder as an individual can lose if he or she is found not to be doing their job properly. My experience in this area has been with financial services and regulatory reform. Although I am not proposing anything remotely as complex as the FCA or the PRA to regulate builders, there is more than one important carry-across from financial services regulation. The first is that we do not want regulation to be a burden on the taxpayer. A licensing scheme must be self-financed through licensing fees: the building firms must pay for it. Rules for having a licence must be straightforward. Importantly, no firm or individual should be allowed to offer services directly to customers without a licence. That in itself would result in the wider building industry policing the market. If a builder knows that somebody else is a dodgy builder, it is in their interest to report them. Mortgage lenders would require evidence that money will be spent on a licensed firm. Architects and surveyors acting as project managers would need to see licences to engage a building firm in the first place, so consumer would know what they are getting. Consumers would be able to check the builder on the regulator’s website, in the same way that they can check their pension adviser on the FCA register. The regulator could be TrustMark, which already offers voluntary regulation. There should a code of conduct covering honesty, safety and quality of work. Failure to comply should have a series of sanctions, with the ultimate sanction of the loss of licence. An option could be a compensation scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is an example of how consumers who have lost out as a result of poor practice can be compensated for their loss from a scheme financed by levies placed on licence holders in the relevant sector. The double effect is that the consumer gets their losses covered while the industry as a whole is incentivised to keep an eye on each other. An ombudsman would be able to assess consumer loss without the need to engage expensive and lengthy legal and professional experts to defend against bogus builds or to challenge poor work. These proposals aim to end the decades-long history of consumers who have been ripped off in one way or another by shoddy rogue builders. I am conscious of time, Ms Furniss, but I want to acknowledge that the Government have started to resolve some of these issues. A New Homes Quality Board has been set up to ensure that new homes are built to a certain standard. That is a welcome development. The fact that it has an ombudsman demonstrates that the Government and I are probably thinking along the same lines in a broad sense, but the New Homes Quality Board is targeted specifically at the new homes market. Given the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes, it will have its work cut out. Importantly, it is not designed for the RM&I sector, which remains wholly unregulated and unsupervised. That is what the Minister must concentrate on. Many people agree that this problem in the RM&I sector is beyond redemption. The Federation of Master Builders report on this subject in 2018 said that even construction firms themselves agree that a compulsory licensing scheme is necessary. The industry wants it too: 77% of SME builders and 78% of consumers agree with the FMB’s proposed licensing scheme. Enough is enough. I have a few more words about my engagement so far. Unfortunately, the Housing Minister is on his feet in the main Chamber talking about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I was looking forward to beating him up a bit, because he has been less than brilliantly helpful. None the less, it is very good to see the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade in her place. I look forward to hearing her helpful words about how the Government will introduce legislation to ensure our constituents are not ripped off endlessly by these wretched builders.

I will talk about that in my speech. The fundamental problem is that, at the moment, the only course of redress is through the court system, and it is not good enough. The FMB does a lot of work in this area, and it is worth looking at some of its statistics. Thirty-seven per cent of customers report unreliability, and many of them cite apparently unqualified operators. Nearly a quarter—that is 25%—of all customers have lost money to rogues, with losses averaging £1,760, but in many cases the amount is far higher. The national loss is horrific. The FMB estimates that, over five years, homeowners have lost an astonishing £14.3 billion to unreliable builders, putting an astonishing burden on the housing market and households. It turns out that young adults are more at risk, with 33% scammed by rogue traders found via social media. The consumer is not the only victim of rogue or cowboy builders. Within the industry, many find themselves a victim of the same problem. Subcontractors find they are not paid, and it is the same for merchants. Plant hire companies are frequently the victims of theft and abuse of equipment. Alarmingly, health and safety is a low priority among many small and medium-sized building firms operating in the RMI market.

