House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
While around 1.5 million women live with endometriosis, survey data shows that it can take more than nine years to receive a diagnosis, which will clearly have a significant impact on those women’s careers. We are acting so that women receive medical support earlier, ensuring that they can access diagnostic testing and are not dismissed by doctors. Measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 will support women in managing the condition at work.
Mrs Blundell
Many women across the country living with endometriosis are forced to withstand immense challenges in the workplace, often culminating in them having to curtail their ambitions or leave employment entirely. That is because some workplaces are not putting in place proper protections to support working women, who frankly deserve better. What steps are therefore being taken, in consultation with the Department for Business and Trade, to ensure that our workplaces do not lose out on the immeasurable contribution that these brave women can make?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the challenges that endometriosis brings and that workplaces cannot afford to lose such talented women. Action matters. That is why, as part of the Employment Rights Act, we are improving access to flexible working, making changes to statutory sick pay and opening up conversations about women’s health through the employer action plans that we launched last week. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members to make that support a reality.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
One in 10 women have endometriosis, seriously impacting their ability to work. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that employers have clear guidance about the reasonable adjustments that they should be offering, not just for endometriosis but for all gynaecological issues that impact women’s work?
Seema Malhotra
That is an incredibly important question. It is why, with the action plans that we launched last week, we are looking for action to tackle gender pay gaps and a strategy for supporting women with the menopause. From conversations with employers, we know that will be important in helping to facilitate other conversations about women’s health and how women can have that vital support in the workplace.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Tackling child poverty is the moral mission of this Labour Government. Background should not determine what we can go on to achieve in life, but inequality and poverty are barriers to opportunity. We are investing in our children’s futures through a massive expansion of Best Start family hubs, childcare, breakfast clubs and free school meals, alongside the end to the two-child limit, and our child poverty strategy will deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament.
Afzal Khan
In families with disabled children, 25% of those children are living in deep material poverty. The recent uprating of universal credit will be a great help for children growing up in such households, but equipment costs and other expenses, such as specialist childcare, remain significant pressures. Will the Minister set out what more she is doing to address the inequalities felt by children growing up in households with at least one disabled child?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right. We recognise the disproportionate financial strain on families with disabled children, who often face significantly higher costs for essentials. We heard that during the development of the child poverty strategy, through many of the children’s rights groups and other organisations that contributed to that work. Our child poverty strategy sets out a plan to lift over half a million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Alongside that, we are taking specific steps to support children with additional needs, providing £200 million of investment to ensure that every Best Start family hub has a dedicated practitioner for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers, her positivity, and her commitment to making the necessary changes. When it comes to inequalities in the home, cases of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, and behavioural issues, are so much higher in number than they ever were in my day when I was a youngster—and that was not yesterday, by the way. Given the pressures of the lives we live today, what will be done to help those categories of children in particular?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this area. It is why, through our SEND consultation that will cover England, we want to make sure that support is available to children much more quickly. Of course, formal diagnosis will continue to have an important role and families will seek that, but we should not be waiting for diagnosis to put in place the support that children need. That is why, through the big investment we are delivering in SEND—an extra £4 billion—we will make sure that children get the support when they need it and where they need it.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Our recent “Every Child Achieving and Thriving” White Paper sets out our ambition to raise standards for all children and to halve the disadvantage gap between poorer children and their peers at the end of their secondary school career, to make sure that where someone is from does not determine where they end up. We are expanding free school meals and scrapping the two-child limit to lift half a million children out of poverty—that is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mr Rand
Poverty and economic inequality scar the education and life chances of children. Is it not right that by lifting the two-child limit, delivering 30 hours of free childcare, rolling out free breakfast clubs and family hubs and opening new school-based nurseries, including at Altrincham Church of England primary school in my constituency, this Government are investing in equality for children, and that that investment will be repaid many times over, when every child has the support they need to reach their full potential?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes. Tackling child poverty is not just a moral imperative; it is an investment in our country’s future and in our own economic security. That is why we are determined to give every child the best start in life. The Conservatives might not like that: on their watch record numbers of children were pushed into poverty but this Labour Government will lift half a million children out of poverty.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
On the Secretary of State’s watch, the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training in Gosport has now reached around 5%—the highest in 15 years. Is that any wonder when so many of the job opportunities that used to be there for our young people, such as in retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty, are being battered by this Government? Surely one of the best ways to tackle inequality and poverty is to give people the right education and the right job opportunities, so what are her Government and her Department going to do?
Bridget Phillipson
We face a serious challenge about the big numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and we are committed to tackling that. That is why Alan Milburn is leading a review for this Government of what more we can do to support young people, why we have launched our schools White Paper, why we are investing in further education and why we are expanding new routes into apprenticeships. I would say that this problem did not emerge overnight: it has developed over many years, and the Conservatives would do well to reflect on the contribution that they made to the shocking numbers of young people who are NEET.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
Cabinet colleagues have marked International Women’s Day by highlighting what we are doing to support working women, to halve violence against women and girls and to build a better future for every woman and girl. Last week I was proud to formally launch employer action plans, alongside the Minister for Women and Equalities. Our ministerial colleague, the right hon. Baroness Smith, is currently attending the UN Commission on the Status of Women. We are putting women at the heart of our missions in Government and our foreign policy, because we recognise that progress on gender equality must know no borders.
Andrew Cooper
This International Women’s Day I commend the work in my constituency of the Her-Place charitable trust, which supports women’s wellbeing and creates spaces to facilitate conversations about health and other challenges. Her-Place says that many women, especially in deprived areas, visit their GP with poor mental health, but are given medication without any meaningful discussion about what is happening in their lives. With Healthwatch England reporting that many women feel unheard and that those in deprived areas facing 20 fewer healthy years, how will the Government back community-based wraparound services to close those gaps?
Seema Malhotra
I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of Her-Place and all community-based support. We are rolling out neighbourhood health centres across the country, prioritising areas with the greatest need. Local authorities and integrated care boards will work together to design those services to reflect the needs of local women. Mental health funding has increased by £688 million this year, and is backed by almost 8,000 extra staff, new mental health centres and talking therapies, which will ensure that women receive the personalised support that they need.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Following International Women’s Day and with English Tourism Week approaching, I have been meeting female entrepreneurs across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, including Kathleen at the Navigator Hotel, who featured on “The Hotel Inspector” only last week, and many others through my business club. These businesses are vital to coastal economies, but many women say it remains difficult to scale and grow. What assessment has the Minister made of the barriers facing women entrepreneurs in sectors like tourism and hospitality?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for that brilliant question. We have to do everything we can to support women entrepreneurs, and it is vital that we look at the challenges we see women facing in a range of sectors. That is why we have work continuing through the Women’s Business Council and why we have the investing in women code, which has been backed by our first female Chancellor. That is also why we want to see the progress of women both in entrepreneurship and in the workplace as a priority. I was proud to attend the 30% Club’s International Women’s Day breakfast this morning in the House.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is sad but true that International Women’s Day rings hollow for far too many women, particularly the three brave women I have just met. They are survivors of Epstein and, for them, important days like that come and go. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we do not just mark important days for women and girls, but give them the protection and justice that they deserve? What is she doing to hold perpetrators such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account for not just reports of sharing state secrets, but the trafficking and sexual abuse of women and girls?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The focus must absolutely be on the victims of these appalling crimes and on putting in place support for women and girls who have faced horrendous violence. Multiple police forces are assessing allegations arising from the Epstein files. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has established a national co-ordination group and appointed a senior investigator to support forces in reviewing the extensive material and progressing the resulting investigations. The senior investigator will work with UK forces, the National Crime Agency, specialists on violence against women and girls, the Crown Prosecution Service and US authorities to ensure a consistent and evidence-led approach.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It has been almost a year since the Supreme Court ruling, and I come here time after time to ask what progress has been made. I was going to ask today if the Government can confirm that every Department is fully compliant with the ruling, but honestly there is almost no point; we know that the answer is no. In the week of International Women’s Day, is it not the truth that the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission had a point when she said that the Labour party seems to have “completely abandoned” women’s rights?
Seema Malhotra
I do not think it will surprise the shadow Minister that I disagree with her. It is important to say we have been clear that all service providers must follow the law, as clarified by the For Women Scotland ruling. As she knows, the EHRC has given the Government the code of practice, which we are working through. It is also important to say that any suggestions of delay are completely wrong. She knows that it is a lengthy document, covering all the protected characteristics. We take this matter seriously, and we are working to get it right.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
On International Women’s Day this year, many of us reflected on the scandal of group-based sexual exploitation of young women and girls in Britain. Will the Minister commit that, by International Women’s Day 2027, the Government will have implemented the key interim lessons from the independent inquiry into grooming gangs and from other reports commissioned on this matter by Members of this House?
Seema Malhotra
This is an incredibly important topic. The hon. Gentleman will know we have always been clear that our paramount objective is to root out the horrific crimes of grooming gangs, punish perpetrators and protect children from harm. It is important to note, as he will know, that the Home Secretary made a statement accepting the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s audit into group-based child sexual exploitation, which included a national inquiry into grooming. We are committed to changing the criminal law around adults penetrating children under the age of 16. We are also absolutely committed to ensuring that we root out these evil crimes with our work across Government.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
We are delivering the commitments set out in the cross-Government “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy, published in December 2025, which sets out actions to prevent violence, pursue perpetrators and support victims. A ministerial group bringing together 14 Departments provides strategic oversight of delivery, driving progress, addressing risk, and ensuring collective ownership of our commitment to halve VAWG within a decade.
Warinder Juss
I recently visited Wolverhampton girls’ high school in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, and was pleased to see posters promoting the “Orange Wolverhampton” campaign, which is working with community partners in the fight against gender-based violence and abuse. While the criminal justice system of course has a part to play in tackling violence against women and girls, does the Minister agree that we need to do more to achieve community-based early intervention and prevention, and that educating and raising awareness among our young people—especially our young boys—about VAWG can benefit not only the victims, but the perpetrators and our justice system?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This weekend, I was with Black Country Women’s Aid, celebrating its 40th anniversary, and its staff mentioned how my hon. Friend had been incredibly supportive of them. The first of the three aims of our strategy is to stop violence before it starts, focusing on the prevention that he talks about. We will focus on young people, supporting parents and working with schools to challenge misogyny and promote healthy relationships. We will also engage with industry and take decisive action to safeguard young people by making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful content and misogynistic influence.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister undertake to consult with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister? Violence against women and girls continues to increase, with another woman killed in the past few days in Northern Ireland, and we need to take positive action to stem this misogynistic abuse of both women and girls.
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman highlights another incredibly sad case. Of course, I work with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland—we work very closely with all the devolved Administrations to make sure we are working together to deal with this problem collectively.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Despite incomplete responses from police forces and nothing from Police Scotland, “Healthcare Today” reported back in 2025 that Women’s Rights Network found via freedom of information requests that one in seven sexual crimes committed in hospitals—that is 266—were committed on hospital wards, and that two in five female medical students reported sexual harassment or assault at university. With just 4% charged for these offences, perpetrators are getting away with it, and are surely committing more attacks. Against the backdrop of Labour’s shameful choices on jury trials yesterday—all appalling—when will the Minister and this Government act to protect women on wards?
Jess Phillips
If the hon. Lady were to read the violence against women and girls strategy, she would see that there is a specific section on healthcare workers and workers across the community, specifically targeting the issue of sexual harassment within the NHS. I would also point out to her that the charging rate for sexual crimes fell to a historic low under her Government, and I am very pleased to tell the House that it is now increasing.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Last month, The Guardian revealed that suicides following domestic abuse may be vastly under-reported, with research in Kent suggesting that they could be 15 times more prevalent. There has been just one manslaughter conviction from such a death in the whole of UK legal history. Liberal Democrats in the other place recently tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, supported by Women’s Aid and Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse, which would require police to investigate suicides as potential homicides where there is a reasonable suspicion of a history of domestic abuse. Given the Government’s reluctance to support that measure, will the Minister commit to making the College of Policing’s published guidance on this matter statutory, so that these cases are properly investigated across all forces?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Once again, I point to this exact issue being covered in the violence against women and girls strategy, with the need to improve police responses. That is why the Government have invested £13.1 million into a policing centre that focuses specifically on VAWG. On this specific issue of suicide following domestic abuse, it has undertaken some absolutely groundbreaking work that I very much hope will lead to change and further convictions, which we all want to see.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Following International Women’s Day, this Government are taking another step towards a fairer Britain. We have published guidance for businesses encouraging them not just to report their gender pay gaps but to set out plans to tackle them, because reducing the gender pay gap is good for women and good for growth as well. We are expanding childcare, introducing new workplace protections, and implementing a landmark strategy to tackle violence against women and girls.
Mohammad Yasin
The latest report from Endometriosis UK shows that the average diagnosis time in the United Kingdom has risen to eight years and 10 months. Constituents of mine in Bedford and Kempston, including a staff member with a rare form of the condition, still face long delays for treatment. Will the Minister set improved targets and mandate GP training on recognising endometriosis in the women’s health strategy to speed up diagnosis?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right: women often spend years being dismissed, being misdiagnosed, or just not being listened to. That is unacceptable, and we are determined to tackle it. In order to improve early diagnosis of the condition, we continue to roll out community diagnostic centres, and our renewed women’s health strategy, which we will publish soon, will focus on speeding up diagnosis and treatment of both mental health and gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Within an hour of the Government’s publication of their Islamophobia definition this week, there were calls from within the Labour party for it to be weaponised to stifle free speech, but we know that there have been multiple cases of our public services being too scared of being called Islamophobic to speak freely to save women and girls from serious harm. Can the Minister explain why the Labour party thought it was worth trading the safety of women and girls for their own narrow political interests?
Bridget Phillipson
What absolute rubbish. This is a serious issue. We know that there are people who want to pull our country apart, but I am proud that we live in a multi-ethnic, diverse and tolerant nation where we celebrate our shared values. It is right that we take action against anti-Muslim hatred in our country, as we take action on antisemitism, and we have set out further steps in that regard. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should face intimidation or harassment on the basis of their faith, but that is not in conflict with our fundamental belief in the right to freedom of speech.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy to which my hon. Friend has referred contains an ambitious package of measures to prevent and tackle economic abuse and to support victims. It includes exploring how to prevent joint mortgages from being used as a tool of abuse, ensuring that coerced debt is reflected accurately and that the severe problem of victims’ credit files is addressed, and piloting the use of the economic abuse evidence form within the Government to improve our response to victims of economic abuse.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Bridget Phillipson
I welcome the hon. Lady’s interest in this issue. Good progress has been made on developing the policy, and we will publish the Government’s response as soon as we can, as well as setting out next steps in respect of legislation that we will present. This was a key manifesto commitment, and we will deliver on it.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
I firmly agree that women’s equality and economic growth go hand in hand. That is why I was pleased to join the Minister for Women and Equalities in formally launching the action plans last week, so that large employers will be encouraged to set out the steps that they are taking to narrow their gender pay gap. This will ensure that women are able to thrive in the workplace across the country, including on the Isle of Wight.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Our armed forces are working day and night to protect British lives and British interests in the middle east. RAF pilots have flown over 230 hours of defensive operations over multiple countries, shooting down multiple drones and protecting British lives and our allies. We thank them for their courage and professionalism.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Sureena Brackenridge
Strengthening Britain’s defence capability and rebuilding our industrial base have never been more important. Will the Government’s £1 billion helicopter investment with Leonardo UK support skilled jobs across the UK, including at Tata Steel in Wednesfield and throughout the supply chains in Wolverhampton North East, where we are immensely proud of our Black Country steel and manufacturing heritage? Will the Prime Minister ask relevant Ministers to meet me to discuss securing more of those good jobs in Wolverhampton and Willenhall?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend asks for. Our £1 billion investment in new helicopters is good news for steelmakers in her constituency, and secures thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom. We are making defence an engine for growth and jobs. We are building helicopters, new Typhoons in the north-west and new frigates, and creating a decade of shipbuilding on the Clyde—a Labour Government investing in our armed forces.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Why does the Prime Minister think now is the right time to increase the cost of petrol?
The Prime Minister
We are not increasing the cost of petrol. We are absolutely clear in taking the measures that are necessary to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran. We are dealing with that with other allies. We are taking the necessary action, but the best thing that we can do is to work with others to de-escalate the situation.
As I said to the House last week, I took the decision that we should not join the initial US-Israeli offensive against Iran. The Leader of the Opposition attacked me for that decision relentlessly. She said that the UK should have joined the US and Israel in the initial offensive strikes. Yesterday, in the wake of the economic consequences, the Leader of the Opposition totally abandoned her position. She told the BBC:
“I never said we should join”.
She told the BBC:
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
That is the mother of all U-turns on the single most important decision that a Prime Minister ever has to take: whether to commit the United Kingdom to war or not.
Mrs Badenoch
The mother of all U-turns is the Prime Minister saying that the Government are not increasing fuel duty. That is news to us, because last week the Chancellor stood up and said that fuel duty was going to increase in September. The Prime Minister told us at the start of the year that the cost of living was his No. 1 priority. Can he explain how a rise in fuel duty helps with the cost of living?
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen. It is going to remain frozen until September, and we will keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran. But the most important issue is de-escalating the situation.
I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s position, because this is one of the most important decisions that a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition ever has to take: whether to commit your country to war. The day after the initial US-Israeli strikes started, her shadow Foreign Secretary said that the US-Israeli initial attacks were absolutely right and that
“it’s a position my party supports.”
She asked why I have “not actually worked with” America
“to be much more proactive”.
Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
Then yesterday she says, “I never said”—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t want to hear it. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t want to hear it if I were them. After all that, she says—
Mr Speaker
Order. Enough is enough. I cannot hear it. [Interruption.] Who wants to lead the first ones out? Right. We will have a little bit more silence.
The Prime Minister
After nine days of saying, “Join the war, join the war, join the war”, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition says:
“I never said we should join”,
and
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
I will tell you what has happened, Mr Speaker: she and the Reform leader have been spooked, because they realise they have jumped into supporting a war without thinking through the consequences, and now she is furiously trying to back-pedal.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister seems to be answering last week’s questions. This week I am asking about fuel duty. He has said that he wants to help—[Interruption.] He has said that he wants to help with the cost of living. My constituents live in a rural area. They rely on their cars to get to the shops, take their kids to school or see their elderly parents, and they tell me that the rising cost of petrol is the single biggest cost affecting family finances. Does the Prime Minister not understand how important cars are to people in rural areas, or does he just not care?
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments and with allies to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran, as the House would expect. If I had asked the Leader of the Opposition last week, her position would have been, “We support the initial strikes and we want to join the war.” This week, she says, “We don’t want to join the war.” I am sorry, but that is a screeching U-turn. Mr Speaker, in this job, you do not get a second shot at making the right call on taking your country to war. If she were Prime Minister, we would be in the war, and she would be coming back to Parliament a week later to say, “Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong.”
Mr Speaker
Order. Order! I am sorry I am interrupting you, but unfortunately we have to stick to Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, “If she were Prime Minister”, but if I were Prime Minister, HMS Dragon would have left a week ago. The only time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] The only time, he has taken decisive action was stopping Andy Burnham standing in the by-election.
Let us talk about what the people out there are worried about. I heard from a builder who has 115 employees using 75 vans. With the jobs tax, sky-high energy bills and now a hike in petrol prices, that builder is having sleepless nights. How does the Prime Minister justify a rise in fuel duty to that small business owner and millions more like him up and down the country?
The Prime Minister
There has not been a rise. Fuel duty is frozen. It is frozen until September.
The Leader of the Opposition mentions HMS Dragon. First, can I start by thanking those in the Royal Navy who are serving on HMS Dragon? Secondly, what has been happening is that it has carefully been loaded with the anti-strike ammunition and capability that it needs, and the Navy and civilians have been working 22-hour shifts. But in relation to those who are taking the action to defend us, what does she say? They are just hanging about—just hanging about. That is how she described our pilots in the region. Let me tell her what they have been doing: flying sorties in seven of the 10 countries in the region day and night, taking out incoming strikes and protecting the lives of others, while risking their own. If she had any decency, she would get up and apologise.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Hang on. I think they should wait for it. I have never criticised our armed forces. I have criticised the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Swallow, you’re going out. I’ve had enough—week in, week out. Either leave now or I will name you.
Mrs Badenoch
I have never criticised our armed forces; I am criticising the Prime Minister and his decisions. Let me remind the House of his record on the armed forces. This is the same man who worked with Phil Shiner, a traitor to this country who made up evidence to put our soldiers in prison for crimes they did not commit. That is his record, so I will not take any lectures from him. By the way, military families in this country are also worried about petrol prices, and he has nothing to say on that.
There is another group of people who have been hammered by this Government: farmers. I spent all last year telling the Prime Minister that his family farm tax was killing British farming. Now, those farmers are being punished with higher fuel prices. Does the Prime Minister think that is fair?
The Prime Minister
No apology to our pilots who are risking their lives. And I am not going to take lectures from someone who says we should join the war and a week later says, “Can I change my mind? I got that wrong.” That is deeply embarrassing. But she is not the only one. Last week, the leader of Reform said we should be
“part of this with the US and the Israelis…We have to get rid of the regime.”
He said:
“We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”
Until yesterday—screeching U-turn—when he said we should not
“get ourselves involved in another foreign war.”
Two parties packed with failed Tories, led by leaders who are not fit to be Prime Minister.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not want to talk about fuel duty, because he has absolutely no answers. The Conservatives are on the side of farmers. We are also on the side of drivers. We froze duel duty every year from 2011 and, in fact, we cut it in 2022, because we care about the cost of living. Labour thinks drivers are a cash cow and now it is hiking fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Everyone in this House knows the pattern: first, he will march his Back Benchers up the hill, then they will be forced to defend fuel duty rises in the local elections, and then there will be another humiliating U-turn. Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up, admit he has got it wrong—again—and scrap the fuel duty hike now?
The Prime Minister
In the last two weeks, I have made two of the most important decisions a Prime Minister can make. The first is that we should not join the war in Iran. The second is that we should protect British lives and the British national interest. The Leader of the Opposition decided that we should join the war against Iran and a week later that we should not join the war against Iran, and to insult our armed forces. She has utterly disqualified herself from ever becoming Prime Minister. Thankfully, she never will.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue and I know that it is not only his mum who will be watching, but his constituents whom he serves very, very well. Our supercharger will significantly reduce costs for thousands of major industries. Eligibility for the scheme is being reviewed this year. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with the ceramics industry on whether the scheme can be extended to more firms. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled and over 1,000 jobs were lost in the sector. We will not tolerate that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her powerful and courageous speech in the debate on jury trials yesterday—I really hope the Prime Minister was listening.
