Mark Garnier MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · FTSE 100 Index · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 26 Jan 2026 · State Pension Age Changes: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister very much.

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Bromsgrove: Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Bromsgrove: Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  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?