The hon. Gentleman has probably read my speech, as that is the core of it. The legal problem is bigger than just failing to support victims through the court system. Rogue builders know the legal system works in their favour. There are builders who create fictitious bills or charge fictitious costs for work not carried out—I have seen that as a victim myself. I contracted a builder to renovate a much-loved family home, and they failed to do the work in time, which was a breach of contract. They rattled on for far too long, they did not do the whole work and, at the end, they put in a massive, fictitious bill. Our quantity surveyor reckoned there was an outstanding balance to pay of perhaps £6,000, but they put in a bill for £100,000. In the end, everybody said, “You have to negotiate.” We negotiated a final settlement, which was multiple times in excess. This is a fundamental problem. We do not get redress, and we have to negotiate even if we know the negotiation is bogus.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of protecting consumers from rogue builders. I am conscious that we may have to go off for multiple votes before half-past 4, so I will crack on with what was going to be 45 minutes of the most magnificent speech—I will abridge it to just 42. I am missing out the bit where I was going to be nice about builders—I am afraid I will concentrate on the nastiness of builders. I start by defining the area that I am keen to concentrate on, which is the smaller end of the market. Known as the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, or RMI, this is the area where we see many appalling stories of people’s lives being ruined by unwittingly taking on so-called dodgy builders. There are countless stories in the press, and there are TV shows specialising in these types of problems. I could turn to any number of articles in the national and regional press that talk about cowboy builders. A relatively simple search for stories of rogue and cowboy builders reveals 1,500 such stories in the last five years alone, and that is just the stories that made the press. This is a very insidious problem. Chat to almost anybody who has had any building work done to their home, and they will roll their eyes and admit that they have had trouble of one sort or another. But we do not have to rely on hearsay and the media to understand the problems and the implications. The Federation of Master Builders conducts surveys to see what the effect is on the RMI market, and a recent poll of homeowners discovered that one in three were put off having work done on their home because of the fear of being ripped off. That equates to a possible £10 billion of lost economic activity.

The OBR?

Even the Lib Dems agreed with the OBR. Danny Alexander agreed with the OBR. I will stop chuntering now.

More!

I rise to present a petition on behalf of over 600 of my constituents in Stourport-on-Severn in Wyre Forest whose lives and services are being adversely affected by unwelcome development in the neighbouring Malvern Hills district council. Because Malvern Hills district council has no local plan, the Planning Inspectorate is allowing otherwise refused planning applications to go ahead within the wider reach of Stourport. The petitioners “request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings…and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of Stourport-on-Severn, Declares that the community of Stourport-on-Severn has been severely impacted by excessive building applications on agricultural land; and further declares that the first site which crossed district boundaries was refused by both Wyre Forest and Malvern Hills District Councils but was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, resulting in speculative building applications causing stress to our community and placing severe pressures on our medical, educational and highway resources. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings, Stourport-on-Severn, and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003122]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As he rightly says, this is an important, albeit technical, statement, and we in the Opposition certainly accept the contents and the spirit in which it is given. It is about a legal process, and we respect that. This relates to a matter of keen interest to many of our constituents: those women who have been affected by the changes in retirement age. Known as WASPI, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign have probably met with all of us here in one way or another, and they will be looking at the point made by the Secretary of State late in his statement: “retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.” The WASPI women are rightly angry with this Government. In opposition, shadow Ministers and Labour MPs stood alongside these women, as the Secretary of State did, campaigning for “a better deal for WASPI women.” However, when the Labour party won the general election, they quickly apparently U-turned on that position, blaming the fiscal situation they were left with. Indeed, in December last year, the Government made a statement confirming their about-turn on supporting WASPI women. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to quote the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who said in response to that statement: “But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances… Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.] She is absolutely right: the Government had the choice then to stand behind the women who they said have faced a great injustice, but they chose not to. Instead, the Labour party is now fighting them in a judicial review in the High Court. Whether it be the multiple U-turns on pensioners’ winter fuel payments or the imminent rumoured freezing of tax thresholds in the Budget, forcing many pensioners into paying income tax, it is clear that this Government are not on the side of our pensioners. That brings me to some questions for the Secretary of State. First, the Minister for Pensions said in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic on 15 January: “we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.” —[ Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 156WH.] However, to my knowledge, nothing has been released to that effect. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on when we can expect the plan and what will be in it? Secondly, in a follow-up to written parliamentary questions from the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the Government said that they have “no plans” to meet representatives of the WASPI campaign. Indeed, the last time a Minister did meet them was on 5 September 2024. Why have this Government decided not to directly engage with the group they once stood shoulder to shoulder with, especially given that there is new evidence to consider? Thirdly, during the 14 years we were in Government, we chose to help pensioners by increasing the personal allowance income tax threshold. However, independent research suggests that 1.6 million more pensioners are doomed to be filling in self-assessment tax returns within the next four years, thanks to the Government’s choices that may be made in the upcoming Budget. Has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Chancellor about the serious impact this retirement tax would have on a group that have consistently targeted by this Government? Finally, why are this Government determined to blame everyone else for the decisions they have made? All this statement shows is that the Government want to keep kicking the can down the road and not be held accountable for their actions, but we should look at the record: unemployment is at 5%, the highest level since the pandemic, up from 4.2% in June last year; inflation is now sitting at 3.8%, up from 2% in June last year; economic growth has flatlined, despite having improved by 0.5% in the three months before this Government took office; borrowing costs have increased to their highest level since 1998, with 30-year gilt yields reaching 5.2%, compared with 4.7% when the Government took office; debt is now 96.4% of GDP, the highest since the 1960s; and winter fuel payments were cut for millions of pensioners, only for the Government U-turn on that after feeling the pressure of our strong campaign. The Government are set to break their manifesto pledge and increase the tax burden to a historic high. Is it not true that this Government have been trying to dodge taking any form of responsibility for their actions? What is their problem with pensioners?