Thirty years ago this week, a man carried four handguns into Dunblane primary school and murdered a teacher and 16 children. I was deeply moved by the BBC documentary about it last night and by the courage of the parents who campaigned for a ban on handguns to keep other children safe, including Mick North, who lost his five-year-old daughter, Sophie, on that dark day. Mr North has rightly called on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to renounce his description of the handgun ban as “ludicrous”—something the hon. Member still refuses to do. Mr North has also called for a review of firearms legislation to close any loopholes. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I certainly do. We must never forget the horror of Dunblane and we must never forget the young children and their teacher who did not come home from school. The campaign that families fought to make this country a safer place is a lasting legacy, and we should be enormously grateful for their courage.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and I hope the Government will close any loopholes.
This week, families across the country have seen petrol prices rise at the pump, mortgage rates go up and fixed energy deals get more expensive, all because of a war they did not start and do not support. The Leader of the Opposition has been competing with the hon. Member for Clacton to be Donald Trump’s biggest cheerleader, and the Prime Minister was right to reject their costly warmongering. Last week, I asked him to guarantee that energy bills will not rise by hundreds of pounds in July. He did not answer, so let me try again: will he give people that energy bill guarantee now?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because people will be really worried about the impact on them. To reassure households, the cap is in place until the end of June—until July—so that deals with the situation for households. We are working with the sector and others, and with allies, to do everything we can to ensure that energy bills do not rise. We are working around the clock on that. The most important and most effective thing we can do is to work with our allies to find a way to de-escalate the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform. Last week, they were urging us to join—[Interruption.] This is serious. [Interruption.] If they had been leading the country, we would be in a war. They have now come to Parliament to say—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who said “lying” again? I want that withdrawn. Is that withdrawn? [Interruption.] I will deal with it, thank you. I do not want any more from those on the Front Bench. We take this very seriously; calling another Member a liar is not acceptable.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right; families are crying out for change, which is why it is critical that we get this right. Our reforms will fix the broken SEND system, where parents have to fight for support, replacing it with tailored support that is personal to a child’s need. A Best Start family hub in every local authority with a dedicated SEND practitioner will also help families with the face-to-face support they need. My hon. Friend is a great advocate on this issue, and I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Let us be clear on this. Donald Trump’s war in Iran is illegal and the situation that has unfolded since is verging on insane: oil is falling from the skies; sewers are exploding; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is indiscriminately attacking both civilians across the region and cargo ships, as well as potentially even mining the strait of Hormuz, the economic consequences of which will be stark not just for the global economy, but for every single person living on these isles. Whether the Prime Minister accepts it or not, he did take us into that war when he allowed the Americans to use UK bases last week. [Interruption.] I have a specific question for him. He will have seen the same footage that I have of an American Tomahawk missile landing on a primary school, killing 110 children. Does he believe that to be a war crime?
The Prime Minister
We are all concerned by that footage, but let me absolutely clear with the right hon. Gentleman. We have 300,000 UK nationals, including Scottish citizens, in the region. Strikes, missiles and drones are being fired into the region, putting those people at great danger. We are taking action to protect them. I am astonished that the SNP is saying, “Don’t take action to support Scottish citizens in the region.” That is outrageous.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituents who are obviously concerned about this matter. As I understand it, National Highways has concluded that the best option for all users—pedestrians and cyclists—is a new crossing. I thank him for raising the points, and I am happy for Ministers to continue discussing the options with him.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that really important issue. I discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) last night, particularly the approach of the all-party group. I thank her for her important work on this issue. I am very happy to meet the APPG and the victims; it is very important to do so. She will know that there is an ongoing police investigation, but that does not mean that we cannot have the meeting and listen to those who need to be listened to.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Derby is part of our industrial heritage and has a bright future. Initiatives such as Team Derby are so important to strengthen key sectors like defence, creating jobs and growth. Our £9 billion deal with Rolls-Royce to boost our fleet of nuclear submarines is testament to that, creating more than 1,000 jobs and safeguarding 4,000 more. Those who oppose all that must answer to the working people whom they claim to represent.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are putting in place the youth guarantee, which helps young people into work. It is a serious issue. I remind the hon. Member that on the Conservatives’ watch one in eight young people were not in education, training or work.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Conservative party gave nothing but false promises for a decade. We will deliver the biggest transformation of transport in the north for a generation, providing up to £45 billion of funding. We are taking forward all the recommendations from the NAO report; that does not change the planning or trajectory of the project.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that case. I do not know the particular details, but I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up so that they can be explored.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine has devastated its healthcare system: hospitals are under extreme pressure and there is a critical shortage of specialist staff to treat the injured. That is why I, along with other British physiotherapists, travelled to Ukraine to train clinicians who are working under unimaginable strain. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Tanisha Sandhu, Daniel Simm, Kay Joe and Anju Jaggi for their remarkable work? Will he commit to expanding UK-Ukraine clinical training partnerships?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the rest of the delegation for their commendable work in Kyiv. We recently announced a new package of support for Ukraine enabling highly skilled British surgeons, nurses and physiotherapists to mentor Ukrainian clinicians treating complex battlefield injuries. On one of my recent trips to Kyiv, I went to one of the hospitals where they were treating the burns of those returning from the frontline and it was humbling to see the work being done. I was extremely proud to know that the UK was helping in treating those who had such awful burns.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We all want certainty for energy security, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. I remind the hon. Member that 70,000 jobs were lost under the SNP and the Conservatives in the last decade. We want energy security, and we see new nuclear as part of that. What does the SNP do? It blocks that.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Silently and in semi-secrecy, London and the south-east of England are experiencing the largest mass eviction by a private landlord in decades. Criterion Capital has issued at least 130 no-fault eviction notices across its portfolio, including in Britannia Point in Collier’s Wood in my constituency. Those affected have done nothing wrong. They have paid their rent, looked after their homes and worked hard, and they are simply the victims of a voracious landlord that always wants more. Will the Prime Minister ensure that in the final weeks before the abolition of no-fault evictions his Government do all they can to hold Criterion Capital to account?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Renters should have security and I condemn any unfair evictions. I am proud to be abolishing section 21, a practice that has pushed thousands of renters into homelessness. I will make sure that the Housing Minister looks at the case that she has raised.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen and it will be frozen until September. In the light of what is happening in Iran, of course we will look carefully at the situation. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents need to know, and it is right that they know, that fuel duty is frozen until September—not fearmongering.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The devastating fire on Union Street in Glasgow has destroyed small businesses and an iconic part of the city’s heritage, but the exceptional skill and courage of our emergency services prevented an even greater tragedy. We need a rapid, thorough investigation, with urgent implementation of recommendations. Local businesses, commuters and residents are already feeling the impact, and recovery must be a shared priority. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking our emergency services and in supporting efforts to rebuild that vital part of Glasgow?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating incident for Glasgow. My thoughts, and I am sure everybody’s thoughts, are with those who have seen their businesses and their livelihoods destroyed. I thank the emergency services, which responded so quickly to the situation. The people of Glasgow have seen far too many historic buildings suffer terrible fires over the last few years. We are investing to protect heritage buildings in England, but we will keep a careful eye on the situation that he raises.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I will not make any apologies for spending more money in Scotland or in Wales to improve people’s lives. There has been record investment under this Government into Scotland. The question is: where’s the money gone, John?
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Last week, Members from across this House and the other place felt compelled to write to Jo Boydell, the chief executive of Travelodge, following reports that in 2022 staff in one of the company’s hotels gave a man a keycard and the room number of a woman staying alone. He then entered her room and sexually assaulted her. Most alarmingly, statements made by Travelodge implied that staff had acted fully in line with the company’s security and safety protocols and within industry standards. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging Ms Boydell to take us up on our invitation to meet all interested Members of this House and the other place to outline what action Travelodge is urgently taking to meet its duty to safeguard women staying in its hotels?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this absolutely shocking case and for talking to me last night about the details. My thoughts are with the victim, who had a right to be safe and who was failed in the most appalling way. Travelodge must take serious action to ensure such an appalling incident can never happen again. I am concerned at reports that the company has not met Members of Parliament; it should do so. I should add that the Safeguarding Minister wants to meet the company as well, and it should do that too.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I know there are strong views, and I acknowledge her personal connection, which shows how serious the issues are. It is a matter of conscience. It is for Parliament to decide the passage of the legislation and any changes. Scrutiny is a matter for the other place. We have a responsibility to make sure any legislation is workable, effective and enforceable.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Is it about PMQs? The right hon. Lady did not ask a question, so is it relevant? Points of order come after statements and UQs—[Interruption.] I will make that decision. We now come to the urgent question.
Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask what assessment the Minister has made of the impact of Royal Mail’s failure to meet its universal service obligation on service users’ wellbeing and on the company’s recent decision making, which has contributed to this situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a question that I know is on the minds of hon. Members across the House. The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s service has not been good enough, and we recognise the terrible impact that delayed time-sensitive deliveries, particularly relating to medical and financial matters, can have on the users of postal services, especially vulnerable users.
Obviously, Royal Mail is a private company and Ofcom, as the independent regulator for postal services, secures the provision of the universal postal service and sets and monitors Royal Mail’s service standards. As part of that monitoring regime, Ofcom publishes annual post-monitoring reports that consider developments in the sector and users’ experience of postal services, as well as the complaints and compensation data that Royal Mail is required to publish.
I have regular discussions with senior officials from Ofcom as the regulator, and in fact I am meeting Ofcom later this afternoon to discuss these concerns. Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million in October for failure to meet standards for 2024-25. This was double the previous year’s fine and the third consecutive annual fine for poor performance. Ofcom continues to monitor Royal Mail’s performance carefully to ensure that it is providing the service that customers expect. It has told Royal Mail that it must publish and deliver a credible plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement.
Ofcom is the regulator, but in response to concerns raised by hon. Members across this House, I met Royal Mail’s chief executive officer, Alistair Cochrane recently to set out the volume of complaints reporting service delays that I had received from colleagues.
In addition to that meeting, the Secretary of State has met Daniel Křetínský, the CEO of Royal Mail’s parent company EP Group and chair of Royal Mail’s board, to raise concerns about Royal Mail’s performance. Senior officials from Ofcom met Mr Křetínský that same day. The chief executives of Royal Mail and its parent company agree that there is more to do to meet service delivery targets and improve stability and reliability for customers. I know that hon. Members will continue to raise their concerns about the service in their areas, and for my part, I will continue to raise this matter, because the current situation is simply not good enough.
Ian Lavery
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but this goes beyond the delay of a few inconsequential letters. It is not simply a case of receiving post; it is about that being timely and about sending post as well. In my constituency, these failures have led to people missing medical appointments and having financial issues, and to the hindering of democratic participation. One of my constituents missed urgent medical correspondence, turning a routine appointment into a potentially life-threatening emergency. It is not acceptable.
This is happening up and down the country in every single constituency. Allegations from within Royal Mail suggest that these failures may be intentional, designed to pressure the Government into weakening or removing the USO requirements. Royal Mail’s recent letter to the Business and Trade Committee denies operating a parcels-first policy, contradicting repeated internal testimony. It flies in the face of local evidence from the workforce. The letter also reiterates calls for USO reform, reflecting a long-running corporate direction. Over the past few years postal workers—key public servants, who were heroes during covid—have seen their terms and conditions eroded to the point that some can no longer buy additional holiday because doing so would take their pay below the minimum wage.
The Government need to take serious action against Royal Mail. Is it not an option to bring Royal Mail back under public control? This is approaching a situation where one of our constituents will lose their home, their health or their life through these persistent failures. The Government can and must take steps to maintain this critical national service.
Blair McDougall
I think my hon. Friend’s anger is shared by hon. Members around the Chamber when they hear the stories of people not just missing hospital appointments, but finding themselves with county court judgments and in other such situations that are entirely not their fault and due to failures of delivery. We have told Royal Mail it is not good enough, the Select Committee has told them it is not good enough, and Ofcom has told them it is not good enough. The seriousness with which we take this issue is exemplified by the fact that, as I said, the Secretary of State has convened that meeting. I have called in Royal Mail and, as I mentioned a moment ago, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise exactly the issues that my hon. Friend raises.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing it. We can see from the number of Members who are interested in this topic just how serious it is across all our constituencies. I can testify to the fact that I have had an enormous amount of casework on this issue, which started just before Christmas, involving hospital appointments being missed, and children’s birthday cards, condolence cards for recently widowed individuals and postal voting forms not arriving. This is an absolutely critical issue.
I reiterate that the universal service obligation is an obligation. It is an obligation set out in statute, and it is an obligation to every household in this country. We can all testify to the fact that it has been systematically broken, and that the turning point was when the new owner bought Royal Mail, with this Government’s approval, in April 2025.
The letter from Royal Mail received by the Business and Trade Committee yesterday revealed that over 200 million letters have been delivered late this year. In addition to the meetings the Minister has listed with Ofcom, what assessments has he made of all the stress being caused to our constituents and the impact on people’s wellbeing? Has he had a critical discussion with Ofcom, because it appears that it is not really doing its job as a regulator? The public are paying more but getting less, and the fines he has listed do not reflect the deterioration we have seen recently. In my discussions with Royal Mail, it has said that parcels overwhelm the service at Christmas, but that situation is carrying on into March. Is it not the reality that parcels are much more—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is over time. I was trying to push her along to finish her question, but there seem to be more pages. Can we now end?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We can certainly now end by asking for the Minister’s plan in terms of—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have had enough—I don’t need that backchat. I call the Minister.
Blair McDougall
I hope that the hon. Member can tell from my body language and tone that I share the anger and frustration of Members across the House. As I mentioned, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise the very issues she mentions. I slightly take issue with the year zero approach she took. There are very long-standing issues with Royal Mail driven—in fairness—by the changes in consumer habits and the things we are sending and not sending any more. She mentions the new ownership. As part of that deed of undertaking, this Government got the assurance from the new owners that they could not take value out of the company until service improved. That shows that we take this matter seriously.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is not just the customers who are rightly angry; it is postal workers as well, because they take pride in their job and the service they give. The last time I was in Corby delivery office, six deliveries never went out that day. The time before that, a postal worker volunteered to cover his own delivery on his day off. He was told that he could not, and when he went back in the day after, the work was still there; the delivery had not gone out. We now have a two-tier workforce, which is leading to a recruitment and retention crisis, and it is a standing joke in the job that the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. Does the Minister agree that instead of Royal Mail imposing top-down changes by people who have never done the job before, it should listen to its workforce, sit down with the union and sort this mess out?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to do what I have not done so far, which is to say that whatever criticisms hon. Members across the House have, they are in no way a critique of the work of our heroic posties up and down the country. I mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State brought together management and unions; Royal Mail is a private company, and we are not seeking to insert ourselves and become mediators, but that was a signal of how seriously we take this matter and how seriously we take the need for management and the unions to come together and address, through mutual understanding, exactly the issues he raises.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In each year since 2023, Royal Mail has been fined by Ofcom over delivery delays, amounting to nearly £40 million. Following recent announcements, it would not surprise me if it were fined again in 2026. When Royal Mail was reprimanded in 2023 and 2024, its leadership promised that reforms would be made to improve its services, but following the £21 million fine in October 2025, the company said it could not publish its improvement plan until negotiations with the Communication Workers Union concluded.
The takeover of Royal Mail, which this Government supported, seems to have done nothing to improve the service so far. Over the past several years, an average of roughly one in four first-class letters arrives late, and recent reports suggest that 219 million letters may arrive late this year. These letters are sometimes urgent and hold important information, so it is clear that Royal Mail is repeatedly failing to meet its universal service obligation. Despite that, its stamp prices have consistently risen. That includes next month’s planned rise of 10p to the cost of first-class postage, taking the cost of a stamp to £1.80. The sorry saga of Royal Mail has gone on for far too long. Does the Minister believe that the British public should be paying more for their postal service, despite Royal Mail repeatedly failing to deliver their letters on time?
Blair McDougall
Paying more for postage is obviously part of the journey towards financial sustainability for Royal Mail as a critical piece of national infrastructure, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that if our constituents are paying more for their stamps, they expect those letters to arrive, and it is not good enough if they do not. As I said, I am meeting Ofcom later on. It has asked Royal Mail for an improvement plan, which we think is long overdue. One issue that I will raise with Ofcom is progress on that improvement plan.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a proud son of a local postie. We know that this is not the fault of the workers; they work day in, day out to get letters out, but are being told to prioritise parcels. Like many Members, I tried to go to my local mail centre just before Christmas—I know that you do the same, Mr Speaker—but I was denied access. An excuse was given, and the visit was never rearranged. Workers in that centre said to me, “They are trying to hide how bad the mail centre is from you, the local MP.”
Will the Minister tell the House and my constituents how we can turn this situation around? I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who said that this started with the new owners. It started with privatisation—end of. How can we get the service back on track? Will the Government consider nationalising it so that our residents can get the letters that they desperately need for their appointments?
Blair McDougall
I am troubled to hear that my hon. Friend has not been granted access to talk to his local sorting office. I think visiting the sorting office at Christmas and other times is a diary staple for all MPs—it is a really important part of the job. He refers to the anger that posties themselves feel about this. It is not just a job for them. They feel that this is a service, and they recognise as much as anyone else that this situation is simply not good enough. Ofcom examined the prioritisation of parcels a few years ago and found no evidence that it was a central policy, but I have heard stories from so many Members about the prioritisation of parcels, so I intend to raise it with Ofcom this afternoon.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I met the Minister some weeks ago and suggested that he might have to come back to the House if Royal Mail had not improved its services. May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the Westminster Hall debate next week, which was secured by another Member?
I raised this issue on the 13 January as a point of order, as you will know, Mr Speaker, and clearly the problem has got worse rather than better. I put on record my thanks to all posties. I think the whole House would like to thank them for all their work in our constituencies. This situation has had a huge social and economic impact on people throughout our constituencies, but what concerns me is that the Minister has referred to being unable to intervene in a private company, and the regulator is of course independent. So what can he do? If there is nothing he can do, perhaps he will come back in a few weeks’ time to repeat that there is nothing he can do, but how does that help people who are waiting for medical results and other important information?
Blair McDougall
That is a very fair question. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State brought together the ownership and management to stress the need to get an agreement on reforms to improve service standards. Those things are all connected. I have stressed, in no uncertain terms, my dissatisfaction with current levels of service. On NHS letters, I and Department of Health and Social Care colleagues are pressing to ensure that more NHS bodies take advantage of the barcode system, so that those letters are prioritised. Royal Mail is a private company, but we are exercising the pressure that we can in order to ensure that standards are improved.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My understanding is that letters must not be treated less favourably than parcels, but that is happening at the moment through internal Royal Mail targets. That is the case at the Fotherby Street sorting office in Grimsby, where a tracked-first policy is in place, meaning that parcels take priority, while letters and non-tracked mail are not prioritised. First and second-class cards and letters are left sitting in frames for days and weeks. That builds up, as other Members have said.
Route revisions are also an issue for posties, some of whom regularly walk 30,000 to 40,000 steps a day. That is causing exhaustion, injury and illness. It is not acceptable in any way for the Government to say that they cannot do anything. What will they do to force Ofcom to take action that will get things moving and change a policy that leaves people’s letters sat in their frames for days?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend voices her frustration—which is shared across the House—about the disconnect between what she is hearing from local sorting offices and the stated company policy. As I say, I will raise the prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom later. On the wider issue of working conditions for posties, the Secretary of State has brought together the owners and the company to stress the importance of progressing those issues and getting to a situation in which quality of service improves and the workforce feel properly rewarded and respected.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The postal delivery landscape is a fast-moving one, as the Minister will recognise. That is evidenced by the fact that Denmark very recently ended its postal service entirely—everybody now has to use a private courier. What weight does he put on the words of Royal Mail when it says that it recognises the problems and is working hard—does he take that in good faith? A critique from Royal Mail, which clearly recognises that there are problems, is that Ofcom’s slow responses to Royal Mail suggestions are disjointed from a fast-moving landscape in a very competitive sphere. When he meets Ofcom this afternoon, will he urge it to respond speedily and progress issues as they manifest themselves?
Blair McDougall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful and practical suggestion. I will certainly add it to the agenda for the meeting, and report back to him on the outcomes of those discussions.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for asking this urgent question because, as he will know, too many constituents are suffering this situation. When this first started, I asked Royal Mail why it was happening. I got polite replies, but frankly, at this stage, fine words butter no parsnips. We really need some action. May I urge the Minister to push Ofcom to take action on this issue?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is, as ever, a doughty campaigner for everyone in the communities she represents. I will certainly be pressing Ofcom on these issues, and I will continue to press Royal Mail directly as well, stressing that we want to see an improvement in standards. The current standards of delivery are simply not good enough.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In rural parts of the country such as North Shropshire, where broadband, mobile signal and public transport are poor, people really depend on their postal service. Constituents have contacted me to say that they have missed court documents and NHS letters—important things that they need in order to get on with their lives. I have visited the sorting office. Beyond the prioritisation of parcels, which posties have told me about, the rounds are too long and working conditions for postal workers are not good enough, so there are issues in recruitment and retention. What can Ofcom do to ensure that Royal Mail puts in place the resources to ensure that letters can be delivered on time in rural places, like North Shropshire?
Blair McDougall
Unfortunately, the story that the hon. Lady tells is familiar, because I have heard it from so many hon. Members around the Chamber. As I say, we have been bringing together workforce and management for talks on reforms to get the business on to a sustainable footing and improve service quality. We will bring that together. I will raise the issue of prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom this afternoon.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank all postal workers in Stockport and across the UK. It is important to highlight that it was the coalition Government—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—who privatised Royal Mail. I ran an online survey about Royal Mail services in my constituency. Some 89% of respondents said that they were unhappy, angry or disappointed by the service in Stockport. There was one example of mail not being delivered for almost two weeks, until it was all delivered on the same day, meaning that important information and appointments were missed. What will the Minister to do improve services for the approximately 3 million people in Stockport and Greater Manchester?
Blair McDougall
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to posties in Stockport and Greater Manchester. Like posties all across the country, they go the extra mile in incredibly difficult circumstances. As I mentioned, we are bringing together unions and management for talks, to make sure that we get to a resolution and progress the future of the business. We are also pressing Ofcom on the enforcement action that it can take to progress the improvement plan that Royal Mail has committed to producing.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Just recently, Royal Mail in Tonbridge introduced a new working model that has been, quite frankly, an abject failure. I welcome the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asking this urgent question, because this is quite clearly a matter for not just one constituency or community, but the whole country. I am grateful to the Minister, who is assiduous in his role, for taking it up. Will he raise with management that while we all recognise that this is about not just privatisation or ownership, but the change in the way that people use the post, and our use of emails and so on, the problems have a very real effect on people’s lives, particularly in communities like mine in Tonbridge? I am not the only one who has missed an appointment because the letter arrived weeks, or even months, after I was supposed to attend.
Blair McDougall
I know from my talks with officials that the right hon. Gentleman has been in discussions about the issues in Tonbridge, and that Royal Mail is seized of those. He is absolutely right. Members have mentioned hospital appointments; it is worth mentioning the important post that we hon. Members send to often very vulnerable constituents. That is a reminder that the post is a central part of our national life and economy, and we have to see it improve.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this urgent question. In my constituency, we have had a massive uptick in complaints about not only letters being delivered late, but priority service not happening when people have paid for it, and constituents being advised to collect post from delivery offices without prior notification of an attempted delivery; essentially, they are asked to become their own Royal Mail. Having met local workers over Christmas, I know that they are working incredibly hard to keep on top of this, and they are just as frustrated as my residents. My biggest concern is that when Members have raised the issue with Royal Mail, its response has been, quite frankly, rude, dismissive and a bit lacklustre. Will the Minister please outline what he will do to ensure that postal services are protected in my community, and communities across the country?
Blair McDougall
I thank the posties in Croydon for their efforts; they do an extraordinary job. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We sometimes might have lower standards for other delivery operators in the economy, but we expect a certain level of service from Royal Mail. When people are paying more for stamps, or are paying for special delivery, they absolutely should expect to get what they pay for. As I said, I am raising these issues directly with Royal Mail. We are bringing together the workforce and management, and I am meeting Ofcom later today.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
As has been well established today, the blame for failures does not lie with postal workers, who are doing all they can to deliver a service. It lies with a private company that is telling its staff to prioritise parcels, but then pretending that is not its policy. My Chichester constituents have received hospital appointment letters four days after their appointment was due to take place. One constituent in Selsey received their letter for a specialist appointment in London an hour before it was due to take place. What can the Minister do to put pressure on Royal Mail, so that my constituents’ health is not put at risk as a result of its failures?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady’s constituents in Chichester deserve better, frankly. That is why it is so important that the Government send a clear message that we expect improvement. It is why I am having conversations with Ofcom. It is also why, when the new ownership took over Royal Mail, we received an undertaking that it would not be able to take value out of the company until it improved. That was done to ensure that there is an incentive for it to do better.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Communication Workers Union reported chaos and demoralisation among its members as a result of the imposition of poorer pay and conditions for posties, and the company’s decision to prioritise potential job cuts over service when it comes to USO reform. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that Royal Mail customers and workers are not made to pay the price of the mismanagement of our postal services, and whether the Government will use any powers allocated to them as holders of the golden share?
Blair McDougall
As I said a moment ago, when the new ownership took over, part of the deed of undertaking was that we would not allow it to remove value from the company until service improved. On the impact on the workforce, obviously the negotiations are between the workforce and management, but the fact that the Secretary of State has been convening meetings between them shows that we take this issue very seriously, and it is a priority for our Department.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Like other hon. Members, I have had many constituents get in touch about poor mail service. One constituent in Kelsall reached out to Royal Mail after experiencing deliveries once per week at best, only to receive a reply stating that service levels in our area are good. The same constituent later received a hospital appointment letter after the appointment, which is certainly not good. Does the Minister share my concern that Royal Mail appears to be dismissing legitimate complaints, while failing to meet its universal service obligation, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady has previously pressed me on another aspect of postal services—the availability of post offices in her constituency—and she continues to campaign for her constituents. I share the frustration felt whenever a Member of Parliament who raises a concern is told that everything is fine and not to worry about it. It is precisely because I share this concern that I am having the meeting with Ofcom later today.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Royal Mail excuses are wearing very thin, are they not? I have constituents who are going to the sorting office and being presented with piles—weeks’ worth—of letters, and others who are getting those same piles delivered in one go. The Minister said he is meeting Ofcom today. Does he think that the regulator needs additional powers? It is clear from his answers so far, and from the fact that we are still discussing something that has been going on for months, that something is not working. I encourage him to consider whether the regulator needs more, and what he can do.
Blair McDougall
I will certainly talk to the regulator later today in those terms, and will ask that question. As I say, the business is regulated through Ofcom, but where the Government have power, we are taking it; for example, there is our insistence on putting in the company’s deed of undertaking that money cannot be stripped out of the company until service improves.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Whether it is the failure of Royal Mail to meets its USO or the skyrocketing price of heating oil, it seems that rural communities, such as those in my constituency, are most impacted. We all agree that despite the often heroic efforts of the workforce, the service provided by Royal Mail management is totally unacceptable. The Minister knows that we are 60 days from a Scottish parliamentary election in which 1 million people will vote by post. How confident is he that Royal Mail will be able to cope, and what measures is he putting in place to ensure that it does?
Blair McDougall
I have relatives in the most remote parts of Scotland, so I know that while these issues might be an inconvenience for the rest of us, for rural customers, they can be the stripping away of a lifeline. We have sought reassurances from Royal Mail that the current issues with service across the country will not impact postal voting in the upcoming elections. I know that the chief executive of Royal Mail has a meeting in Scotland to discuss preparations in the days ahead.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I would like to put on the record that, despite testimony to the contrary, it is Darlington’s postal workers who are the best in the country. They deliver their service to the best of their abilities, and they also provide a social service; their visit is often the only one that residents get. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to two quite shocking cases that constituents have brought to me. One constituent, despite using the tracking system, has had their application form to join the Royal Navy go awry, which is obviously causing huge delays. Another constituent successfully gained compensation from Royal Mail for a late delivery, but the cheque, which was sent in the post, bounced. I would like the Minister to allay some of our fears about crucial public services, and the postal communications from our Departments and arm’s length bodies.
Mr Speaker
That was a very late delivery. I am going to finish this urgent question at 1.30 pm, so let us help each other by being speedy. The Minister will show me how quickly he can reply.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I notice that everything seems to be the best in her constituency. The problem is not just missed post, but missed opportunities, like the one that she described. That is exactly why we will continue to pressurise Royal Mail, directly and through the regulator, to improve the service in areas like hers.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Posties in my constituency have reported to me that one of the most serious problems is staff absence. Staff go off sick because they have been overworked, and as a result, deliveries do not take place. The final straw for one of my constituents was when they received a Christmas card on 28 February that had been franked before Christmas. Clearly, there is a serious problem, not just in rural areas but in suburban areas. Will the Minister seek an urgent action plan from Royal Mail on getting this right? Otherwise we will be back here in a month’s time with the same problem.
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman could be mistaken for a CWU trade union official. He will be crossing the Floor. He makes an important and serious point: issues around staff conditions are directly related to the quality of service. That is exactly why the Secretary of State has been convening the meetings that I have mentioned to progress the talks.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood, particularly in the SE22 and SE24 postcodes, have been suffering the consequences of Royal Mail’s failings for years. Residents in SE24 recently had no mail for four weeks. A key problem in holding Royal Mail to account is that it is required to report performance data relating to only the first part of the postcode. That means that the failures of individual delivery offices are disguised in the sub-regional data. Will the Minister raise that issue with Ofcom, and ask it to look again at the reporting requirements on Royal Mail, so that it can be held properly to account?
Blair McDougall
As a former resident of SE23, I pay tribute to the posties in that part of the world. I will certainly add my hon. Friend’s suggestion to the agenda of the meeting later today.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that meeting the universal service obligation is a challenge because of poor recruitment and retention? That poor recruitment and retention is no surprise, given that Royal Mail offers new postmen and postwomen little more than minimum wage, and sites are really not fit for purpose.
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that is core to the talks that are going on right now between unions and management. That is exactly why we are so keen to ensure that the talks are productive and come to a settlement that deals with the issues that he describes.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks on Royal Mail’s poor services in my Bolton West constituency. I know that he shares my utter frustration at the current service provision. May I flag with the Minister a letter that I sent to Horwich constituents on 13 February, updating them on the progress that I had made with the Minister on this matter? A constituent got in touch to say that the letter was only received on 25 February, some 12 days later, alongside missing correspondence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions. Another constituent in Bolton received a Christmas card on 7 March that had been posted before 14 December. When will my constituents see an improvement in Royal Mail services?
Mr Speaker
Can we try to shorten the questions? Some people are not going to get in, and that really worries me, as this subject matters to all of us—especially me, as I have the best post offices and the best posties.
Blair McDougall
I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that his efforts to transmit their dissatisfaction have been heard at the highest level. If there is a prize for dark irony, I think he has probably just won it. It is because we want this situation to improve as quickly as possible that we are taking the action that I have described, and continue to put on the pressure.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I pay tribute to the posties across Bromsgrove, but not to the management of Royal Mail. My constituents need action, not more platitudes, like Royal Mail saying to me that it is “very sorry” that letters have not been received. I implore the Minister to get together with the management of Royal Mail and Ofcom to deliver an action plan, for which Royal Mail is accountable to us, via the Minister, so that we see an improved service for all our constituents.
Blair McDougall
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have communicated exactly the frustration that he describes, which I have heard from so many hon. Members, to Royal Mail, and I will communicate it to Ofcom later as well.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having spoken with postal workers from across Alloa and Grangemouth, I know that morale is at rock-bottom because of years of savage cuts, and restructuring that has negatively impacted their ability to do their job. Does the Government accept that the erosion of the service and workforce morale is due to privatisation, and that an essential public service like Royal Mail should be under public ownership, for the public good? When will the Government effectively hold bodies like Ofcom to account, because its inaction and impotence is costing our constituents dearly?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the situation is a result of long-standing structural issues in Royal Mail, and with postal services more generally. My focus later today with Ofcom will be to ensure that it is pressed to deal with exactly the issues that my hon. Friend describes.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I align myself with the stories that everybody has told. Constituents in Sturminster Marshall received two postal deliveries in the whole of January, and then Royal Mail tried to blame letters not being delivered on the flooding, which happened at the beginning of February, so I do not trust anything it says. I am concerned about my posties, who are literally being brought to tears on the doorstep. They are being told that they cannot have any overtime even though posts are being advertised, and they cannot complete their rounds. They have explained to me that they are being expected to manage their decline. What is the Minister doing to stand up for these frontline workers who are key to our communities?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady is right to pay tribute to her local posties. It is because we recognise the connection between the sustainability of the Royal Mail and the postal service and the conditions of workers and the importance of the talks that are going on, that the Secretary of State has been convening the meetings that I have mentioned, and he will continue to do so.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
This situation is completely intolerable, as everybody has described. Will the Minister confirm that if the owners continue to fail to discharge their obligations as a matter of urgency, the option of taking Royal Mail back into public ownership will be fully considered, because that is popular with the public?
Blair McDougall
Our focus is on ensuring that the talks that are under way are productive, and that they end with measures that will get the delivery service improved and the business on to a sustainable footing. As I have mentioned, we have an undertaking that the owners are not allowed to take value out of the company until service standards improve.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
My constituents who have lodged complaints with the local Royal Mail are receiving messages that say:
“We’re sorry to advise that deliveries in parts of the DN31-DN37 postcodes are being disrupted due to resourcing issues at the Grimsby Delivery Office.”
Will the Minister give an assurance that, if he has not already done so, he will urge Royal Mail to deal with these staffing resources? It is an acceptable reason in the short term, but not in the long term.
Blair McDougall
Whenever hon. Members raise local delivery issues with me, I raise them directly with Royal Mail officials. I will certainly do so for his area because his constituents deserve a better service.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
People across Morecambe and Lunesdale are suffering from late Royal Mail deliveries. In fact, one constituent was told by a frustrated, overworked postie that second class letters were being delivered once a week, at most. What steps is the Minister taking to address that problem?
Blair McDougall
The service that my hon. Friend’s constituents are getting clearly is not good enough. We have met Royal Mail to say that the situation is not good enough, we are bringing together workforce and management to progress the talks that will enable us to improve those standards and, as I say, I will be meeting Ofcom later today to express her concerns.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My criticism is of Royal Mail’s senior leadership; it is certainly not of our local posties. In Upper Bann, the posties are excellent and so is my liaison officer in Royal Mail, who has gone above and beyond to get information flowing. Staff are at breaking point, there are absences and gaps—we have 10 vacancies in Banbridge depot—and letters are delayed. You know the score, Mr Speaker. The big issue is with hospital letters, so will the Minister liaise with health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland?
Blair McDougall
I will raise the issues at Banbridge sorting office directly with Royal Mail. In addition to my work with the Department of Health, I will ensure that we are having that conversation with health bodies in Northern Ireland.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the Government used the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to extract a golden share, because they considered Royal Mail to be national critical infrastructure, I find it slightly odd that, having recognised its importance, we think there is nothing that we can do. Will the Minister commit to, or at least consider, taking powers that he might need to make a direct intervention to ensure that our constituents, including mine in Stoke-on-Trent Central, get their letters when they want them: on time?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is right to speak on behalf of his constituents and demand better service. As for what we can do, as I said, we are working through the regulator to ensure that services improve, and I am meeting it later today. We are also intervening to bring together the workforce and management to ensure the talks that are crucial for making those improvements progress.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I concur with Members across the House that the fault does not lie with our individual posties. I pay tribute to Dean and Aaron, who have been fantastic as my posties in Brampton in my constituency. I have been written to by Royal Mail employees in my constituency about the new contract and the pressure that it puts on, with 50% of new postal workers leaving in their first year. Can the Minister guarantee that he will speak to Ofcom about equalising pay and conditions to ensure that we do not see as many staff leaving?
Blair McDougall
The question of equalising pay and conditions is a matter for those talks. That is why, through the Secretary of State, we are bringing together the owner and the trade unions to have those discussions. I also pay tribute to Dean and Aaron, who can now say that they have had their names mentioned at the Dispatch Box.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I am a proud member of the CWU. Posties in my constituency are clear that the problems at Royal Mail are the previous board’s financial mismanagement, along with lower wages, longer hours and poorer conditions. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems were warned that that would happen, but they privatised Royal Mail anyway. Will the Government commit to ensuring that the new owners stick to the agreement with the CWU and the Government, meet the universal service obligation and ensure that my constituents get the service that they deserve?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is right. Her constituents absolutely deserve better, and she is right to highlight the long-standing issues that we are trying to deal with. Royal Mail should absolutely meet all the obligations that it has entered into.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Hundreds of my constituents have written to me about Royal Mail failures. I have raised them with Ofcom, but it tells me that it cannot investigate local complaints, and Royal Mail will not act on them. Will the Minister commit to reviewing Ofcom’s powers to hold Royal Mail to account at a local level?
Blair McDougall
As I said a moment ago, I will certainly ask Ofcom for its assessment of its powers in this space, and I will keep the hon. Lady updated.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for the CWU at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation, and I am sad to say that much of what we feared would happen has come true. Residents in Grain in my constituency reported receiving no first-class or second-class mail for weeks, similar to the reports of other Members.
I will highlight an incident in which Network Rail had to hand-deliver letters to residents to ensure that they were aware of the impending closure of a critical rail crossing, because Royal Mail service could not be relied on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the service to my constituents is completely unacceptable? Royal Mail needs to focus on addressing its significant recruitment and retention challenges, which have been made worse by the introduction of a two-tier workforce in 2022-23.
Blair McDougall
The example that my hon. Friend gives about Network Rail is a reminder that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said a second ago, this is critical national infrastructure that we rely on at moments like that. The issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) discusses in terms of the terms and conditions are exactly why we have made that a priority. The Secretary of State is bringing together the management and workforce to discuss those issues.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I had the opportunity to meet senior management at Royal Mail yesterday, after constituents in Symington and Thankerton in the Clydesdale area of my constituency received no mail at all for more than 10 days. I want to return to the issue of postal voting in the Scottish elections and other elections. I do not think that reassurances from Royal Mail are enough; the Minister and others need to see a plan so that we know postal votes will be delivered, collected and taken to the electoral authorities. Will he reassure us that he will get such a plan?
Blair McDougall
We continue to seek those reassurances and the plan behind them. As I mentioned, with regard to the Scottish elections, a specific meeting between the management of Royal Mail—its CEO—and the election authorities in Scotland is coming up to discuss exactly the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I met a resident at my surgery at the weekend who has a long-term health condition. They have been sent testing packs by the NHS, which arrive late, and appointment letters have been delayed, which is having a huge impact on their health. When the Minister meets Ofcom later, will he raise the serious impacts of unacceptable Royal Mail delays on not just our residents, but our national health service?
Blair McDougall
I will certainly raise my hon. Friend’s concerns about important medical post with Ofcom. Royal Mail is part of the critical national infrastructure and can reach every part of the country, and its ability to deliver such things is a business opportunity, and it needs to get that right.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On Monday, it was my privilege to visit the Helston sorting office, where I discovered staff burdened with remote, counterproductive micromanagement of their work and inadequate plans to deal with the inevitability of staff absences. I was distressed to hear them describe that they had been abused and threatened when undertaking their work on the frontline. Does the Minister agree that frontline workers should be praised and have management systems that empower them to resolve matters locally?
Blair McDougall
I think the hon. Gentleman can tell from the comments around the House how much respect and affection there is for posties around the country, and I am disturbed by what he describes. Ultimately, the only sustainable future for Royal Mail is in bringing together a workforce who are really passionate about what they do and a management who are seeking to get the company into a financially sustainable position. That is why we are prioritising the talks going on at the moment.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Gloucester residents have been let down by Royal Mail for years; it is prioritising parcels over post and profits over our posties. I have a visit to Gloucester North delivery office on Friday, and I was shocked to find out from the frontlines that it is offering overtime to clear the backlog before I get there. Ofcom has proven to be utterly toothless in this matter; it is not regulating properly, and Royal Mail is baking the fines into its business plans. What more can we do to give Ofcom the bite that it needs to improve service for Gloucester residents?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend has been a constant campaigner and is constantly in my ear on these issues on behalf of his constituents. As I said, I will be talking to Ofcom later today about its role in this matter, and I will keep him updated on that.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Residents across my constituency, particularly those in the SM1, SM2 and SM3 postcodes, have been reporting issues with their deliveries for years. Local social media is full of people reporting one-day-a-week deliveries and asking which other roads that is occurring on. I have visited my delivery office for the last two Christmases, meeting hard-working posties who have been let down by the system. Let me give a particular shout-out to Timmy, who has been delivering to my road for decades and is approaching retirement—my congratulations to him. Will the Minister add Sutton to the list for his agenda this afternoon? Can he also report back next Wednesday in the Westminster Hall debate, which I imagine he will be coming to, with clear actions from his meeting this afternoon?
Blair McDougall
I pay tribute to Timmy and thank him for his years of service. It is exactly because this service is full of people like him who are passionate about their jobs that we need to ensure that Royal Mail’s quality of service is reformed and improved.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Phil from Brereton told me that his wife’s jury service letter arrived too late for her to defer; Colin from Brereton had a hospital letter that arrived three days after the appointment; and Michael from Rugeley waited weeks for a new debit card. Those were first-class letters, so planned reforms to the universal service obligation would not have made much of a difference. Will the Minister impress upon the leadership of Royal Mail the human impact of these delays on posties and residents?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case about how delays and failings in Royal Mail standards impact on so many different aspects of his constituents’ lives. I will certainly use those examples when I next meet with Royal Mail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to make a quick point about hospital appointments. When someone misses their hospital appointment, they go to the back of the queue and start again, and might have to wait another two years. When the Minister has his meeting with Royal Mail today, can I ask him to convey to its representatives that they should have meetings with health trusts, patient groups and representatives of Northern Ireland to ensure that those who miss appointments due to delays in the Royal Mail will not be disadvantaged, which they clearly are at the moment?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care here to ensure as many health bodies as possible take advantage of the barcode service, to make sure that their letters get through. I will certainly make sure that the issues he has highlighted are raised in Northern Ireland.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Lots of letters are late. One that stood out to me, which a constituent raised, was a parking fine that had almost doubled in price by the time it arrived. Locally, the Royal Mail tells me that it is recruiting 12 new postal workers, but if that does not fix the problem, what should we try next?
Blair McDougall
Continue to speak to me. My hon. Friend grabbed me during the votes the other night to raise local Royal Mail issues, and I know she will continue to do so.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Many residents and fantastic posties in Exeter have raised exactly the same concerns as other Members of the House. Can the Minister give an assessment of how he thinks Ofcom has dealt with this issue so far, and does he have confidence in Ofcom to get a grip on it?
Blair McDougall
We rely on Ofcom as the regulator of Royal Mail, which is exactly why we are having a meeting later today to discuss what more it can do to deal with the widespread concerns that exist across the House about the quality of service.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is clear that the NHS barcode prioritisation system broke down, but the problem is not limited to NHS letters. I want to highlight the Government’s Tell Us Once service following a bereavement. Many hon. Members will know the urgency and distressing nature of that correspondence, so will the Minister—who has been extremely active in dealing with constituency concerns—look at the issue of prioritisation of non-NHS letters?
Blair McDougall
In a previous life, I was very proud to have worked on the Tell Us Once service at its inception, and I know how important that service is to people at the worst possible time of their life. I will certainly raise the issue that my hon. Friend has highlighted.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
As the Labour Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I stand by my posties here in the House of Commons and thank them for their dedication and diligence, which stands in sharp contrast to the management of the Royal Mail. The trial that is under way has failed, and the new approach will spectacularly fail if it is put into effect. When the Minister meets Ofcom later, and when he meets the Royal Mail, will he say that he will not stand for the Royal Mail becoming yet another gig economy parcel courier that exploits its employees and lets down customers?
Blair McDougall
This is a Government who are improving the working conditions, standards and rights of workers across the economy. My hon. Friend makes the important point that there is wisdom and experience within the workforce. The talks that are going on at the moment are about bringing that together with the ambition and responsibilities of the management, which is why we are taking the actions we are.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Southend sorting office was part of the original pilot for these changes to the USO. It failed, and nine months later it is clear that it is still failing, so today I have summoned the management to meet me and my constituents to hear at first hand the challenges this is causing. Following that meeting, will the Minister meet me to hear that feedback and take it right up the chain?