In this month of blaming everyone else for every woe that befalls the Government and using it as an excuse to bust manifesto pledges left, right and centre, it seems that the Government are claiming credit for more banking hubs, but we all know that the rolling out of banking hubs is a purely commercial decision by the banks. It is the banks that are choosing to do this, to serve their customers. Is it now the Government’s policy to blame everyone else for their own incompetences, and to claim credit for everyone else’s good ideas?

Back in May last year, while in opposition, the Labour party was outraged to learn that the average processing time for applications to the Access to Work programme was running at 43.9 days. In fact, so outraged were Labour Members that they made it a manifesto pledge to tackle that problem. After more than 15 months in government, Labour is far from having slashed waiting times; applicants now have to wait an average of 93.6 days. That is more than twice the waiting time under the previous Government. After a year in government, the Labour party has doubled the misery and uncertainty suffered by disabled people—why?

I will not keep the Committee for too long. I thank the Minister for her kind words about the work of the previous Government in this area. As she rightly said, the regulations originate from the Berne financial services agreement, signed back in 2023, so it is something we have worked on. As somebody who worked in financial services for 27 years before coming to Parliament—I worked for two Swiss banks, had clients in Switzerland and did this kind of cross-border business—I can attest that this is a fantastic opportunity for our financial services sector. Anything that formalises the arrangement and makes transactions less sticky and easier to do can only be a good thing, so we will certainly be supporting the proposal 100% this evening. I thank the Minister for her excellent speech and her kind words about the work of the previous Government—I think she forgot to add “Strong and stable for 14 years”, but still. Question put and agreed to.

We welcome the general thrust of the regulations, which are all about the internationalisation of our financial services market, continuing our moving on from a post-Brexit Britain. I was not a fan of Brexit, but we are where we are. It is incredibly important that our financial services centre remains internationally competitive, and the regulations support that. I will not detain the Committee any longer—I can see smiles on Government Members’ faces. [ Laughter. ] Let us hope the Liberal Democrats continue in that spirit. Question put and agreed to .