Blair McDougall
I certainly will. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, as well as all the other hon. Members who have brought to me local intelligence, which informs my own understanding of the issues across the postal service.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Residents in Ardsley, Robin Hood, Lofthouse, parts of Tingley and Morley are complaining that they have been waiting up to three weeks for their postal service. It is obviously not the posties’ fault—it is a question of leadership and management. Following the Minister’s meeting with Ofcom, will he meet me to see the evidence for himself? What can he say to reassure my constituents now?
Blair McDougall
I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that we are expressing the frustration and anger that he has expressed to me directly to Royal Mail and through Ofcom, and of course I will happily discuss developments with him.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I agree with residents across Wolverhampton and Willenhall that Royal Mail’s delivery service is just not good enough, but we stand with our frontline postal workers, who are working incredibly hard and bearing the brunt. I call on the Minister to challenge Royal Mail’s leadership, and to have a look at the two-tier employment model and wider issues that are affecting the recruitment and retention of our hard-working staff.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend’s constituents absolutely deserve better, and posties deserve dignity at work, given the essential job they do for our society and our economy. That is exactly why we are convening meetings between management and unions to make sure that those talks progress.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My speaking notes talk about excuses from Royal Mail. Now that I am in the Chamber, though, I do not think that is the language I will use, because people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are sick of being lied to by Royal Mail. I met Royal Mail just before Christmas to complain to it about the total lack of a postal service in Lichfield—we were probably the worst area in the country at that point. When I had that meeting, I was told that all the first-class mail went out last week, but that was a lie—it was an absolute lie, because my constituents told me so. Royal Mail clearly does not have a handle on this issue. It is either not measuring its performance or it is covering it up, so I ask the Minister to use the golden share we have to force Royal Mail to be honest, fess up and fix it.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend shows passion and anger, which he has also shown to me in private when raising these issues. Again, that speaks to how frustrating it is for us as Members of Parliament to raise a problem—on any issue—and then to be told that it does not exist when our constituents are telling us otherwise. Royal Mail has a responsibility to address the problem in a direct and straightforward manner, because if we are not recognising the problem, we will not deal with it.
Mr Speaker
This has been an excellent debate, and I thank Members for the way it has been delivered on behalf of all our constituents. Royal Mail’s management has a problem, and that has certainly been highlighted today.
Protest Policing
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so.
It is important that we start with the context. Initiated by Iran’s then leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, al-Quds Day is an event held on the last Friday of Ramadan. The day is marked worldwide by rallies and demonstrations in support of Palestine, including here in Britain. Plans for a procession this Sunday in London have been led by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation that has been closely associated with the Iranian regime. Of course, this year’s event interacts with the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It comes at a time when the Iranian regime is attacking British forces and bases, as well as those of our allies. It also comes just days after the arrest of four individuals as part of an investigation led by counter-terror police. Those individuals were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 for allegedly spying on Jewish communities on behalf of the Iranian regime.
This context creates clear challenges for the police: heightened attention and therefore larger expected attendance, and heightened tensions between protesters and counter-protesters and therefore greater potential for conflict. The expertise on whether and how those challenges can be safely managed rightly sits with the police, and the legal test is clear. Any request to prohibit a procession must only be lodged with the aim of preventing serious public disorder that could not otherwise be prevented by imposing other conditions on a public procession under section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 conditions typically include specifying the route, location and times of a protest. Under normal circumstances, they are sufficient to ensure protests remain peaceful and the public are kept safe.
However, the commissioner has clearly stated that the Metropolitan police’s view is that serious public disorder cannot be avoided unless a prohibition under section 13 is introduced. That assessment is grounded in the tensions created by international conflict, the scale of the expected march, and the presence of protesters and multiple counter-protesting groups all seeking to march at once.
My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary. For one month, there will therefore be a prohibition on processions in London related to al-Quds Day involving protesters and counter-protesters, which will come into effect today and end on 11 April. Should the commissioner consider that a further extension is required, he will be able to make a further submission at that time.
I must be clear about what this prohibition does not do. The police and the Home Secretary only have the power to prohibit a public procession. Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. Instead, they will be able to impose conditions, such as dictating the precise location and timing. People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed.
Today’s announcement is confined to specific circumstances, but I know that it will excite scrutiny of the wider issue of policing protests. The House will be aware that I have appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to carry out an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. His review is ongoing, and I will update the House on its findings at the earliest possible moment. I do, however, want to make a wider point about the right to protest in this country.
What I have announced today is narrowly focused on specific circumstances in a unique moment, but it does not alter an enduring fact. In this country, we rightly pride ourselves on our freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest. It is a precious right and one that I revere, as it sets us apart from autocracies of all kinds across the world. This prohibition is therefore limited and specific. It bans marches, but not static demonstrations, in relation to al-Quds Day. Equally, I must add, there is no prohibition on protesting against the plight of Palestinians, and there never will be. Hundreds of protests have already taken place across the country this year in solidarity with Palestinians, and the Met alone has policed 32. Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom.
At the same time, as Home Secretary I have a solemn duty—and it is my first duty—to keep the British people safe. I have been presented with the assessment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he cannot guarantee the security of our capital and prevent serious public disorder without a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day. I have reviewed his assessment, and it is clear to me that my duty to the public and their safety dictates that I must accept his request. It is right that we prohibit these processions, while continuing to uphold our ancient commitments to the freedoms of which we are rightly proud. That is the balance that I have sought to strike today, and I commend my statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I fully support a ban on this march. The police assessment of the risk is right, and, in fact, I wrote to the commissioner a week ago urging for exactly this ban. However, the problems with the al-Quds march go beyond simply the risk of serious disorder. In 2024, 10 people were arrested for the assault of an emergency worker, inciting racial hatred, and public order offences. Chants at al-Quds marches in the past have called for intifada and revolution. Calls for intifada and revolution are calls for violence, and calls for violence have no place on our streets.
A leading speaker at these marches has been Nazim Ali, a man who has demanded that Israel
“be wiped off the map”.
Speaking at a previous march, Ali even blamed what he called “Zionists” for the Grenfell fire. He also said:
“"We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues.”
The reference to rabbis and synagogues shows that when this despicable man says “Zionist”, he means Jews. That is clear antisemitism. Speech inciting violence and speech inciting antisemitism, which we have heard at these marches in the past, has serious consequences.
Antisemitism is now rampant. Jews are 10 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims. We saw an Islamist-motivated murder at a synagogue in Manchester just a few months ago. In the past 25 years, 94% of all terror murders in the UK have been committed by Islamist terrorists, who also make up 75% of counterterrorism caseloads. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the fact that that the Prevent caseload is only 10% Islamist in nature, and if she does, what does she propose to do about it?
The organiser of the al-Quds march is the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission, which, as the Home Secretary rightly acknowledged, is in essence a front organisation for the Iranian regime. A former Iranian Deputy Minister of Culture, Aliasghar Ramezanpour, has said that there is a network of Islamic charities in the UK which are, in his words, not autonomous but funded and controlled by the regime in Tehran. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about that, and what does she propose to do about it? In opposition, the Labour party—I think, rightly—pledged to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Home Secretary update the House on the implementation of that pledge?
I am also deeply concerned about the many events that have been held recently, particularly at universities, lamenting the demise of Ayatollah Khameini—a man who in the last few weeks was directly responsible for the murder of 30,000 of his own people; a man who supported and sponsored terrorism around the world, for instance backing Hamas and the atrocities on 7 October, and who backed various regional wars. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those who mourned his demise and celebrated his evil acts?
More generally, the al-Quds marches are a troubling symptom of a growing division in our society, whereby some people define themselves primarily by their religion or their ethnic heritage, and we have seen that spilling over into the conduct of elections. This is deeply troubling and deeply divisive. It undermines the very foundations of our nation, which depend on a shared identity and shared values. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that, and I hope the House will return to the topic.
Let me finish with a broader point. Extremism has no place in the UK. Support for terrorism or violence has no place in the UK. Religious and racial hatred, including antisemitism, have no place here. I believe that when someone who is not a British citizen expresses extremist, violent, pro-terror or racist views, they should have their visa revoked and be expelled, as set out in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Home Office’s own guidance makes it clear that support for
“extremism or other unacceptable behaviour”
meets that statutory test. Will the Home Secretary use those powers to expel extremists who are not British citizens?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and his questions. He began by talking about some of the unacceptable acts of violence and incitement to violence that have taken place at various marches, not just marches relating to al-Quds Day. It is not unusual for multiple arrests to be made at all the different types of protest marches that take place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the police as they ensure that the full force of the law is applied at all times and in all circumstances. I have, of course, recognised that there are some complexities in the legal framework and an inconsistency of application. I have asked Ken Macdonald to carry out a review to ensure that there is much more consistency of practice across the UK, and that there is clarity for the police about what they can and cannot do when it comes to some of the things that are said when protests take place. I hope that we can continue to work together across the House on those matters.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question in relation to Prevent. I do of course keep under review the way in which the Prevent programme is functioning. A large number of recommendations have been made over many years, with many reports on the functioning of Prevent. It is important that Prevent referrals are made in line with the statutory requirements and the guidance, and that they are picking up those whom we want to take away from a mindset and an ideology that could ultimately result in harm. I do not think it appropriate for us to set percentage requirements for what should happen in terms of referrals, but it is important that the right referrals are made. We always work with partners who deliver the Prevent programme, and with local authorities and others, to ensure that that is done properly.
On the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the trust that is responsible for that charity is currently subject to a statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission, and it is important that that work is allowed to continue. Once the Charity Commission has reached a determination, I am sure that it will be discussed in the House.
On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this discussion many times at the Dispatch Box, and the answers are not all that different from when the positions of our parties were reversed—that we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but this Government have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. We will take forward that work at the earliest available opportunity.
In relation to those who are publicly mourning the death of Khamenei, the deceased supreme leader of Iran, this is where free speech butts up against what most of us would consider to be appropriate conduct. I do not mourn the passing of Ayatollah Khamenei, but it is for others to decide what they do and do not support. I am absolutely clear that, whatever methods people use to express their political views, they must do so in line with the law of this land. That law should always be enforced without fear or favour, and I will always support the police in ensuring that that is the case.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about how we work as a society, and I think his questions are about citizens’ responsibilities in this country. I do not think it is for a Government to dictate to their citizens what political views they are allowed to hold or how they should express themselves or their identity, regardless of whether that is religious, ethnic or something else. It is the job of Government to ensure that we have a set of rules and values that are equally applied—our respect for democracy and the rule of law, and all the norms by which our society operates. That means that we accept free speech and people’s ability to have views that might be offensive. Many of us might disagree with those views, but people are still allowed to express them. I would not want to see these very troubling events lead to a clampdown on the freedoms that are so precious to us. There is always a judgment to be made and a balance to be struck, and it is important that the Government always try to strike that balance in the right way.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, this Government have already taken action, and I will always use my full powers under the law to ensure that those who would cause harm in our country with their extremist views are not allowed to enter our country. I will not hesitate to use my powers under the immigration legislation to exclude from this country people who have no right to be here.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to ban this weekend’s al-Quds march. Al-Quds was founded by the ayatollah 40 years ago. It has repeatedly featured support for the Iranian regime and terrorist groups, and often promotes dangerous antisemitism too. Given the growing threat to Jewish communities across the UK, will the Home Secretary now move to proscribe the IRGC, consider sanctions on regime-linked assets, and outline what further steps have been taken to protect the Jewish community?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. As I say, we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. The Government will take those forward at the earliest available opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary is aware that we have concerns about her authoritarian tendencies. We have particular concerns about this Government’s enthusiasm for restricting the right to protest and their use of terrorism legislation to proscribe protest groups. The Liberal Democrats place a much stronger weight on the right to peaceful protest than the Home Secretary does. That is her right. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, and any decision to ban a march must only be made in exceptional circumstances.
On this occasion, however, it is right to take a cautious approach. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has very concerning views on Iran. The organisers of the al-Quds march have expressed support for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and have claimed that he stood on the right side of history. Clearly, these values are at odds with those of the British public, who would rightly condemn the ayatollah’s oppression of the Iranian people and sponsorship of terrorism across the world. At a time when Iran is putting the safety of British citizens in the middle east at risk with its indiscriminate attacks, it would be inappropriate for the march to go ahead.
Nevertheless, the decision to ban the march highlights a deeper failure by the Government to tackle the underlying threats that fuel such tensions. Labour has dithered and delayed over the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the organisation responsible for much of the violence and terror emanating from Iran, and for attacks abroad. It is utterly ridiculous that the Home Secretary has already sunk almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money in fighting in court to keep Palestine Action proscribed while dragging her heels on the IRGC’s proscription, even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has urged immediate proscription. Will the Home Secretary commit to confronting the threat of the Iranian regime by immediately proscribing the IRGC? If not, will she give the House a date for legislation?
Shabana Mahmood
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks were rather disappointing. Let me remind him of what I have actually said and done in relation to the right to protest. I have allowed the cumulative impact on communities that are affected by protests to be one of the reasons why police can place additional conditionality on a procession or public assembly under sections 12 to 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am very disappointed that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks that is an authoritarian tendency, because we are responding to repeat protests that create real tension in our communities.
We are creating the conditions to enable those protests to go ahead, but with additional conditions as to their location and time, and we are ensuring that that framework is very clear for the police. That is actually an argument for allowing the protests to happen, but not in a way that creates real fear among minority communities in this country. I am very disappointed to see that the Lib Dems have set their face against that and would characterise it as authoritarianism. They are wholly wrong. These are the necessary steps to protect our vital freedoms, as well as our minority communities. The law in this area always requires a balance, and this Government are seeking to strike that balance in exactly the right way.
The only other remarks I have made in relation to protests were immediately after the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester. I suggested that marching the very next day in support of the Palestinian cause is perhaps not British because we should show some compassion to those who are suffering. Those are the only two acts, and the hon. Gentleman set his face against both of them in his opening remarks.
I have already addressed the point about proscribing the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We will take forward the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, but the hon. Gentleman knows that that requires legislative change. We must act at speed, but also with care, and this Government will do so. It is important that we do not conflate different issues. A lot of these issues are causing tensions across the country, but the situation in relation to the Palestine Action group is different from the matters that we are discussing today. Members of other parties should not seek to conflate those to score political points. I will leave my remarks there.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent the area affected by the Home Secretary’s intervention on public order policing, which I welcome. I listened carefully to her statement, which made it clear that this prohibition is specific, discrete and focused. What I heard was a balancing of the challenges that she and public order policing in London face every single day. The centre of London is home to dozens of synagogues, mosques and prayer rooms, and it is important that I take seriously the responsibility of ensuring that everybody is safe. Over the last week, I have been in regular contact with my constituents on this very topic. Will the Home Secretary work with me to articulate clearly the rules and legislation that are in place to address the very challenging issues that we all face?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and her question, and for the work that she has done on this issue, which I know has affected the people she represents. It is important to note, as she rightly does, that we received a very specific and discrete request from the Met police, who have huge experience in dealing with multiple protests on multiple occasions and who have good policing experience. I take seriously the fact that this is the first time in many years that they have sought such an order, and they have done so because of the unique challenges posed by the planned marches in a few days’ time, particularly the threat of both protests and multiple counter-protests all moving through London at the same time. That represents a very unique policing challenge, but I pay tribute to the Met police for the work that they have been doing to ensure that our freedoms in this country are protected.
My hon. Friend will know that we have already commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the legislation in this area, and to make recommendations on clarifying the legal framework. I look forward to working with her on all that work once his review is in.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, this speaks to a much wider problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a safe haven for the wealth, influence networks or political activity of senior figures connected to the Iranian regime, with specific regard to recent reports that the new so-called supreme leader of the Iranian regime is linked to a network of high-value London properties acquired through associates or shell companies? What steps will she take to close any loopholes or strengthen such sanctions?
Shabana Mahmood
We are obviously looking very carefully at the allegations that have been made, and we would of course expect the police and our security services to respond appropriately. We will always work closely with them to ensure that they do so.
The hon. Member raises a broader point about the state threat represented by Iran, which has been discussed in this House on many occasions. He will know of the public comments made by Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, and others. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take all levels of state threat very seriously. We work very closely with our security agencies to make sure that we are always taking the necessary steps to keep our country safe.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The al-Quds Day march, glorifying a despicable, blood-soaked regime, has long been a cause of great concern to my constituents in Hendon. That is why I wrote to the commissioner of the Met asking for the march to be banned, and why I thank the Home Secretary for her resolute action today. However, the threat posed by the Iranian regime to our Jewish community has not ended. Following the arrest of four men for allegedly spying on our Jewish community on behalf of the Iranian regime, what steps have been taken to keep our Jewish community safe?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that a live police investigation is taking place, so I cannot comment or give any additional details on that case to this House until the criminal justice process is complete. However, let me assure him that we work very closely with our colleagues in Counter Terror Policing and our security services to monitor the threats posed to individuals and organisations in our country and take all appropriate measures to keep our people safe.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Home Secretary may know that I and other Opposition Members have signed at least two letters to the Prime Minister in recent months calling for recognition of the state of Palestine, but I also support the decision the Home Secretary has taken today. I think she has demonstrated seriousness of purpose in taking a very important decision, which clearly commands huge national support. One can be in favour of the decision she has taken and also in favour of the rights of the Palestinian people; the two are not alien to each other.
The Home Secretary mentioned that a static protest could take place in lieu of the march. Does she or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have the power to limit the time of that specific event, to ensure that ordinary people going about their business are not disrupted and that huge blockages do not take place in the capital in lieu of a moving march?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for the points he made. He is absolutely right—let me agree with him on the first part of his remarks—about the right of people in this country to support the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination and their desire for an end to conflict and recognition of their own state. No decision that this Government have taken prevents anyone from being able to express those political views or to take part in peaceful protest to draw attention to that cause, and all that can continue.
The hon. Member is right about the static protest. There are powers under the Public Order Act for the police to place conditions on static protests, which can relate to both time and location, as well as other measures. Those will be operational decisions for the Met police to make in the coming days.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for this action, which is proportionate; she seems to have been taking lessons from the Liberal Democrats on that. I reiterate Liberal Democrat calls to proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and encourage her to come forward with a timetable for that legislation to be delivered. What steps have been taken to ensure effective policing of the static protests, which will go ahead on Sunday, to protect Londoners and our police from potential clashes?
Shabana Mahmood
The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore.
Let me reiterate the point about the IRGC. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can. We obviously have to proceed with care, because these are complex matters, and we have to get the balance right in the action we take. However, we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, and the Government are working at pace to move forward with delivery.
The conditions that might be placed on a static protest that may or may not take place are operational matters for the Met police. However, I and the whole House should have every confidence in our police, not just in London but across the country. Police forces have been dealing with a huge increase in the number of protests, the variety of protests and the multiplicity of counter-protests that take place, and I think we should pay tribute to the work day in and day out of our hard-working police officers, who manage to keep our country safe while allowing respect for our fundamental freedoms.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. Frankly, I find most of the marches in London fairly offensive, because most of them are left wing, but I would defend to the death the right of those people to march. Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am Labour all day long. I enjoy swatting Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and everybody else at my leisure, and I will continue to do so.
The Father of the House is right about the law. There is a high bar for any banning order to be requested or granted under the framework set out in the Public Order Act. He is absolutely right that it should be a high bar. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not be seeking to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law. It is important that we always ensure that the law is followed, and any attempts to interfere with freedom of expression or assembly should always meet a high bar. I am very satisfied that, in the specific and unique circumstances set out for the public procession that had been planned, that test has been met. Of course, the other protests can and should go ahead, and the full force of the law will always be applied.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
What consideration did the Home Secretary give to compliance with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights on the right to protest? What discussions did the Metropolitan police have with the organisers of this planned march to ensure that it could go ahead safely and would be properly stewarded and properly run? In my experience, the police are very accommodating and keen to have long discussions with march organisers to make sure that the right to protest is maintained in our society. There is a slippery slope here, because banning a march that is not necessarily a very popular march may lead to draconian banning orders on all kinds of protests within our society.
Shabana Mahmood
First, on the European convention on human rights, the right hon. Gentleman is right that articles 9 to 11 are relevant to the matters we are discussing. However, those are qualified rights—they have always been qualified rather than absolute rights—which means that the state can limit them in specific circumstances as long as the legal tests of proportionality and so on are maintained. I am confident that the legal arrangements we have in this country, as set out in the Public Order Act, are fully in compliance with our convention obligations, and that there is a very high bar for the powers in section 13 of the Public Order Act. I am satisfied that that high bar has been met on this occasion.
The Met police have been policing the al-Quds Day procession for many years. It is an annual event, and they have policed it even when there has been huge opposition to its going ahead. They have faced a lot of pressure over many years to seek a ban, and they have never done so. I am very confident that they have assessed the risk posed by this procession in the current context, particularly the range and number of counter-protesting marches planned for the same day; managing five different marches at the same time in the same bit of London presents a unique challenge for policing. I think they have made a fair point and a strong case, and I have agreed with them on this occasion.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement and I commend the Home Secretary’s judgment on this occasion. The Islamic Human Rights Commission will seek to exploit the loophole offered up under section 13, around the ability to protest in a static way. Has a likely location yet been identified for the static protest? Does she agree with me that it should be away from where it would discommode the general public and somewhere that will not place undue burdens on our policing resources, which are finite?
Shabana Mahmood
Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are matters for the police—those are operational matters. They have the powers available to them and I am sure they will make use of them, in the way they have been doing with protests that have been taking place across the capital for some time now. They would, of course, take into account many of the factors that the right hon. Gentleman raises in his question to me.
Let me caution a little on the description of the difference between a static protest and a moving procession of public assembly. It is not a loophole. The law deliberately treats the two things differently, because the policing challenges of a static protest are different in nature from the challenge of policing a march that is moving from one location to another. The Public Order Act recognises the difference between those two things. The police have the powers to place conditions on the way a static protest takes place. In my opinion, they have made use of those conditions very well to date and I am sure they will continue to do so.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?
Shabana Mahmood
I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one—perhaps I am not so authoritarian after all. He raises a more serious point about dissidents. We know the threat posed to dissidents here on UK soil by the Iranian regime. He rightly noted an earlier case. Let me assure him that we work very closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services on monitoring the threats posed to all individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. Indeed, the police and the security services take action every day.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Iran has a track record of hostile activity in the United Kingdom. We have so many Iranians who have had to flee their home country for safety here in the UK, yet we still see charities effectively operating as proxies for the terrible regime in Tehran. What further action will the Home Secretary take to clamp down on organisations that masquerade as charities?
Shabana Mahmood
The Charity Commission has powers to launch its own inquiries and enforce compliance. It has a full suite of powers to take action if it thinks someone has fallen outside of our rules. There is an ongoing Charity Commission investigation into the overall body relating to the IHRC—the trust, rather than the organisation we are discussing here today. I am sure that once the Charity Commission has completed that work it will take appropriate action, and I know that that will be the subject of further discussion in this House. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the desire by some to use our charities legislation and to find gaps to pursue ends that are not charitable and for which the law was not intended. We will not hesitate to take further action in that area if we need to do so.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Will the Home Secretary care to explain a contradiction? She has taken to ban a peaceful march that has been happening for over 40 years, citing serious public disorder, while the Government continue to permit the far right, who call for serious public disorder outside hotels housing asylum seekers, to protest outside those hotels. In September 2025 at the Tommy Robinson “Unite the Kingdom” march—the Home Secretary might like to know that he is a big fan of hers—violence was sighted, in particular against Muslims. Will that march be banned in future as well?
Shabana Mahmood
Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.
The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.
Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I stand, and we stand, for an Iran free of the ayatollah, free of the IRGC, free of a despotic regime that carries terrorism all over the world, and free of the regime that killed 35,000 of its own citizens in January this year. With that mind, may I thank the Home Secretary very much for her decision to ban the al-Quds Day march? It is very important that we in this House take a stand to show that we support those in Iran who are fighting for freedom.
In the light of repeated concerns of law enforcement and community organisations about the risk of public disorder and clashes with protesters, what further steps will the Home Secretary take to prevent groups promoting extreme ideologies from organising events that will incite intimidation or violence against minorities or other vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make the statement, it has been brought to attention of the Chair that it is possible that information has not been shared in due time. The requirement to provide a copy of the statement to the Opposition before it is made is set out in the ministerial code—in chapter 9, if the Minister wants to refresh himself. I am not responsible for policing the ministerial code, but it is clearly a discourtesy to the House not to make information available in good time. Those on the Treasury Bench, and no doubt the Ministers responsible, will have heard me and will ensure that this does not happen again.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
I apologise to the House if we were a few minutes short of the standard 45 minutes to an hour prior to the statement in publishing the documents, but I can confirm that they have now been laid before the House and are available on gov.uk.
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. The Government committed to responding to that Humble Address, and I can today confirm that we are releasing a first tranche of documents, which have been laid before the House in advance of this statement, and are now published on gov.uk for the public. There are further tranches of documents to come as officials work through the full scope of the Humble Address.
It is important to recognise the strength of feeling across the House—my own included—in our disgust and horror at the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite Epstein’s criminal conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl. This included encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight that conviction.
Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most horrifying and disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is, of course, unforgivable, and I know that his victims will be in the thoughts and prayers of all Members across the House as we debate these issues today. Those victims will always be our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was an insult to them and their suffering, and I am sorry that these events leave them with no choice but to relive their horrors, with still too little justice being served. That is why there is cross-party consensus in this House for full transparency and accountability, why anybody with knowledge must co-operate with inquiries, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and why the Government are therefore committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address.
The Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and has apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that this Government would like to have been able to disclose today, but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to publish yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request and will therefore publish those documents in the future, as soon as the Metropolitan police has confirmed that they will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As the House already understands, the Government must also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Any such material will be, and is being, referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance in this matter and can confirm to the House that it has agreed with a limited redaction, requested by the Government, in relation to one document that we are publishing today. Outside of that arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are, ultimately, for the Government.
The documents released today relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. They include: the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which was passed to No. 10 prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment; information provided to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to whether full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson’s appointment; papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him; and details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed that he be withdrawn as ambassador, thereby terminating his employment by the civil service.
While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the United States Department of Justice. After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in No. 10, as right hon. and hon. Members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle, and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation, and we will publish this document when the investigation allows. When we do, Members will be able to see Peter Mandelson’s answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing. Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country, and I reiterate to the House that the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word. It was a mistake to do so.
I can, however, confirm to the House—as agreed with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker—that we have shared the documents that are with the Metropolitan police with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police, to ensure as much transparency to this House as possible.
As soon as the truth became apparent, following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw Peter Mandelson from his role. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will also read in these documents with interest how Peter Mandelson conducted himself after his withdrawal as ambassador. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum for his severance payment that was substantially larger than the final payment—not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount, despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs involving a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant, rather than a Minister. As the House will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal, but civil servants are treated differently.
The Government are committed to complying with the Humble Address, and further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in its scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep Members updated as that work progresses.
We know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required. We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and to ensure that when standards of behaviour fall short of the high standards expected, there will be more serious consequences. We have launched the Ethics and Integrity Commission to promote the highest standards in public life and we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
Ministers will now be expected to forgo severance payments following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and we have given the independent adviser the power to initiate investigations into ministerial misconduct without the need to seek the Prime Minister’s permission first. The Prime Minister has also strengthened the ministerial code, with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality, and we have asked the Conduct Committee in the Lords to review the code of conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute in the other place. We are also exploring whether the Committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with Commons procedures.
I want to note that the vast majority of individuals who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions. However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case, we have asked questions about how we can further strengthen the rules and processes that underpin the operation of government. We have appointed Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent in the upper House to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new Minister in the Cabinet Office. I can also announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, and we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case.
Let me conclude by reiterating that the whole House will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and that Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. As the Prime Minister has said,
“the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied.”
We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences far too often and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and the Government will comply with the Humble Address. I will update the House further in due course. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your remarks at the outset of this statement. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, which I received at 1.30 pm. This whole business is really about transparency. The Government have had to be dragged to do this by Members on both sides of this House, so producing a 135-page document and putting it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. I respect the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber and making this statement, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there, because all of this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. It is very convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister’s questions, during which the man who made the decision—the man whose judgment is in question—could have been put under scrutiny by hon. Members. Very many questions arise from the documents published. I will put a few on record, and then return to the central theme.
There is the issue of severance pay, to which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referred. Why did Ministers agree to any severance pay, given what had happened? Many of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received £70,000. Will his full declaration of interests, which he was supposed to have handed over when he was appointed, be published? I do not believe that they are included in the tranche of documents published today. Is that because of a police request, or is it for some other reason? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister publish a register of withheld and delayed documents, so that the House can be aware of what is being held back? Will he give us a little more information, either now or in the future, on redactions? It is important that this House understands who is deciding on what will be redacted.
This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that, as this House meets, one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the centre of this scandal was a very rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position, and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates, one of whom was Peter Mandelson. Although I of course associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about Epstein’s victims, it is very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister’s mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction for his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice, and it is a choice that we can now read about in black and white on page 11 of the publication. It says:
“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.”
The Prime Minister claims that he was lied to; he was not lied to by this due diligence document. It may be that Mandelson denied those claims, and if so, perhaps the Prime Minister was lied to, but by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, could not see through this nonsense. It beggars belief.
Over the coming hours and days, we will see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment failed so badly, but we must suspect that it was because his then chief of staff was Mandelson’s protégé. Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister’s private campaigning organisation. Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organisation, which had been responsible for breaking electoral law so that it could hide the sources of its funds from the public and from the Labour party. Labour Together then sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that wrongdoing, and it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the Cabinet with free money and free services. This was the ultimate “jobs for the boys”. The Prime Minister knew all that he needed to know. It was on him; it is on him now. He let his party and his country down. I very much doubt that either will trust him again.
Darren Jones
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me a number of questions, which I shall take in turn. The first was on the severance payment. He asked me why that payment had been made, and who approved it. As I set out in my opening statement, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a Minister. That meant that on his summary dismissal by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As we can see in the documents, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum, with the implied threat that there would be legal proceedings, with associated costs. The Government would not have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson, but they reluctantly agreed to the award, given the contrast between the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees, and the cost of a payment; in the advice, the latter cost would have been higher than the amount that was given. The Prime Minister has since said that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it.
On the question of who approved the severance payment, the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved, in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly, and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. For the sake of completeness, there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval. I can confirm to the House that I did not receive that request, or indeed approve it.
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation. I hope that the House is somewhat reassured by the mechanism that we have been able to establish with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has sight of these documents, albeit in a contained and controlled way. Government redactions to the documents are to protect only the names and contact details of junior civil servants, as is the practice. Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Lastly, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about the report from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. As I said in my opening statement, the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the Cabinet Office. His advisers at No. 10 undertook to answer those questions. Although that is a document that we cannot publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s associations bring a real stench to the appointment process, but I want to know about the business associations, and how they are scrutinised in the process. We know that Peter Mandelson’s public relations company, Global Counsel, had as a client Palantir, which has won lucrative contracts from successive Governments. I want to understand whether the papers demonstrate those associations, and the associations that Peter Mandelson then brought into Government.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will see from the documents that are being published today that those commercial interests were raised by the Cabinet Office, and that established processes were in place that meant that new members of the civil service had to remove such commercial interests before taking office. There is some commentary in the bundle about the conversation that was had with Peter Mandelson in advance of his appointment as ambassador to the United States, specifically about that question. Having said all that, part of the review that we are taking forward is another look at the business appointment rules, to make sure that the processes that were applied were robust enough in the situation that we are discussing. If we need to further strengthen them, we stand ready to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is a stain on our nation that we are even having to go through this. It is right that we keep Epstein’s victims, survivors and families at the front of our mind.
Today marks the first day of Britain’s own Epstein files. For a close friend of Epstein to have been made Britain’s ambassador to the United States is a shameful part of this affair; that is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister is not here to answer for that, and for his catastrophic failure of judgment with respect to Mandelson.
Peter Mandelson’s close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the fact that it continued long after long after Epstein’s conviction for child sex trafficking, had been reported by both Channel 4’s “Dispatches” in 2019 and the Financial Times in 2023. Has the Prime Minister told the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister personally how those reports made him feel, and why he still felt it was right to appoint Mandelson anyway? Mandelson’s £75,000 payout is an insult to Epstein’s victims—if he had a shred of decency left he would donate it to charity—but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s explanation of why the Government made that payout simply will not wash.
With a very limited number of documents being released today, the wait goes on for the rest of Britain’s Epstein files. That includes the documents relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor required by the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, which was passed a fortnight ago. I very much hope that the Government will get those documents out as quickly as possible. It has taken five weeks from the Mandelson Humble Address to publication today. Will the Chief Secretary guarantee that the first Andrew papers will be published within the same timeframe, and by 31 March at the latest?
Darren Jones
As I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets having appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States. It was the wrong decision, and he has apologised for it.
On severance, as I said, the Government would not have wanted to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but it was the quickest way to remove him as ambassador and a member of the civil service. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats said—the Government agree with him—the honourable thing to do would be to donate that money to an appropriate charity.
On the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, that is being managed by the Department for Business and Trade; it is working on that now, and will come forward with updates in due course. As I said in my statement, the Cabinet Office will come back with a further tranche of documents in relation to the Humble Address as soon as possible.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
If one of my constituents told me they had lost their job or been sacked because they had lied during the application process and they wanted compensation, I would tell them they had absolutely no chance of getting it, so I really struggle to understand why we paid a penny. I understand what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said about not wanting to make a payment, but the risk of an employment tribunal claim in such circumstances is minuscule. He is right that the money should have been paid to a victims charity. Will he now press Mandelson to do the right thing and give that money to the victims of abuse?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend and the House will see from the bundle of documents published today that the Government acted on the basis of legal advice in awarding that settlement payment, but I agree wholeheartedly, and repeat from the Dispatch Box that the honourable thing for Peter Mandelson to do would be to donate the payment to an appropriate charity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I acknowledge what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said with regards to my role as Chair of the Committee looking at documents pro tem on behalf of the House. As he knows, that will be done properly.
Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is right that under the civil service rules, Mandelson could have made a claim to a tribunal, but the hon. Gentleman is also right that anybody doing so who has secured a position by deception would find themselves on the thinnest of thin ice; they would have no chance at all. Mandelson’s original claim just underscores the shamelessness of the individual in question.
As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has admitted that the Prime Minister was lied to—that is deception—was legal advice sought as to the likely outcome of any employment tribunal case brought by Mandelson? If it was, what was that advice? If it was not, why not?
Darren Jones
The advice is in the bundle of documents published today; the hon. Gentleman will have to forgive my not being able to refer him to precisely the right page. While it is not for me to defend the claim that Peter Mandelson was making against the Government, one of the issues would of course have been the legal fees in defending that claim at the employment tribunal, which would have been a cost to the taxpayer even if in the end the Government would have been successful. Those considerations were put to the Government in advice, which is why that settlement figure—a much lower figure than the legal fees and potential settlement being asked for—was the case.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I have listened to the Minister, and some of his points were relevant, but this is not just about technicalities and lapses of judgment. This is about a wider, rotten political culture: a 30-year project where proximity to wealth and power is not a means to an end but the end goal. That is what Peter Mandelson represented. This is not just about him being the ambassador or being selected to be ambassador; he was at the heart of the political project around No. 10. That has to change. Do the Government understand that out there, this is about not just one bad set of decisions but a political culture, which Peter Mandelson represents, and that it is destroying mainstream party politics in this country? Do we get that? Do we understand that? Will we change?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend and I are members of the labour movement because we share the same values. We are here to represent the voices of working people and those across the country who have no power and no access. That is what our movement was created to do, and we share that ambition. Do I recognise that we are still operating in a system where power and wealth can lead to these outcomes? Absolutely. Do we have a shared ambition to tackle that? Yes, we do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister will know that the Government have a Bill about the duty of accountability and candour going through the House; one of his colleagues on the Front Bench will confirm that that requires Ministers to answer questions with candour. Several weeks ago, three Members of this House asked him what Mandelson’s pay-off was, and he refused to answer. I ask him to reflect on whether he acted with candour.
Back to the question of whether Mandelson deserved a pay-out, is it not the truth that the Government know that this tissue—this story or suggestion that they were lied to and that there was no possible way they could have found out the truth—would have been torn apart in an employment tribunal, and that is why they did not want to take the case to one?
Darren Jones
That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The statement has truly been sickening. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that the sickening behaviour and conduct of Mandelson is in part a symptom of structural misogyny? Will he use his office to drive structural misogyny out of Whitehall and Westminster?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise the bigger issues in question about the process of appointment, disclosure and deceit, and the rules that are in place. Above and beyond all that, unfortunately, is a country and a world in which the voices of women who are subject to male violence are not heard and the abuse of power and privilege is still rampant. I think all of us—in any party and in any part of the House—would want to suggest that that is not how we wish the world to operate. We should all do what we can to change that. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls, and it is why we talk about how we tackle structural misogyny, whether at the heart of our political system, in business or elsewhere. I know that my hon. Friend and I share those ambitions and will do all that we can to make them a reality.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
If I listened to the Chief Secretary correctly, which I think I did, he said, “His victims must be our first priority.” Let us be clear: for the Prime Minister, they were not. On 11 December 2024, he received advice that says,
“Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008”.
The following sentence says,
“Mandelson…stayed in Epstein’s House…in June 2009.”
I repeat: the victims were not the Prime Minister’s first priority.
That being the case, how can the Chief Secretary stand at that Dispatch Box, with a straight face, and say,
“We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences”,
when it was the Prime Minister who chose to ignore those experiences, ignore those facts and appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place?
Darren Jones
Forgive me. The right hon. Member will have heard from my statement that in response to the reported allegations that are listed in the Cabinet Office due diligence—at the time they were, of course, allegations—questions were put to Peter Mandelson by No. 10 advisers. His responses to those questions are part of documents that we would have liked to publish today but are not yet able to. Since then, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that Peter Mandelson lied to him. He regrets believing those lies and if he had known the depth and extent of that relationship, which nobody in this House understood until the Bloomberg publication of documents and the US Department of Justice disclosures, he would never have appointed him in the first place.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The release of documents outlining what was known about Mandelson’s association with Epstein is welcome. Mandelson’s avarice, his business connections and his malign influence within the Labour party are simultaneously why he was made ambassador and why he was useful to Epstein. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be seeking to distance ourselves from flawed democracies that are drifting towards authoritarianism, such as the United States, rather than using those associated with sex offenders to strengthen such relationships?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know from the statements of the Prime Minister and the documents published today that he regrets having ever appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. In our country, we rightly respect the rules that are in place and that need to be observed, and there must be clear consequences for people who breach them. As I have said in earlier answers, even in our country, we have much further to go to tackle violence against women and girls and structural misogyny, and we should all have a shared ambition to tackle that as quickly as possible.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Chief Secretary deserves our admiration for always being calm and courteous, even in the most trying circumstances, but he really must not take us for fools. Peter Mandelson had a reputation as one of the most slippery and sleazy characters in modern British politics. The Chief Secretary confirms that the Prime Minister was warned about what Mandelson had done in continuing a relationship with Epstein after he had been sent to jail for abusing a young girl. He is saying, “Well, the Prime Minister did not know the depth of this relationship.” Does he really expect us to believe that a shallow relationship with a convicted paedophile is okay?
Darren Jones
At the time of the appointment, there were public comments from Peter Mandelson—I think they were in a Financial Times interview—saying that his relationship had ended much earlier than documents now show to be the case. On the back of the Cabinet Office reports about those newspaper stories, the Prime Minister had further questions put to Peter Mandelson, documents for which we will be able to publish in due course. That is why the Prime Minister says that he regrets having believed Peter Mandelson’s lies and wishes he had never appointed him in the first place.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The appointment of Lord Mandelson was not just a catastrophic error of judgment that has caused profound damage to this Government’s reputation; it was the result of a clique at the top of the party, as we have seen with the Morgan McSweeney and Labour Together scandal, which I and colleagues on the Labour Benches have called on the Prime Minister and the general secretary of the Labour party to launch an independent investigation into. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline what structural safeguards are being implemented today to ensure that cronyism never again overrides the national interest in high-level appointments?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to the list of changes that the Government are undertaking in my statement earlier, from the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and a review of the business appointment rules to looking at the role of lobbying and transparency, to make sure that there are consequences for the few people who seek to breach those rules. Alongside the duty of candour Bill, which has been mentioned in the debate, that will be the widest range of changes to our ethics and standards framework in many, many years, if not a generation. I reiterate, as I said in my statement, that the vast majority of public servants serve the public for the right reasons and adhere to the rules. Evidently, when there are those who seek to evade them, we need to ensure that we are more effective at catching that in future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I find this faux outrage about Mandelson astonishing. He is a man who had been closely involved with the leadership of the Labour party ever since Tony Blair and very closely with the current Prime Minister since 2020. They must have known his character; they must have known what he was like. In the documents that the Government are now producing, will we know every piece of advice that was given to the Prime Minister by his officials and by the Foreign Office? Specifically, will there be a record of any verbal briefings given to the Prime Minister before he made the calamitous decision to send Mandelson to Washington? The public need to know why the Prime Minister, despite all the knowledge about Mandelson, felt the need to go ahead with the appointment.
Darren Jones
The tranche of documents today that relate to the appointment and then the dismissal of Peter Mandelson as ambassador is inclusive of all the documents held by Government, bar those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police for its criminal investigation. There are no further documents that have not been published.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. Will the Chief Secretary set out to the House when we might have an update on the proposed legislation in that regard?
Darren Jones
As the House knows from previous statements on this issue, we want to ensure that where people break the rules, there are consequences for that behaviour. One of the areas where that was not the case was the appointment of life peer in the other place, as there were no provisions for taking a peerage from somebody in any circumstance. That has been a problem in the past in relation to criminal convictions and other disreputable behaviour. It is right, therefore, that the Government are working with the other place to bring forward legislation to give the authority and powers for that to happen in future, and we will come forward with those proposals in due course.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Two Global Counsel clients benefited from direct Government defence awards and Global Counsel staff flew to Washington parties to join Peter Mandelson. Will the Minister confirm that, either in this bundle or in future documents, there will be a rigorous report to Parliament of the background to those awards and to all the parties, with guest lists, so that Parliament can see what happened and how we improve things and make sure it never happens again?
Darren Jones
I confirm that all other documents that are in scope of the Humble Address that are not being published today will be, subject to the Metropolitan police and clearance from the Intelligence and Security Committee, published in the next tranche.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I hold in my hand the advice that was given to the Prime Minister before he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the USA. Reading that advice document, it is clear that the Prime Minister would not have given the go ahead for this individual to stand as a Labour candidate for town council. Instead, he was elevated, despite what is in the document and despite what was known, to this most important of positions.
There is a whole section entitled “Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein”. The question that has to be asked is: how did it even get to the stage of the Prime Minister interviewing Mandelson and considering him for the job? The simple answer is political. It is because it suited the interests of a tiny faction in the Labour party, funded by big business, which wanted Mandelson at the heart of things in order to shift a Labour Government away from the agenda that a real Labour Government should have. That is why Mandelson was popular with these people, that is why he was one of their favourite sons and that is why, despite his despicable character, despite his greed and his avarice, he was put in that position despite what was known. Is that not the case?
Darren Jones
It is not for me to speak on behalf of Peter Mandelson, but evidently he put himself forward for this role, which is how he ended up in the process in the first place. To the question of his appointment, as I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets his appointment and apologises for it, and had he known what the House now knows, he would never have appointed him in the first place.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
In his remarks, the Chief Secretary mentions policy and process weaknesses in our political system, and he is right to do so, but surely the real failure is that of the Prime Minister’s judgment. He also talks about the depth of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein not being known, but Mandelson’s character was, and it was known for a long time. There was a long-standing interview exercise when somebody was applying to be a press officer for the Liberal Democrats. They were told: “Peter Mandelson has resigned in disgrace again. Draft the press release.” It is difficult to legislate out poor judgment, but the Chief Secretary has talked about legislating for policy and process weaknesses. When does he plan to bring forward this legislation?
Darren Jones
A number of changes can be made without legislation, and I will be able to update the House on that in due course. That will of course be quicker to implement as a consequence of its not requiring statute. Where we specifically need statutory changes, which I think at this stage will predominantly relate to the removal of peerages from those who bring the other place into disrepute, we will bring those forward in the coming months.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and also for the tone in which he has brought it here today. It has been quite an open statement in terms of the discussion. As a Government, we are serious about the whole agenda of violence against women and girls, and I just cannot conclude that giving Mandelson £75,000 is compatible with that, so I hope that he repays it. Constituents in Edinburgh South West are really concerned about Epstein’s links into the British establishment, particularly given the allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson himself. I know that a live court case and investigation are under way, but can the Government commit to a public inquiry into Epstein’s links into the British state, once these court cases are over?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in this country and that investigations are happening in the United States, in Congress and elsewhere. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody who had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or any connection to the events or organisations that he hosted should be readily putting themselves forward to answer any questions and trying to help bring justice to the victims, who have been waiting for too long.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
When will the Government release Mandelson’s declaration of interest, and why is it not included in the documents released today?