It is a great pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Turner. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) on securing this important debate, in which there seems to have been an outbreak of unanimity around the Chamber. As I start my remarks, I am conscious of the expression “everything that needs to have been said has been said but not everybody has said it.” My apologies if I repeat some of the points that have been made. As colleagues all know, this was all started in Toad Lane, Rochdale in 1844 by a group of 27—or was it 28?—men known as the Rochdale pioneers. The pioneers would not have been constituents of the hon. Gentleman, but it is important to recognise that the roots of the movement can be found not just in Rochdale, but in surrounding areas, including his constituency. At a time when living conditions were particularly tough, these men decided to do something for their community by balancing the profitability of their shop and its members with the social impact on the community and the wider membership. That meant that essential, good-quality ingredients—flour, butter and others—became affordable for the community. The co-operative movement that was founded in Rochdale in 1844 continues to thrive today. It has grown to become an international movement; co-operatives operate in 109 countries. In the UK alone, we have 7,400 co-operatives, but if we incorporate organisations that operate in the co-operative spirit, such as employee-owned businesses, building societies, friendly societies, credit unions and mutually owned banks, the number comes to over 10,000. That represents around 0.2% of businesses in the UK. According to a recent report by Co-operatives UK, there are 66 million members across the sector, with around 16.6 million people solely in co-operatives. I have to say that just in the last hour I have become a member myself, having signed up to the Co-operative on the app. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much. The exciting point about the last statistic that I referred to is that that number has increased by 1.4 million in one year, showing that the sector is truly on an upward trajectory. Additionally, it is suggested that the combined annual income of the sector is around £179 billion, with WPI Economics estimating that the sector has contributed £35 billion in gross value added, which is equivalent to about 1.5% of the total UK economy. It is obvious, therefore, that the co-operative sector plays an important part in the health and growth of the UK’s economy. Co-operatives help to provide a diverse range of business models, which I believe is a good thing. Any healthy economy needs a variety of business models, and it is really important that we have things like co-operatives. I agree with the premise of the debate, which is about Government support for the co-operative sector. A perfect example of such support is the introduction under the last Government of employee ownership trusts and the tax incentives surrounding them. Offering 100% relief on capital gains tax when a business owner transfers their company to an employee ownership trust has helped to empower communities, and we have seen a strong rise in employee-owned businesses, from 600 in 2020 to 2,500 this year. However, let me express a slight reservation. It is important in a competitive market not to incentivise one part of the economy, or one business model, over another, in the way that the Building Societies Act 1986 opened the way for demutualisation and incentivised building societies to convert into investor-owned commercial companies. Some have said that that was a bad thing, and in retrospect I probably agree. We need to be careful that we do not encourage excessive mutualisation and disincentivise investment in our equity markets. Fundamentally, a balance needs to be struck. I believe—possibly unsurprisingly—that that was done successfully under the last Government through the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The last Government introduced measures to increase transparency and facilitate growth, while maintaining the core principles of member benefit and community focus; for example, by increasing the maximum withdrawable shareholding from £20,000 to £100,000 per individual investor, they allowed for broader capital participation. Although the 2014 Act was positive for the sector, I think that there is widespread agreement that it needs to be updated to help support the growth and modernisation of the sector today. It was good, therefore, that the last Government and now this Government have asked the Law Commission to review the legislation, and I look forward to seeing its proposals when they are brought forward, hopefully at the end of this year. I am also glad that the private Member’s Bill now known as the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 supported the co-operative sector to protect its capital and assets, and to discourage mutualisation. Introducing an asset lock mechanism could mean that organisations are able to lock their capital surpluses, ensuring that assets are non-distributable among members and must instead be preserved for the community and the purposes of the organisation. It is understandably disappointing that although the 2023 Act received cross-party support when it went through Parliament, over two years later the regulations specified in the Act have not yet been announced by the Government and co-operatives are still unable to utilise the statutory protection that it provides. I note, however, that the Law Commission has proposed to put those powers into primary legislation through reform of the 2014 Act. Are the Government considering that? If not, what alternatives are being pursued? It is worth adding that the last Government introduced the community ownership fund. Although that was not directly targeted at co-operatives, some, such as the Calder Valley Community Land Trust, which seeks to reduce energy use and costs at Fielden Hall, have made successful bids. That is positive, but I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering a fund specifically for those in co-operatives and mutuals. In fact, we heard earlier from one Member about the potential for the British Business Bank to be opened up in order to support co-operatives and mutuals. I turn now to what this Government are doing. First, it is important to recognise the commitment in their manifesto to double the size of the co-operatives and mutuals sector. That is a positive direction of travel that the Government want to follow. However, Chris Bose of the Nationwide asked what the Government meant by that and wrote: “Precisely what was to be doubled was unclear, as was the means to achieve that.” This is an important point for the Minister to clarify. Do the Government want to double the number of mutuals, the number of members or the size of mutual balance sheets? What specifically are they seeking to achieve? The measures announced at the Mansion House in 2024—specifically, the creation of the mutuals and co-operatives business council and the commissioning of a report by the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority on the mutuals landscape—will help to lay the groundwork for that, but I hope the Minister will be able to provide the clarity the sector is looking for. Like the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, I also welcome the creation of a co-operative development unit in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those are all good things, but it feels like we are still waiting for some meat on the bone, so let me raise a few points with the Minister. First, the issue that is raised time and time again by those in the sector is their ability to access cash. By their very nature, co-operatives are member-run organisations, so they are more limited than companies when it comes to issuing shares that attract external investors. It is also worth highlighting concerns related to the rumours about what the cash ISA allowance will be following the Budget. There is talk that it will be slashed from £20,000 to £10,000. Cash ISAs are a really important way for building societies to access finances. The Building Societies Association estimates that around 40% of all cash ISA balances are held with building societies, which turn those cash balances into mortgages for our constituents to go and buy homes. It is really important that we get some clarity on that. Returning to the issue of incentivising certain sectors of the economy over others, I am very much in favour of encouraging investment in the UK equity market, but we must be careful that, in trying to achieve the good, we do not get rid of the best. By trying to incentivise cash ISAs to move into equity markets, we are effectively taking cash away from the mutuals and putting it into normal equity. I am worried that, if this policy comes forward, the Budget could cause a problem for the mutual sector. I know the Minister will not be able to comment on the contents of the Budget right now, and we have to wait only another month, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury takes note of this important point and feeds it back. I also encourage the Minister to look into the Credit Unions Act 1979, and specifically the regulations on geographical area and the total number of members in common bonds. The last Government made positive steps to increase the total number of potential members of credit unions from 2 million to 3 million, and at the start of this year the Government ran a call for evidence about common bond reform, which I welcome. However, we are still waiting on the findings and for the Government’s response to be published, even though there seems to be a consensus that the regulations are still stifling growth in the sector. It is important to get the credit union sector to grow. Government Members know exactly how important it is, and so do Opposition Members. We need to get on with this. Doing so would only support the goals of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, as well as their manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector. Let me put a few final points to the Minister. I had the honour to go to Iceland and meet representatives of the country’s trade unions, which, by any other standard, behave as friendly societies. It is invigorating to see that from something as fundamental as a trade union, funded by both members and employers. Something like 97% of employees are members of those unions, because they act as friendly societies and provide insurance, holidays and all sorts of things. That is a really good example of how friendly societies can work. We should be debating more the mutualisation of other utilities. We heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about an energy company in her constituency that does this, but has she considered the possibility of mutualising Thames Water? It is a very ambitious project—