Darren Jones
All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published in the tranche today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police. All further documents that relate to the Humble Address will be released in the second tranche, which will be in the coming weeks.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary rightly referred to a wider set of reforms on openness, accountability and transparency that will now be considered, and I welcome Baroness Anderson’s appointment to support that work. Can he assure me that lobbying reform writ large will be in scope of the Ethics and Integrity Commission review, and that that will include looking at previous Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee reports, including the PACAC recommendations on the Greensill David Cameron lobbying scandal that still have not been responded to? Does he also agree that the antidote to the distrust that we have seen in politics can be better public participation? I want to acknowledge the launch of the citizens assembly yesterday, and I personally believe that more citizens assemblies will bring power closer to the people and away from power and wealth in this country.
Darren Jones
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his years of work on that issue. I can confirm that the wide-ranging set of reviews that are taking place today will happily receive submissions from him and others in this and the other place, should they wish to make them. We will be looking at current and previous reports from the relevant Committees in the normal way.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
These papers show that, on 11 December 2024, just nine days before the Prime Minister confirmed Mandelson as the new ambassador, he was specifically advised of the J.P. Morgan report from 2009, which expressly said that Mandelson maintained a “particularly close relationship” with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Yet the Prime Minister, a former chief prosecutor, chose in those circumstances, with that information, to believe the lies of Mandelson. How could that be? And given that it is, what does it say about the judgment of our Prime Minister?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has said that he regrets believing the lies of Peter Mandelson and that, had he known the depth and extent of the relationship that we now all know and have confirmed, he would never have appointed him in the first place. That is why the Prime Minister has apologised and acknowledged that this appointment was a mistake.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Epstein was a truly despicable criminal and Mandelson’s lying and actions with Epstein shamed the nation, but does the Chief Secretary agree that what we must not do right now is to compromise the criminal investigations that the Met is currently undertaking? To do so would be to fail the victims of Epstein and their families. Can the Chief Secretary also reassure the House that, as and when documents become available, they will be published in a timely manner?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have for too long had justice delayed or denied, and the very worst that we could do is to undermine a criminal investigation that may at last bring some justice for the horrors that they have suffered. That is why the Government are working closely with the Metropolitan police to ensure that we do everything we can to not prejudice that investigation. It is why there are some documents that we have chosen not to publish, at the request of the Metropolitan police, even though we might like to do so. I am grateful to the Metropolitan police for agreeing to allow us to put those documents before the Chair of the relevant Select Committee so that in some way, on behalf of the House, there can be independent verification that we are not misusing that process in any way to withhold any documents, when we are completely committed to full transparency.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Like all statements, it is not just what is in but what is left out. We learned today that the due diligence, which has not been spoken about in any detail in the statement, provided to the Prime Minister before Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, warned that it would pose a “general reputational risk”. This is not just about the Prime Minister sitting down and having a chat with Mandelson and not believing him. He was warned that this would pose a “general reputational risk”. My question to the Minister is very simple. Which failing does he think the Prime Minister suffers from: ignorance, arrogance or both?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. He believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put to him in response to questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As soon as all of us, including the Prime Minister, became aware that those were indeed lies, with the publication of the documents from Bloomberg and the United States Department of Justice, he was dismissed promptly.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In my investigations into Palantir, it has been brought to my attention that 20 years ago Peter Mandelson was lobbying the Government very hard to take on board a strategic supplier from the United States that was not an obvious choice at the time. That sort of decision is something that a financier like Epstein would have taken advantage of and made money from. We see the same things with influence and persuasion from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Will the Government commit to following the money and the money trail to ensure that we are not continuing to pay into Epstein’s estate through the deals that we are doing with large American contractors such as Palantir?
Darren Jones
I am not familiar with the details of the case the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he wishes to write to me with those details, I can commit to him that we will look at them.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister has said that he wants to be open with us. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about when Peter Mandelson ceased employment at the Foreign Office and I never got a response. They were first tabled on 4 February. There was a flurry of emails on 4 February without any context to them at all. Will he provide the context? Is it a coincidence? Why could the Minister not answer my question previously? And if he does want to be open, then let us try another one. He said that Peter Mandelson was fired because he told lies, but he has been given a £75,000 pay-off: £35,000 of that was a special severance payment; £30,000 was tax-free. Why on earth was it tax-free?
Darren Jones
In relation to the tax-free treatment for payments following dismissal without recourse to the employment tribunal, those are the tax rules that exist in all circumstances in this country. The Government did not have the legal powers to override them. On the parliamentary questions, I think the documents the hon. Gentleman is hoping to see are being published today and they of course speak for themselves.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Cabinet Office questions on 5 March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new director general of the propriety and ethics team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now received a copy of the civil service recruitment framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior civil service, must require ministerial authorisation either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition. Given the importance of the transparency and confidence in this Government’s propriety and ethics system, can you please advise the House how Members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a Minister’s statement to the House and the provisions set out in the civil service recruitment framework 2022?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers—
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not recognise the discrepancy. As I have said to the House previously, there was a temporary appointment to the role in question within the rules. Permanent appointments to that role will be subject to the normal recruitment processes, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with more detail, I will happily respond to him in writing.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope that satisfies the hon. Member, otherwise he can obviously pursue this further.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has the Speaker received any notice of a statement from the Government following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) to the Prime Minister this morning regarding the contents of a memo from the Prime Minister to Cabinet members advising them to disregard opposition from devolved Governments to direct interventions by Westminster Ministers. Can you advise me how the long-standing Sewel convention, which enshrines the protocol that Westminster Governments do not intervene in devolved matters in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, has been respected in this matter, and can you direct me to which bin this has been filed by the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I have received no such indication from the Government—
Madam Deputy Speaker
But I can see that the Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person once again.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issues raised in the Cabinet note that has, I understand, been leaked to journalists are important and the Government take them seriously. The Sewel convention is an important framework for the role in which the UK Government respect the devolved responsibilities of devolved Governments, one for which I am the responsible Minister, which is why I have repeated engagement with the First and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments about our relationship working together. I just remind the House that devolved Governments are important but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are two Governments—the UK Government and the devolved Government—and that is why we retain the right to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as in England.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I apologise that I have not been able to give you notice of this, but it is in reference to the earlier response and to the documents. I tabled a written parliamentary question about when Peter Mandelson left his employment on 4 February. The emails on 4 February show that officials knew the answer to that question on 16 October. Not only was it late coming back, and I had to table a second question, but no answer was forthcoming. We have a role and a job to hold this Government to account. They knew the answer to the question and they did not answer that question, and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will take that extraordinarily seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Although I did not get prior notice of the hon. Member’s question, I can appreciate how anxious he would be. It is incredibly important that Members, who are sent here by their constituents, have their questions answered quickly—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person; that is very fast indeed.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only apologise to Members of the House if answers to parliamentary questions have not been quick enough to meet their expectations. I just remind Members and the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) that all the documents that have been published today have had to be subject to checks with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee so as not to prejudice criminal investigations, which, as I am sure he and all Members across the House will agree, we do not want to interfere with inappropriately.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure if responses to Members were forthcoming, the Chief Secretary might not have to respond at the Dispatch Box to points of order.
Lord Advocate
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the role and functions of the Lord Advocate; and for connected purposes.
Chaos and decay are priced into the lives of people in Scotland as they suffer under the yoke of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood. However, the latest crisis there strikes at the integrity of Scots law, and so demands action this day—and not mere indifference.
The Lord Advocate is the most senior law officer in Scotland, in ultimate charge of all criminal proceedings, sitting at the pinnacle of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That same Lord Advocate also sits in Cabinet as a pivotal adviser to the Scottish Executive, who style themselves the Scottish Government. Just saying it out loud is alarming: the head of criminal prosecutions sits cheek-by-jowl with the politicians who are supposed to run Scotland—she sits at the Cabinet table with the very people who appointed her. Although it is a situation created by the advent of devolution, this cannot be right, for there ought not to be even the merest suggestion of a conflict of interests. It is not the stuff of a 21st-century democracy, let alone the country of the enlightenment.
“Ah,” say apologists, “the Lord Advocate simply recuses herself in certain cases and is merely the titular head of some prosecutions.” This is meant to be high-minded—an elegant solution concocted by the legal hierarchy in the salons of Edinburgh—but it is cloyingly cosy and has for years been the subject of disquiet. Now this comfortable nostrum has been shattered by recent revelations made possible only by a vigorous free press. Newspapers broke the news that the present Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, provided briefings to First Minister John Swinney about a court case involving Peter Murrell, former chief executive of the SNP and, further, the estranged husband of ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It was reported that the details and timelines for the case, none of which was public knowledge, were presented to Mr Swinney. The court case will reportedly not now come to trial before next year, conveniently after Holyrood’s elections this May.
Of course, given that proceedings are active, I must be extremely circumspect about that case. Regardless, we in this place must concern ourselves with the dual role of the Lord Advocate: the twin hats of prosecutor and Government adviser on one learned head. The dual role is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, and so this Bill is designed to allow for the separation of roles such that the head of Scotland’s prosecution service is, in future, entirely separate from that of Government adviser. That situation is best practice in modern democracies and pertains here in England where the head of the Crown Prosecution Service sits entirely apart from the Cabinet and Government.
We often discuss contentious matters in this House, but this is an issue on which there is surprising unanimity. Almost exactly a year ago, the Prime Minister agreed with me when I raised the Lord Advocate’s two jobs that it was an important matter and indicated that Scottish Labour supported splitting the roles. At the Conservative and Unionist conference in Edinburgh last month, the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition joined Scottish party leader Russell Findlay in calling for robust action in this House. Even the SNP committed in its manifesto to looking at the dual role disaster. Yet under the divisive hand of John Swinney, Scotland is a land where the inevitable never happens and the improbable always does.
Mr Swinney has belatedly published a report into the mechanics of separating the Lord Advocate from the Cabinet so that Scotland can have a conspicuously independent prosecutor and the Scottish Administration can still have sound legal advice. Yet there is no indication of any move actually to separate the roles and, indeed, the Scottish Executive yesterday put out a statement lauding the “strengths” of the current arrangement. The public are entitled to question those supposed strengths and whether they are trumped by the perception of a conflict of interest when the role of legal adviser to the Scottish Government is concentrated in one person who is also chief prosecutor.
Politicians legislate; lawyers enact the laws. When prosecutors are, or are even perceived to be, too close to politicians, like moths drawn too close to the flame of power, the public may rightly fear that the law is compromised, and so we must act. Some will claim that this is overweening Westminster bullying pawky Holyrood—not so. Holyrood itself could drain this quagmire now by seeking a section 30 order to vary the Scotland Act, clearing the way for separation of the Law Officers’ roles. That would be internal to the Edinburgh Parliament—a move to restore public faith in the law by its own elected Members. Albeit belated and tardy, such a move would, I contend, be welcomed as an attempt to lift the cloud that hangs over Scots law. Will Mr Swinney at this eleventh hour—and against the run of play, for he has been at the heart of every wrong-headed decision by the SNP for almost two decades—do the correct thing? That is unlikely, and so on behalf of the right-thinking public in Scotland, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Cooper, John Lamont, David Mundell, Harriet Cross, Andrew Bowie, David Davis, Jamie Stone, Christine Jardine, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Elaine Stewart, Torcuil Crichton and John Grady present the Bill.
John Cooper accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 403).
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Ways and Means (Amendment of Power to Make Further Provision Relating to Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I draw the House’s attention to the unusual circumstances of moving a Ways and Means motion after the Finance Bill. During the course of the Budget, we had a discussion on the founding motions that had been laid at that point. They did not include an amendment of the law motion, which historically was sensible practice and which Labour previously complained about the Conservatives removing—the Conservative Chancellor at the time said it was simply an administrative change. In fact, removing the amendment of the law motion means that the Government have now to table new founding motions, otherwise they cannot make the tax changes they are looking to make. It also means that no Member in this House can move anything that is outside the scope of those motions. It restricts debate by any Member of taxation measures that they would like to introduce if they sit outside those founding motions.
Progress has been made on the Bill. Committee proceedings were held in the House initially and moved into the Bill Committee. I have previously raised significant concerns about the fact that the Finance Bill does not take oral evidence at any stage in its passage through the House. It does not take oral evidence in the Commons because it has already had part of the Committee stage in the main Chamber, despite the fact that the stuff we do in Bill Committee is usually on the more technical pieces, which would very much benefit from oral evidence sessions, and that it would not hold up progress on the Bill much. In fact, we have had a significant amount of downtime with this Finance Bill, and there have been periods of time when those oral evidence sessions could have been taken. We end up in a situation where scrutiny happens, we look at all the things included in the Bill, we come to Report after line-by-line scrutiny, and then the Government add new founding motions in order to add new parts to the Bill.
I have significant concerns about the reasons scrutiny is being conducted in this way. Will the Government commit either to ensuring that they do not do this again, because it is not a good way to ensure transparency and scrutiny of legislation, or to including an amendment of the law motion, as historically was normal practice? That would allow the Government to make the changes they need to make today without having to table new Ways and Means motions.
If the Minister is concerned about that course of action, he might want to note that 45 minutes have been scheduled for each of these Ways and Means motions, and in future iterations of the Finance Bill it would be entirely possible for Members to talk for 45 minutes on them. Adding new Ways and Means motions gives Members additional time to talk about those specific things, which would reduce scrutiny on the important things that the Minister, I am sure, wishes to talk about when we come to the main part of the Finance Bill. If the Minister could commit to having a look at the way that this was done to try to ensure that we are not again in the situation where Ways and Means motions are added at the very last stage of a Bill’s progress, or, as I say, to including that amendment of the law motion, which would allow them the necessary flexibility, that would be helpful and would certainly dissuade me from talking for 45 minutes on a Ways and Means motion in the next iteration of the Finance Bill.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her remarks, as well as for her scrutiny of this process, which I appreciate no matter where it comes from.
The hon. Member is right to flag that this is not the typical process. For future Finance Bills, I will—if I am in my position—endeavour to ensure that Ways and Means motions are not brought at this late stage. She is also right to point out that this debate—although I do not believe that there are any other bobbers—and any debate on the subsequent motion could go on for 45 minutes, and that discussions may ensue. I would be happy to consider the process.
This technical amendment allows for the introduction of regulations required as part of the abolition of the lifetime allowance, in order to have a retrospective effect going back to the point when the lifetime allowance was originally abolished. That ensures that the changes we are making operate as intended. It is a small and technical measure, but I take the hon. Member’s point that it adds a new part to the Bill and means that a new resolution has been brought forward. I hope that—notwithstanding the valid points raised by the hon. Member—Members will understand that position, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Finance (No.2) Bill: Ways and Means (Offshore income gains)
Motion made, and Question proposed (Standing Order No. 52(1)(b)),
That provision (including provision having effect for the tax year 2025-26) may be made revoking—
(a) paragraphs (2) to (5) of regulation 20 of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009, and
(b) paragraphs (4) to (6) of regulation 21 of those Regulations.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:38 - divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Offshore income gains: savings.
Government new clause 7—Pensions: abolition of the lifetime allowance charge.
New clause 1—Report on fairness and scope of the loan charge settlement opportunity—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report on the operation and impact of any loan charge settlement opportunity established under section 25 of this Act.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular consider—
(a) whether the terms of the settlement opportunity are available to individuals who have previously settled or fully paid liabilities arising from disguised remuneration loan arrangements,
(b) whether the terms of the settlement opportunity are available to individuals with disguised remuneration loan arrangements falling outside the loan charge years specified in Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003,
(c) the extent to which any differences in treatment between these groups and those eligible for the settlement opportunity affect perceptions of fairness, and
(d) the potential impact of such perceptions on future tax compliance and trust in the tax system.
(3) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of whether extending more favourable settlement terms to the groups described in subsection (2)(a) and (b) would improve fairness and consistency, and
(b) any recommendations HMRC consider appropriate in light of that assessment.”
This new clause would require HMRC to report on the operation and fairness of the new loan charge settlement opportunity. It would consider whether more favourable terms are, or should be, available to those who have a already settled or fully paid liabilities, and to those with arrangements outside the loan charge years.
New clause 2—Report on implementation customer service standards in relation to sections 253 to 258—
“(1) The Commissioners must, within six months of the commencement of sections 253 to 258, lay before the House of Commons a report setting out—
(a) customer service standards for persons granted exemptions under regulations made under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule A1 to the Taxes Management Act 1970, including—
(i) maximum waiting times for telephone helpline calls,
(ii) minimum call answering rates,
(iii) maximum response times for written correspondence, and
(iv) availability of in-person support;
(b) measures taken to ensure adequate staffing and resources to meet those standards;
(c) data on actual performance against those standards in each quarter; and
(d) remedial action to be taken where standards are not met.
(2) The customer service standards published under subsection (1) must ensure that persons granted exemptions under regulations made under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule A1 to the Taxes Management Act 1970 can access support through non-digital channels with service levels comparable to those historically provided before the introduction of Making Tax Digital.
(3) The Commissioners must publish an annual report on compliance with the customer service standards established under subsection (1), and lay a copy of the report before the House of Commons.”
This new clause would require HMRC to establish and publish customer service standards for tax payers exempted from Making Tax Digital requirements due to digital exclusion.
New clause 3—Report on winter fuel payment charge and related compliance and collection measures—
“(1) The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs must lay before the House of Commons a report on the operation and effects of the charge applied to winter fuel payments where an individual’s income exceeds the relevant threshold, including the compliance and collection arrangements introduced under section 55 and Schedule 10 in relation to that charge.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular consider—
(a) the effect of the charge on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount, and any resulting behavioural impacts,
(b) the administrative complexity and proportionality of introducing a tapered abatement for winter fuel payments,
(c) the potential effect of updating section 7 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 so that a winter fuel payment charge becomes a notifiable liability for tax assessment purposes, including the operation of penalties for failure to notify, and the interaction with existing exceptions for liabilities reflected in PAYE tax coding adjustments or where a taxpayer has already been issued a notice to file a self-assessment return, and
(d) the operation and effectiveness of any new PAYE regulation provisions that allow winter fuel payment charges to be collected via tax code adjustments in year, and which allow HMRC to repay any overpaid income tax related to the charge via the tax code within the same year.”
This new clause would require HMRC to report to Parliament on the operation of the winter fuel payment charge, including its effect on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount. The report would also cover the implications of updating section 7 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 to make winter fuel payment charge liabilities notifiable for tax assessment purposes.
New clause 4—Implementing the prohibition of the promotion of certain tax avoidance arrangements—
“(1) The Treasury must, within six months of the passing of this Act, consult and report on—
(a) how to ensure the regulations specified under section 156(2) of this Act can address the potential for harm to individuals and small businesses from the promotion online and via social media of tax avoidance arrangements by professionals and by social media tax influencers,
(b) the potential for detriment to individuals who are liable for tax arising from such promotions, and
(c) what steps HMRC should take to inform the public of the risks posed by online tax avoidance arrangements.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1), including the steps they plan to take to address any issues identified.
(3) In this section, “tax influencer” means an individual who—
(a) is not a tax professional,
(b) promotes, markets or otherwise encourages participation in a tax avoidance arrangement, and
(c) does so by means of a social media service, where that promotion is carried out—
(i) in the course of a business or trade, or
(ii) in consideration of, or in expectation of, any payment or other benefit, whether from a promoter of the arrangement or from the social media service, or
(iii) with the intention of increasing engagement with, or the monetisation of, content relating to the arrangement.”
New clause 8—Impact of section 84 (General betting duty charge on remote bets)—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before 1 April 2027, lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects of the implementation of section 84 of this Act on the size of the illegal betting market.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake an impact assessment on the potential effects of implementation of section 84 on the illegal betting market.
New clause 9—Impact of changes to gambling duties on the economy of Gibraltar—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before 1 April 2027, lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects of the implementation of sections 83 and 84 of this Act on the economy of Gibraltar.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake an impact assessment on the potential effects of implementation of sections 83 and 84 on the economy of Gibraltar.
New clause 10—Review of operation of the carbon border adjustment mechanism—
“(1) The Treasury must, each calendar year for five years following the passing of this Act, undertake a review of the operation of—
(a) Part 5, and
(b) Schedules 16 to 19.
(2) A review undertaken under subsection (1) must be conducted in accordance with sections 28 to 32 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.
(3) A review undertaken under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the calendar year to which it relates.
(4) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a copy of each review carried out under this section as soon as reasonably practicable following the completion of the review.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Chancellor to conduct a post-implementation review of the operation of the carbon border adjustment mechanism one year after the implementation of the UK CBAM and every subsequent year.
New clause 11—Uprating of allowance amounts for agricultural property—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential merits of uprating annually the relief allowance amount for agricultural property by the change in the value of agricultural land.”
New clause 12—Review of anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief—
“(1) The Treasury must conduct a review of the effects of the anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider the effects of those provisions on—
(a) succession planning and intergenerational transfer of agricultural land and businesses,
(b) the viability and continuity of family-run farms,
(c) food security and domestic agricultural production,
(d) land management, environmental stewardship, and the condition of the countryside, and
(e) the availability of agricultural land for active farming.
(3) In conducting the review, the Treasury must consult such persons as it considers appropriate, including representatives of the agricultural sector.
(4) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a copy of the report within 12 months of the coming into force of the anti-forestalling provisions under this Act.”
New clause 13—Review of impact of Act on complexity of the tax system and administrative burdens—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained within this Act on the complexity of the tax system and the costs of tax administration.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must identify the measures in this Act which—
(a) add to the complexity of the tax system;
(b) reduce the complexity of the tax system;
(c) increase the number of individuals, businesses or other organisations liable for tax or for tax reporting;
(d) reduce the number of individuals, businesses or other organisations liable for tax or for tax reporting;
(e) increase the resources required for HM Revenue and Customs to administer the tax system and ensure compliance; and
(f) reduce the resources required for HM Revenue and Customs to administer the tax system and ensure compliance.
(3) The report must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on the complexity of the tax system, and on the time and cost of tax administration and compliance, for each of the following groups—
(a) pensioners;
(b) taxpayers on low incomes;
(c) personal taxpayers as a whole;
(d) self-employed people;
(e) microbusinesses;
(f) small and medium-sized businesses;
(g) large businesses;
(h) personal representatives who administer a person’s estate after their death;
(i) professional tax advisers; and
(j) HM Revenue and Customs.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the impact of the Act on the complexity of the tax system and on the time and cost of tax administration for taxpayers and their representatives, and for HMRC.
New clause 14—Review of impact on unemployment and youth employment—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing the impact of the provisions of this Act on levels of unemployment in the UK.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must, in particular, assess—
(a) the impact of the provisions of this Act on overall unemployment levels;
(b) the impact on employment levels for persons aged 16 to 24;
(c) the impact on rates of economic inactivity among young people;
(d) the effect on youth participation in apprenticeships, training, and entry-level employment;
(e) regional variations in youth unemployment arising from the provisions of this Act; and
(f) the impact on sectors with high levels of youth employment, including hospitality, retail, and the creative industries.
(3) The report must include an assessment of—
(a) the extent to which changes made by this Act have affected hiring decisions by small and medium-sized enterprises;
(b) any disproportionate impact on disadvantaged young people, including those from low-income households or with disabilities; and
(c) projected impacts over a three-year period following the passing of this Act.
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, following publication of the report under subsection (1), make a statement setting out what steps, if any, the Government proposes to take in response to its findings.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review and report on the impact of the Act on unemployment, with particular regard to young people aged 16 to 24.
New clause 15—Notification of taxpayers affected by frozen thresholds—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must take reasonable steps to identify individuals who, as a result of—
(a) the freezing of the starting rate limit for savings under section 9 of this Act, or
(b) the freezing of the personal allowance or the basic rate limit under section 10 of this Act, will—
(i) become liable to income tax for the first time, or
(ii) become liable to income tax at a higher rate than in the previous tax year.
(2) HM Revenue and Customs must ensure that each individual identified under subsection (1) is provided with a written notification before the start of the relevant tax year.
(3) A notification under subsection (2) must—
(a) explain that the individual’s tax liability is affected by the freezing of income tax thresholds,
(b) state whether the individual will pay income tax for the first time or move into a higher tax band, and
(c) provide information on where the individual can obtain further guidance about their tax position.
(4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish, no later than six months after the end of each affected tax year, a report setting out—
(a) the number of individuals notified under this section,
(b) the number of individuals who became income taxpayers for the first time as a result of sections 9 and 10, and
(c) the number of individuals who moved into a higher tax band as a result of those sections.
(5) In this section “written notification” includes electronic communication.”
This new clause would require HM Revenue and Customs to notify individuals who, as a result of the freezing of income tax thresholds in the Act, will pay income tax for the first time or move into a higher tax band.
New clause 16—Review of the impact of tax changes on household finances—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of changes introduced by sections 9,10 and 69 on household finances.
(2) The assessment must evaluate how households across different income levels are affected by these changes.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and publish a report on how the freezing of tax thresholds to 2030-31 impacts households at various income levels.
New clause 17—Report on impact of sections 9, 10 and 69—
“Within three months of this Act being passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out—
(a) the number of taxpayers who will pay income tax at each rate during each tax year between 2026-27 and 2030-31 under sections 9, 10 and 69,
(b) the number of those taxpayers who are pensioners or are of State Pension Age,
(c) comparative figures for each tax year since 2020-21,
(d) comparative projected figures for each tax year to 2034-35, and
(e) comparative figures with a scenario under which normal uprating policy had been implemented for financial years 2020-21 through 2030-31.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess how many people will be in each income tax bracket from 2026-27 through to 2030-31, together with comparative figures before and after that period.
New clause 18—Review of the effect of sections 63 to 68—
“(1) HM Treasury must carry out a review of the effect of sections 63 to 68 of this Act (Pension interests).
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the impact of those sections on individuals’ pension savings and beneficiaries, including on estate values and inheritance tax liabilities,
(b) the administrative effects on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and HM Revenue and Customs, and
(c) any behavioural effects on how pensions are used during life and on death.
(3) HM Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1) no later than six months after the date on which sections 63 to 68 come into force.”
This new clause would require HM Treasury to review and report on the effects of Clauses 63 to 68 of the Bill, which introduce inheritance tax charges on unused pension funds and death benefits, including their impacts on individuals, administrators, and behaviour, and to publish the findings to Parliament.
New clause 19—Administration of inherited pension pots—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must review the tax administration arrangements relating to inherited pension pots.
(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to ensure that—
(a) inheritance tax and related tax checks do not cause unreasonable delays in the payment of pension death benefits to beneficiaries, and
(b) bereaved families are able to receive pension benefits within a reasonable period following a member’s death.
(3) In carrying out the review, HM Revenue and Customs must have regard to—
(a) the cumulative administrative burden placed on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and beneficiaries,
(b) the interaction between inheritance tax reporting, clearance processes, and pension scheme payment rules, and
(c) any evidence of prolonged delays in the payment of inherited pension benefits.
(4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish the outcome of the review, including any proposed changes to its processes or guidance, within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to address delays in the payment of inherited pension pots by reviewing HMRC’s tax administration processes, with the aim of preventing prolonged waiting periods for bereaved families.
New clause 20—Review of cumulative impact on the hospitality sector—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of—
(a) the measures contained in section 86 of this Act, and
(b) changes to taxation and business costs affecting that sector introduced outside this Act since 2020.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), changes to taxation and business costs include, but are not limited to—
(a) changes to employer National Insurance contribution rates or thresholds,
(b) changes to business rates, including reliefs and revaluations, and
(c) any other fiscal measures which materially affect operating costs for hospitality businesses.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the matters listed in that subsection on—
(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,
(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade,
(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established, and
(d) the financial sustainability of hospitality businesses.
(4) In this section, “the hospitality sector” means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures in the Act alongside wider fiscal changes, including employer National Insurance contributions and business rates.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 7, leave out clause 4.
This amendment removes the increase in dividend rates from the Bill.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 16, leave out clause 5.
This amendment removes the new savings rates of income tax from the Bill.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 21, leave out clause 6.
This amendment removes the new rates of income tax on property income from the Bill.
Amendment 4, page 4, line 31, leave out clause 7.
This amendment removes the property rates of income tax for 2027-28 from the Bill.
Amendment 5, page 5, line 20, leave out clause 10.
This amendment removes the freeze in income tax thresholds from the Bill.
Amendment 112, in clause 13, page 6, line 13, leave out from “means—” to “fifteenth” on line 16.
Amendment 113, page 6, line 20, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 23 and insert
“for “£3 million” substitute “£6 million””.
Amendment 114, page 6, line 27, leave out subsection (3)(d).
Amendment 115, page 7, line 1, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 4 and insert
“for “£30 million” substitute “£120 million””.
Amendment 116, page 7, line 5, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 13 and insert
“for “£30 million” substitute “£120 million””.
Amendment 117, page 7, line 10, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 13 and insert “for “250” substitute “500””.
Amendment 118, page 7, line 14, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 15 and insert “for “250” substitute “500””.
Amendment 119, page 7, line 25, leave out from “15 years” to end of line 27.
Amendment 120, page 7, line 28, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 121, page 8, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Amendment 122, in clause 14, page 8, line 36, leave out from “(5A))” to “, and” in line 38 and insert “, £20 million”.
Amendment 123, page 8, line 40, leave out from “company” to end of line 1 on page 9, and insert “, £10 million.”
Amendment 124, page 9, line 5, leave out from “section 252A)” to “, and” in line 7, and insert “, £40 million”.
Amendment 125, page 9, line 10, leave out from “company” to end of line 11 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 126, page 9, line 15, leave out from “section 252A)” to “, and” in line 17 and insert “, £40 million”.
Amendment 127, page 9, line 19, leave out from “company” to end of line 21 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 128, page 9, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
Amendment 129, page 9, line 38, leave out “that is not a specified Northern Ireland company”.
Amendment 130, page 10, line 4, leave out “that is not a specified Northern Ireland company”.
Amendment 131, page 10, line 10, leave out leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
“(6) In section 186 (the gross assets requirement)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(b) in subsection (1)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million”
(c) in subsection (2)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(d) in subsection (2)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million””
Amendment 132, in clause 15, page 10, line 30, leave out from “(6A))” to “, and” in line 32 and insert “, £20 million”.
Amendment 133, page 10, line 34, leave out from “company” to end of line 36 and insert “, £10 million.”
Amendment 134, page 11, line 4, leave out from “section 331A)” to “, and” in line 6 and insert “, £40 million”.
Amendment 135, page 11, line 8, leave out from “company” to end of line 10 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 136, page 11, line 14, leave out from “section 331A)” to “, and” in line 16 and insert “, £40 million;”.
Amendment 137, page 11, line 18, leave out from “company” to end of line 20 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 138, page 11, line 23, leave out subsection (6)(b).
Amendment 139, page 11, line 34, leave out leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
“(6) In section 297 (the gross assets requirement)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(b) in subsection (1)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million”
(c) in subsection (2)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(d) in subsection (2)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million””.
Government amendments 12 to 14.
Amendment 6, page 78, line 4, leave out clause 62.
This amendment removes the changes to the thresholds for Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief from the Bill.
Amendment 7, page 78, line 11, leave out clause 63.
This amendment removes the imposition of inheritance tax on pension interest.
Government amendments 15 to 47.
Amendment 9, in clause 74, page 91, line 25, at end insert—
“(7) The Treasury must make regulations under subsection (1) within 60 days of the passing of this Act.
(8) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Treasury must consult—
(a) organisations representing infected and affected individuals,
(b) the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and
(c) bereaved families of victims who have died awaiting compensation.
(9) The regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for identifying and assisting the estates of deceased victims in claiming inheritance tax relief, including—
(a) outreach to known affected families,
(b) assistance with evidence gathering where medical records have been destroyed,
(c) clear and accessible guidance in plain language, and
(d) a dedicated helpline staffed by trained caseworkers familiar with the infected blood scandal.
(10) The Treasury must, within 6 months of regulations under this section coming into force, and every 6 months thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the number of victims who have died since the previous report while awaiting compensation,
(b) the number of estates that have received inheritance tax relief,
(c) the average time taken to process claims for relief,
(d) any identified barriers preventing families from accessing their entitlement, and
(e) steps taken to expedite outstanding infected blood compensation claims.”
This amendment requires the Chancellor of Exchequer to make regulations under this section within 60 days of Royal Assent. It requires mandatory consultation with those directly affected, and a support service to help bereaved families navigate the system. It also places a six-monthly reporting requirement on the Government.
Amendment 10, page 94, line 4, leave out clause 77.
This amendment would maintain the existing zero-rating for the purposes of VAT on the full value of the lease of a vehicle to a disabled person supplied through the Motability Scheme.
Amendment 11, page 96, line 6, leave out clause 78.
This amendment would maintain insurance premium tax relief for all vehicles let to a disabled person and supplied through the Motability Scheme.
Amendment 101, page 103, line 29, leave out clause 86.
Government amendments 48 to 53.
Government amendments 56 to 61.
Amendment 8, page 442, line 2, leave out schedule 12.
This amendment would remove the changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief from the Bill.
Amendment 109, in schedule 12, page 442, line 20, leave out from “and” to end of line 23 and insert—
“(c) either—
(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or
(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”.
This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.
Amendment 110, page 442, line 29, leave out from “and” to end of line 32 and insert—
“(c) either—
(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or
(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% trust relief allowance available in relation to that occasion (see sections 124G to 124K),”.
This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.
Amendment 111, page 443, line 9, leave out from “and” to end of line 12 and insert—
“(b) either—
(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or
(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”.
This amendment would apply 100% agricultural property trust relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.
Amendment 89, page 444, line 16, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 102, page 444, line 16, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus
(aa) the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
This amendment, and Amendments 103 to 107, would allow landlords to access 100% relief from inheritance tax where they have let land or farms to tenant farmers on secure agreements under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or on agreements under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 for 10 years or more.
Amendment 90, page 449, line 36, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 103, page 449, line 36, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus
(aa) the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 91, page 450, line 25, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 104, page 450, line 25, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 67, page 450, line 27, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 68 to 87 would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief and delay the implementation date so that the changes would take effect for transfers made after 1 March 2027.
Amendment 95, page 450, line 27, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
This amendment, with Amendments 96 to 100, would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief so that the changes take effect for transfers made from 6 April 2026.
Amendment 68, page 451, line 6, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 96, page 451, line 6, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 92, page 451, line 22, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 105, page 451, line 22, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus
(aa) the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 93, page 453, line 15, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 106, page 453, line 15, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 94, page 453, line 17, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 107, page 453, line 17, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 69, page 453, line 23, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 97, page 453, line 23, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 108, page 454, line 40, at end insert
“(But see subsection (2A).)
(2A) If the Treasury estimates that the value of agricultural land has increased by more than the percentage increase in the consumer prices index during the same period, then it must instead make an order by statutory instrument amending each relief allowance amount relating to agricultural property by the percentage increase in the value of agricultural land.”
Government amendments 54 and 55.
Government amendments 62 to 64.
Amendment 88, page 458, line 31, at end insert—
“(1A) In Section 227, leave out subsection (3)(a) and insert—
“(a) if the chargeable transfer was made on death and to the extent that it qualified for relief under Chapters I or II of part V of this Act, eighteen months after the end of the month in which the death occurred, or
(b) if the chargeable transfer was made on death and to the extent that it did not qualify for relief under Chapters I or II of part V of this Act, six months after the end of the month in which the death occurred, and””
This amendment would defer the period for the payment of inheritance tax on assets qualifying for payment by instalments by 12 additional months.
Amendment 70, page 460, line 8, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 71, page 460, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 98, page 460, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Government amendments 65 and 66.
Amendment 72, page 460, line 23, leave out “sub-paragraph (3) will not apply” and insert
“the transfer will prove to be an exempt transfer”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 73, page 460, line 27, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert
“comes into force on 1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 99, page 460, line 27, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert
“comes into force on 6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 74, page 460, line 34, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 100, page 460, line 34, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 75, page 460, line 37, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 76, page 460, line 39, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 77, page 460, line 41, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 78, page 461, line 2, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 79, page 461, line 9, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 80, page 461, line 14, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 81, page 461, line 22, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 82, page 461, line 26, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 83, page 461, line 37, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 84, page 461, line 42, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 85, page 463, line 19, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 86, page 463, line 26, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 87, page 463, line 32, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Dan Tomlinson
I am glad to return to the Commons to debate the Finance Bill on Report. Although I am sure that it would have been of interest to Members on both sides of the House, I am also glad that we have not just had a set of two 45-minute debates on the Ways and Means motions. The opportunity was there, but I am glad that Members did not take it in full. We now have ample time for this important Report stage.
I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions in Committee. I thank in particular the shadow Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for his scrutiny and challenge, and for the invitation to his wonderful constituency, which I hope to take up one day. As yet, no other Opposition Front Bencher has offered me such an enticing prospect as a visit to their constituency, but I look forward to those invitations.
Before I turn to individual amendments, I wish to reflect briefly on the Budget that was delivered in November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Budget took fair and necessary decisions to deliver on the Government’s promise of change, to support cuts in the cost of living, to enable NHS waiting lists to continue falling, and to ensure that our national debt fell as a share of GDP and that borrowing falls over the course of this Parliament. As the Chancellor said in this place yesterday and on Monday, Government borrowing—public sector net borrowing—has fallen from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, which is a fall of 1 percentage point. That is very significant and means that our borrowing is coming down, as part of our plan to bring stability back to the public finances.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Minister acknowledge that debt reduction is taking place only because the Government have increased taxes by £66 billion? That contrasts with the tax rise of £7 billion that the Labour party promised in its manifesto. Could he explain the huge discrepancy between that manifesto promise and what the Government are imposing on our constituents?
Dan Tomlinson
I ask the hon. Member to consider whether his party wishes to identify £66 billion of expenditure cuts or borrow £66 billion more. I do not think that either option is what the British public want; they want us to bring borrowing down and get public finances under control, after they were spun out of control by Liz Truss and the previous Government. The public understand the need for fair and responsible increases in taxation to ensure that we can invest in our public services and in the future of our country.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
On taxation, does the Minister agree that this Labour Government’s decisions have meant increased spending on the NHS? A number of my Harlow constituents are self-employed, and the really long waits in A&E and for hospital operations were having a huge impact on their businesses and on their household finances.
Dan Tomlinson
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for making his representations again and for his ability to mention Harlow in his interventions. It is a fantastic part of the country, not too far from my constituency in north London, and I know just how strongly he seeks to represent it and to make sure that the public services in his patch—the local hospitals and schools—get the investment they need. That is why he and I are able to proudly support this Government’s decisions to bring the public finances back into good order, as well as to invest in our public services and to get borrowing down.
Of course, though, since the Budget, and particularly in recent days, the world has changed. As the Chancellor set out last week in responding to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s spring forecast, it is more important than ever that the Government continue to deliver on our economic plan. The choices that we have made at previous Budgets will fix long-standing issues in the taxation system, restore economic and fiscal stability, and lay the economic foundations that we need for higher growth and higher living standards across our fantastic country.
The Bill legislates to deliver on those choices, all while sticking to our commitment not to raise the main rates of income tax, employee national insurance contributions or VAT. We are also providing stability for businesses by keeping to important commitments in our corporate tax road map to keep our corporation tax rate at 25%—the lowest in the G7—rather than having it chop and change up and down, like it did during previous Administrations.
I thank all those who have submitted written evidence throughout the Bill’s passage. Following concerns raised by professional bodies and concerns discussed in the Public Bill Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my reassurances to the sector that measures that directly impact tax advisers are intended to create a fairer tax advice market. I have heard concerns that tax advisers might be penalised if they file a client’s tax return late when their client has not provided their approval for filing the return on time. I want to clarify that these powers are not designed to penalise responsible tax advisers who act in good faith, and in that specific scenario, a tax adviser would not be penalised under His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ stronger powers. The Government are committed to ensuring that the tax system works effectively for everyone, which is why we are introducing a number of amendments on Report to ensure that the tax system is working effectively and as intended.
I turn to the first group of Government amendments. New clause 5 removes specific provisions that could prevent offshore income gains from being designated under the temporary repatriation facility, or TRF, to ensure that they can be designated as intended. The amendments also simplify the existing treatment of offshore non-reporting funds held by offshore structures for all taxpayers. New clause 6 introduces transitional provisions for offshore income gains arising before 6 April 2025.
Following the abolition of the lifetime allowance, new clause 7, as we were just discussing, ensures that multiple different regimes do not apply, providing clarity for pension schemes and members. It ensures that any necessary regulations can have a retrospective effect back to 6 April 2024, clarifies the scope of the original power, extends the power by a further three months and ensures that regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The Government are making a number of minor and technical amendments to help provide greater clarity and address important points that have been raised by stakeholders, particularly during the passage of the Bill. These amendments simply put the original legislative intent beyond doubt.
Amendments 12 and 13 ensure that clause 23 will apply only to general earnings for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years that are paid on or after 6 April 2026. Amendment 14 tightens the existing provisions under clause 24 to ensure that those rules do not catch legitimate agency structures.
Amendments 48 and 51 remove legislation that is not necessary under clause 43 and ensure that the TRF legislation works as intended, so that beneficiaries from overseas trusts are able to make designations in connection with offshore income gains.
Amendments 49, 50 and 52 are consequential amendments to schedule 3 and clause 43. They remove references to omitted legislation and insert wording to clarify reference to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
Amendment 53 to clause 49 makes clear that a person concluding contracts on behalf of a non-resident company must be present in the UK when concluding those contracts in order to create a permanent establishment in the UK.
Amendments 56 to 61 to schedule 11 concern the rules preventing fund managers from circumventing the revised carried interest tax regime. These amendments ensure that the provision operates as intended, where two connected persons work in the same business, with each connected person only taxed on their own carried interest.
Sir Ashley Fox
It sounds as if the Minister is adding many, many extra pages to our tax code. What provisions will he be bringing forward to shorten and simplify the tax code?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We need to do all that we can to ensure that we are simplifying our tax code in order to make it easier for tax advisers, individuals and businesses. I have also asked that question, but I am reassured by my officials—I am sure that the hon. Member could consult Hansard too—that this is a typical number of amendments to be made to a Finance Bill. This is a long Finance Bill, but there are a whole range of important changes that the Government wish to introduce and to make progress on. I am sure Members from all parties have enjoyed poring over the changes to the tax legislation. I do take his point about simplification, though; it is something that I wish to focus on. If hon. Members have good ideas in that space, they would genuinely be welcome to write to me.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
On the simplification of our tax system, I do not see in the Government amendments any changes to the loan charge system, as we proposed in Committee, meaning that people who have already settled their loan charge will be excluded from the changes being introduced. Does the Minister agree that one consequence of this might be that when something like this comes up in the future, people will not want to settle with the Government because they will think that a better deal will be coming up? Would it not be a simpler tax system to say that we could retrospectively apply some of these changes?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his engagement in the Public Bill Committee. The loan charge is an important issue. I focused on it after receipt of Ray McCann’s independent review into the loan charge, which was commissioned by my predecessor. The scope of that review and the decisions made by the Government are such that only those who are directly affected by the loan charge will have the opportunity to take up the new settlement that was recommended by McCann, to which the Government have added a £5,000 further deduction. The Government’s position was that, because the loan charge was an exceptional decision made by the previous Government, it was right that the changes proposed by McCann would apply only to that group. There will be those who engaged in the use of disguised remuneration schemes from before 2010, and with them, as with all taxpayers, this Government are very clear that individuals do have a responsibility to pay their tax.
Amendments 54 and 55, and 62 to 66, are minor amendments to the definitions of business property qualifying for relief. They ensure that the replacement property provisions relating to reorganisation or amalgamation of unquoted shares reflect the new legislation, and that unquoted securities, such as loan notes, continue to qualify for relief only where they are part of a controlling interest in a company.
Amendments 15 to 47 to clauses 63 to 67 make a series of minor technical changes to ensure that the provisions on inheritance tax and pensions operate as intended. These ensure that excluded and exempt benefits are not subject to inheritance tax, nor to the new withholding and payment notices.
I am sure that Members from all parts of the House have enjoyed that run-through of those minor and technical amendments. I can provide them with the good news that that run-through has now concluded. I sincerely hope and expect that the proposed amendments will ensure that the legislation that was set out, and that has been discussed and scrutinised, works as intended, and that HMRC—the organisation that I am proud to be the Minister with responsibility for—has the powers to responsibly collect tax and revenue, which funds the vital public services on which our country relies.