It is not in her gift, as she says from a sedentary position, but it is quite interesting. Notwithstanding the £17 billion black hole in Thames Water’s balance sheet, the water utilities are very geographically prescribed and millions of people use them, so they have a built-in membership. The most important issue that people are talking about is the pollution of waterways such as the River Thames. By mutualising an institution like Thames Water—by the way, this is not Conservative policy, but— [Laughter . ] But it is a debate we must have, Mr Turner. With mutualisation, members could have a proper debate about what investment they want to make in the purity of the waters. My final point is about skills. I do not want to bring up the ugliness of the debate over the former chairman of the Co-op bank, the Rev. Paul Flowers, back in 2011 or 2012, I think, but he came before the Treasury Committee when I was a member of it and made a very good point. He said that his election as chairman of the Co-operative bank was because he was a member of it, not because he was good at finance. It is incredibly important, particularly with things like corporate governance, that we ensure there is training for corporate governors. Running a bank or a big chain of supermarkets is an incredibly difficult job, so we must make sure that that training includes not only people who work in the bank but those responsible for the corporate governance that looks after the organisations. My experience of the Co-operative in Kidderminster has been absolutely fantastic. A few years ago we were trying to stop a 4G telephone mast. This was several Governments back—perhaps around 2007 or 2008—when 4G masts were first going up, and there was a proposal to put one opposite the Co-op. I had a conversation with the managers there and they said, “We will buy the site in order to prevent the telephone mast from going up.” So I have always been a huge fan of them, and I cannot imagine why it has taken me 20 years to actually join the Co-op. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton for securing the debate. As I said, there has been an outbreak of unanimity, which is fantastic to see. I am only sorry that I did not bring more of my friends with me.