I therefore commend new clauses 5, 6 and 7 and Government amendments 12 to 66 to the House, and I look forward to hon. Members’ contributions.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
We are grateful to the Minister for running through the plethora of Government amendments that are being added to this already stonkingly large Finance Bill. The sheer number of amendments is an admission that Ministers did not get this right the first time—or even the second time, in Committee, which we enjoyed.
Let me turn to amendments 1, 2 and 8 and 67 to 94, as well as new clause 10 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. This Bill embodies Labour’s approach of ever-higher taxes, spending and borrowing, for which hard-working families and businesses are paying the price. The measures in the Budget and in this Bill add a further £26 billion-worth of tax rises, bringing the cumulative total from the Chancellor’s first two Budgets to £66 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, that did not feature anywhere in the Government’s manifesto. Those further tax rises are despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more.
Debt interest is forecast to hit £140 billion by 2030. Unemployment is set to increase to 1.9 million, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.1%. Meanwhile, welfare spending is set to hit £406 billion, and living standards are expected to slow towards the end of this Parliament. Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its growth forecast once again and warned that the Chancellor’s plan, far from working, could “constrain economic activity”. Instead of backing the risk takers and the wealth creators, this Bill delivers slower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes.
Let me turn to the freeze in income tax thresholds set out in clause 10. The Chancellor said at the Dispatch Box that there would be no extension of the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it would “hurt working people” and
“take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
That promise has been broken by the measures in the Bill that do exactly the opposite, putting in place a £23 billion-a-year tax rise and bringing nearly 1 million more people into paying higher-rate tax.
It is not just working people who will pay the price. During this period, the state pension is forecast to be higher than the personal allowance. In the spring forecast, the OBR warned that an additional 1 million pensioners will find themselves liable for income tax by 2030-31 because of the Chancellor’s freeze. In anyone’s book, that is a retirement tax.
The Government have promised to protect people who rely solely on the state pension, but where is the detail? There is nothing in this legislation to do that. The public out there will rightly be sceptical, given that the Chancellor has already broken the promise not to freeze this threshold. Amendment 5 offers the House a very simple choice to stand by working people and pensioners and end the freeze.
Let me turn to the Government’s damaging family farm and family business tax. I know that Labour Members are going around their constituencies saying that they got a great win from the Chancellor just before Christmas, but let us be honest: that win was purely a fig leaf. The Government could have actually corrected their mistake, but the partial reversal that the Chancellor was forced into falls short of what is needed. The Country Land and Business Association has said that it only limits the damage—yet another broken promise from a Prime Minister who pledged not to impose an inheritance tax on farms. That measure epitomises Labour’s apparent hostility towards family farms, tenant farmers and our rural communities. I have spoken to farmers, as I am sure other hon. Members have, who are desperate about this situation. That is why we continue to strongly oppose the family farm and family business tax, and amendment 6 would scrap them.
Our further amendments seek to mitigate the worst effects of those taxes. Amendments 67 to 87 would remove the transition period for changes to the reliefs, and would delay implementation until after March 2027, lifting the unfair anti-forestalling rules that have tied the hands of farmers and business owners. The Chartered Institute of Taxation—which provided a lot of support in Committee and at earlier stages of the Bill, for which I am grateful—has warned that the measures particularly affect older farmers, robbing them of the ability to plan properly.
Amendment 88 would defer the deadline for inheritance tax instalments by a further 12 months. This reflects the conclusion of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that the six-month deadline proposed for the first payment
“does not appear to be realistic”.
As we know, farming estates and family business are often asset-rich but cash-poor, which makes it difficult to raise the funds quickly. The National Farmers Union has warned that expecting probate to be granted within six months is
“completely unrealistic, especially given the complexity of valuing an agricultural business”.
Does the Minister recognise the strain that such unrealistic deadlines place on family farms and family businesses, and will he therefore accept our amendment and extend the payment deadline by 12 months? If he will not, will he explain to family farms and family businesses why not?
Amendments 89 to 94 would exclude from inheritance tax the value of any jointly held tenancy on the death of a joint tenant. This issue is causing concern across the sector, and has been raised by the Tenant Farmers Association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Exempting genuine arm’s length tenancies between unconnected parties from inheritance tax is simply the fair thing to do. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what engagement he has had with the Tenant Farmers Association on that point, what his response is, and how he intends to rectify this injustice. Of course, this is not just about farms; family businesses, which make up 90% of our firms and employ well over half the workforce, are firmly in the Chancellor’s crosshairs as well. These are firms that focus on the long term, yet according to Family Business UK, over half of affected businesses have already paused or cancelled investment as a result of the threatened tax.
It would be remiss of me to not mention that the Government’s claims do not seem to add up. Will this tax actually end up raising money? While the OBR forecasts a £500 million gain, analysis by the Confederation of British Industry suggests a net loss of nearly £2 billion, once the wider damage to the economy is considered. The family farm and family business tax does nothing to promote growth or fairness. It targets those who anchor our rural economy and communities—the family businesses committed to long-term growth. It is already having a chilling effect on investment, and now there is a prospect that companies that would otherwise thrive under family stewardship will break up. Again, I urge hon. Members to support amendment 6, which would remove this damaging measure from the Bill.
Savers and investors are not safe from the Chancellor, either. Amendments 1 to 4 deal with the introduction of increases in income tax on dividends, savings, and property income in the years ahead. Increases to the dividend tax will hit 4 million people by 2029-30, while the savings tax rate increase will hit a further 3.8 million individuals, and 2.4 million landlords will now face higher bills, making it less attractive to provide the rental properties that our constituents want. These measures are targeted at entrepreneurs, investors, pensioners and hard-working families. Rather than supporting growth, the Government seem determined to stifle it.
The Government are also scrapping the long-standing inheritance tax exemption for pensions. Some 10,500 estates will be targeted under this measure, costing savers £1.5 billion by 2029. We oppose this extension of inheritance tax, which seems predicated on the Government’s belief that people’s money belongs to the Government, rather than being their own. We should be rewarding saving and people who do the right thing, but extending inheritance tax in this way does exactly the opposite. As we discussed previously, there is also a concern about the burden being placed on personal representatives, and I have mentioned the unintended consequences for unmarried couples. In some cases, a surviving partner could lose up to 40% of a pension fund built up over a lifetime. Again, this is manifestly unfair, and amendment 7 would remove this damaging new tax from the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox
Has my hon. Friend noticed a common thread through the Budget, which is that everyone who works hard, saves hard, invests and creates jobs is being penalised, and all that money is being used to benefit Benefits Street? It is no wonder that the growth rate is going down. [Interruption.]
James Wild
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, despite the chuntering that we hear from the Minister. The welfare bill is predicted to rise to £406 billion over the forecast period. The Chancellor keeps saying that she is fixing welfare. Where? What is she doing? She had to back away from very modest savings. We have identified £23 billion-worth of welfare savings, and the Minister could make those if he wished, but he does not, and that is why growth has once again been downgraded. The Chancellor boasts about beating the forecast last year. Well, the forecast at the beginning of the year was 2%, and the Government failed to get anywhere near 2%. They beat the downgraded forecast, so let us not hear any more about that. We want to hear what the Government will do to drive growth, and taxing the people generating it is precisely the wrong thing to do.
New clause 10 requires the Chancellor to review the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. We debated CBAM extensively in Committee, and it is dealt with in a great swathe of the Bill—in the schedules—but there is plenty more to come. Given the complexity of the policy, many industries believe that the absence from the Bill of a formal oversight and review process is a serious mis-step that needs to be addressed.
There are many potential pitfalls in this new mechanism. First, the measure fails to consider several sectors that are at significant risk of carbon leakage, such as chemicals and refining. Secondly, the Government have decided to link the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. Following the announcement of that alignment, the price of carbon in the UK more than doubled, which cost our economy about £5 billion. We should be reducing the burden of carbon taxes on business, not increasing them. The EU has yet to publish its benchmark beyond 2030, which means that the UK would be signing up to a system that would effectively give Brussels a blank cheque. Moreover, CBAM does not address issues with carbon leakage in export markets. There are proposals to exempt our manufacturing exports from UK ETS costs and CBAM to make the industry more competitive, putting it on a level playing field internationally. Has the Minister considered maintaining long-term free allowances for products destined for the export markets? Given those complexities—I could go on about them more, but the Minister gets the gist—[Hon. Members: “More!”] It seems that other Members may want to come in on this issue.
I think that the Minister should recognise the value of regular reviews. I know he will say that the Government keep all taxes under review, but let us have an actual review that is published, so that we can see what is happening. I encourage Members to support new clause 10.
This is a Finance Bill full of tax increases that break trust with the British people. The Labour Government have introduced the family farm and business tax, frozen personal thresholds, hiked taxes on savers and investors, cut relief on employee ownership trusts, taxed inheritance pensions, taxed taxis—we discussed that in Committee—and increased gambling, alcohol and other duties and environmental levies. The list goes on and on. There is 534 pages-worth, which I could read out if there were any appetite for it. Our amendments and new clause would back the taxpayers, and the investors and businesses trying to drive growth in our economy, and I urge Members to support them.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support the legislation. In particular, I want to talk about new clause 4.
I have to admit that I am a terrible person to go shopping with. [Laughter.] Wait for it. I grew up in a household where my dad used to stockpile copies of “Which?”. In the family, it was drilled into me that you had to seek advice; you could never just buy things. Pity my poor partner on the occasion when we went to try and buy a sofa; it was a very long, drawn-out day. I was taught the value of information and advice in making good choices in life—although I do not claim always to have followed that teaching—because it is easy to rip people off and mislead them, and there are people who will exploit misinformation to cause harm to others for their own financial gain. It is difficult for individual consumers to fight that, but collectively, with good regulation, we can make an economy work well.
New clause 4 is about good advice empowering consumers to make good choices. I welcome clauses 156 and 157, and the work that the Government are doing to crack down on organisations that promote harmful tax avoidance schemes. We have all seen the companies that promote schemes to avoid paying tax, often to the elites—one can only think of Jimmy Carr, and what he must be thinking at this point in time.
Banning the promotion of tax avoidance schemes that have no realistic prospect of working is the right thing to do because it is causing harm, but I am not here to play a violin for the elites; I am here to bang the drum for the millions of people who are being harmed, but who have not yet had the same level of attention. Elite companies might be promoting tax avoidance schemes for an elite group of people, but online there are hundreds, if not thousands, that are now doing it for the masses, causing financial detriment and harm to our constituents as a result. I would argue that this is a much greater harm, because these are people with too much month at the end of their money. When they realise the mistake that they have made and how much money they have lost, they do not have the savings to be able to pay the bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Bill, and the Budget it derives from, demonstrates clearly that the Chancellor has implemented stealth tax grabs that will hit some of the lowest paid the hardest, through extending a freeze on income tax thresholds and the national insurance contributions increases which suppress employment and wages. It is full of short-sighted harmful decisions that the Liberal Democrats cannot support. Our amendments aim to highlight and reduce some of its more harmful impacts.
I will focus on four particular areas, the first of which is the impact of frozen income tax thresholds. New clauses 15 to 17 would secure additional information and analysis about their impact. As the worrying figures from the OBR suggest, continuing to freeze income tax thresholds will drag an extra 1 million pensioners into paying income tax for the first time by 2030-31, unless the Government act.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right about pensioners being dragged into paying income tax. Does he agree that millions of those pensioners will want to be able to contact HMRC and ask it about those changes? Millions of people never manage to get through to HMRC and figures from a written question I put in recently show that HMRC has lost 2,000 customer service staff in the past few years. Does he agree that we need a red phone hotline to allow pensioners to get hold of HMRC for support and advice when they need it?
Charlie Maynard
I completely agree. The stress of that is horrific, so the more it can function effectively would be appreciated.
The Government have said that people whose only source of income is the state pension will not pay any income tax over this Parliament, but no details have been provided on how they will be protected. I ask the Government to put an end to the uncertainty and set out plans in full explaining exactly how they intend to shield pensioners from that unfair tax hit. We would love a timeline for when they will do that.
More broadly, extending the stealth tax by two more years will drag an estimated 1.3 million people into a higher tax band by 2029-30: just over 600,000 into the basic rate of tax and just under 700,000 into the higher rate. Those are big numbers. We would really appreciate it if the Government explained to each of the 1.3 million people who will be impacted what it will do to them, because I do not think they are aware of it right now. That disproportionately impacts those on low incomes who will be dragged into income tax for the first time. At the very least, please provide that information.
Next is the impact of the Government’s actions and inactions on youth unemployment, which is building to a real crisis point. Some 16% of all 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work, or almost 740,000 people, which is 100,000 up in the last year—I repeat, 100,000 up in the last year—so something is going wrong with the Government’s policies and we need to get to the bottom of that. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 14, which requires the Chancellor to review and report on the impact of the Bill on unemployment, with particular regard to young people aged 16 to 24.
It is worth noting that this legislation, which dampens growth and hits jobs, comes at a time of broader disruption in the labour market. AI is already having a particular impact on entry level so-called white-collar jobs, but it is also having an impact in pubs. All our local pubs are hiring fewer young people because there is no incentive to do so any more. The creation of a new employers’ national insurance contribution band between £5,000 and £9,100, with a lower rate to incentivise employers to hire often younger, part-time workers, would really help.
In new clause 13, we highlight the complexity of the tax system and the cost of administering it. There is a green brick sitting here masquerading as a Bill. With such a big majority in this Parliament, the Government have a real opportunity to do some serious thinking about how to simplify, root and branch, our tax code. It is disappointing that we see no sign of that actually happening. With this size of legislation being added each time, the tax system is getting bigger and more complex, and that puts a real burden on business. The Treasury Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Business and Trade Committee have all spoken out about how much damage our over-complex tax system is doing to our businesses. We would really appreciate anything that the Government can do and if they could get more serious about that.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s changes on APR—a new £2.5 million threshold was announced just before Christmas—but does my hon. Friend share my concern that genuinely active, long-held family farms and long-standing tenant farming arrangements will still be penalised by the Government? Does he therefore agree that Members should back the Liberal Democrat amendment, which would maintain relief at 100% where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a family member?
Charlie Maynard
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking up on this matter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) feels very strongly about it as well.
We do not really understand why the Government have decided to go with those fixed static thresholds. Everybody recognises that agricultural land values go up and that the cost of living goes up. We would really appreciate it if the Government could explain why they have decided not to index that. We will therefore be pushing new clause 11 to a vote, because we really want to see that fixed.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will speak to the two new clauses that stand solely in my name, which relate to the impact of the changes to the remote gaming and remote betting duties. I do not intend to relitigate the rights and wrongs of those changes; we have had a number of debates on that subject in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and the determination has been settled by Treasury. However, I do think it is important that we consider what I believe are the genuinely unintended consequences of the changes that the Treasury will introduce and how best to mitigate them. To mitigate them, though, we need to understand them, so new clause 8 simply seeks to get an independent assessment of the changes to the remote betting and remote gaming duties on the black market.
I am sure that those of us who have participated in debates around gaming and gambling will accept that there are challenges that we need to address with problem gambling, but that requires people to participate in the regulated sector, where help and support is available for those who find themselves getting into trouble. The more people we push into the black market—where there is no support, no GamCare, no lock-out system—the more people are at risk of harmful activity and being preyed upon by predatory organisations and companies that are outside the UK, do not pay taxes here and are simply not worried about the participants.
The independent study done by EY for the Betting and Gaming Council found that there is a potential for £6 billion-worth of stakes to be diverted into the black market as a result of this change. That is £6 billion of stakes that were going to be made somewhere, but will now go into the black market and will therefore not be subject to any taxation, including any form of potential corporation tax if they are staked outside the UK with one of the companies headquartered elsewhere, or to the remote gaming duty. That is a 140% increase on the potential stakes going into the black market.
It also means thousands and thousands of people—our constituents—who will find themselves in an unregulated part of the gambling and gaming economy, where there is absolutely no help and support for them. The people who run those sites have no interest in the welfare of those individuals whatsoever; they simply want to try to maximise their profits. Every single one of us is no more than two clicks away from an unregulated gaming or gambling site, and we should be open and acknowledge the fact that that money often funds questionable activities overseas, including organised crime and, in some cases, terrorism.
I recognise that the Treasury has, as part of broader changes to the betting and gaming regulations, identified £26 million for the Gambling Commission to try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of those activities, but we simply do not know what impact that will have; the assessment has simply not been done by the Government to determine whether that £26 million is enough. Frankly, every penny that could be spent on helping people in this country to avoid damaging gaming and gambling, and to enjoy regulated gaming and gambling, should be spent.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Have the Government given the hon. Member any idea of when a post-implementation review of this legislation might be done, and therefore when the Treasury can say how much tax has been gathered and how much has been lost as a result of these changes?
Gareth Snell
That is an incredibly fair question. The Treasury has been unable to give me an answer, but I hope that the Minister will be able to when he sums up the debate. Regardless of one’s views on gambling, we must ensure that the implementation of new levies does not drive people into the black market, because that is where they are most exposed to risk. If people are to participate in gaming and betting, I would much rather they did so in UK-based, regulated services, where they can get help and support if needed, and where the taxes they pay can go towards funding our public services. It is a fair point, and one on which I hope the Minister will be able to provide an answer.
I wonder whether the Minister could also give some thought to the following point. This taxation has been hypothecated, in the narrative, as being directly to fund the Government’s welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, but in reality that is not how taxation works in this country—we do not hypothecate specific taxation lines to pay for specific social policies; instead, the money goes into the Treasury pot, and the Treasury, in its infinite wisdom and benevolence, hands it out to other Departments, which then make their spending commitments.
Now, the Government’s own OBR forecast suggests that, given the behavioural changes expected to take place as a result of the differential rates between the regulated and unregulated sectors, and given the people who will pay tax, the yield from this tax will potentially be down by a third by 2029-30—that means somewhere in the region of £300 million will be lost. If we are making this direct comparison, saying that the levy is needed to fund the welcome change in the two-child benefit cap, can the Minister set out where the additional funding will come from in 2029-30, if the reduction resulting from behavioural change takes place?
Even if the Government are unable to support my new clause 8 tonight, a proper impact assessment would at least allow a better understanding of future challenges relating to the behaviour of consumers and the impact on tax yield.
My new clause 9 seeks a similar impact assessment, but in relation to our friends in Gibraltar. The Minister will be acutely aware that the gaming and gambling sector is a huge part of Gibraltar’s economy—30% of its GDP comes from the sector, and it employs some 3,500 people. The gambling and gaming companies that have a footprint in Gibraltar pay Gibraltar corporation tax as well as any levies paid in the UK. However, because it is a top-line tax, rather than a bottom-line tax, any impact on the profitability of companies based in Gibraltar, or any behavioural changes in the stakes put through those companies, will have an immediate and direct impact on Gibraltar’s revenues.
One third of Gibraltar’s tax receipts come from the sector, so anything we do in this place that has an impact on the sector there—I entirely accept that this is not an intended consequence of the decision—would leave a huge hole in its economy, and that will have to be filled. We are talking about potentially tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions. Gibraltar is, of course, one of the family of nations that make up Britain, and we have to ensure that, given its strategic importance because of our defence work, we do nothing that makes it less safe as a result of tax changes here.
Of course, the Government of Gibraltar are currently putting through their Parliament the changes to the EU-Gibraltar treaty, which will help with the flow of the gaming sector’s workforce, given the cross-border nature of the workforce. However, Nigel Feetham—the Member of the Gibraltar Parliament who holds the justice, trade and industry brief—has said that what Gibraltar really needs is stability, and not to have “avoidable” decisions from the UK. I know that the Government will resist my new clause, but I ask the Minister to lay out what communications and active engagement he and the Treasury have had with our friends in Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is of strategic importance to us and part of the family of nations that makes up who we are, and decisions that we take in this Finance Bill are having a huge impact on its economy and its ability to fund its public services, which contribute to our overall national defence. While Gibraltar is embedding the new treaty changes, it is important that it has some certainty about its revenue stream.
The media are reporting that the Gibraltarian Government are looking at rapid diversification of their economy to make up the difference, but realistically we do not know what the impact will be on our economy, and they certainly do not know what the impact will be on theirs. The Minister will be acutely aware that as Gibraltar is dependent for 30% of its tax intake from one sector, even a small change here in the UK could have a hugely detrimental impact over there. I hope that he will address the stability that the Gibraltar Parliament has been asking for, and for which Nigel Feetham has rightly been asking in his engagements with the Treasury.
Finally, I had not intended to do so, but I will touch on new clause 10 tabled by the Opposition about CBAM. I have often talked in this place about the importance of our manufacturing industries, and not least the ceramics industry, which falls outside the current proposals for CBAM but will be subject to the emissions trading scheme. There is a perversity about the emissions trading scheme and CBAM in that if we get it wrong, we will just drive up prices for consumers and for producers, while others are importing into our country ceramics produced using cheap Russian gas, which means that their price point is much below what we can produce them here. It also has the distorting effect that our exports become more expensive when they hit the CBAM—particularly for Europe.
Therefore, while we are at a point of global turmoil and gas prices are increasing hugely overnight—the price per therm was 74p last week; it is now somewhere around 160p—there is some work to be done by the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor about that in her statement on Monday; unfortunately, she missed the point about gas-intensive industry and went straight to electric-intensive industry, which is different. When the Government look at how we do CBAM and where we will have free allowances for the ETS, will the Minister bear in mind those small sectors such as ceramics that are crucial to our foundational manufacturing? I am talking not about the tiles, tableware and giftware that I talk about so often, but about the advanced ceramics that we need in this country, which are dependent on a gas price that works and being able to trade across the European border without huge external tariffs being placed on them because of carbon leakage.
Nuclear submarine air filtration systems are ceramic, and the rotor blades that go on small modular reactors made in Derby will require a ceramic powder coating for them to be utilised that will have to cross many borders. There is the potential that we price out British manufacturers as a result of the CBAM and the ETS if we do not have some of those lifelong allowances and we do not think about the interplay of components that travel over borders. Therefore, while I had not intended to speak about the Opposition’s new clause 10, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a valid point in terms of ceramics. Even if the Minister will not take the new clause forward—obviously we will not support it, because it is not a Government amendment—the hon. Gentleman’s point is worthy of consideration in a different form.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Since the Government announced their tax raid on family farms, they have made numerous false claims about the policy and what it will mean for farmers. Raising the threshold, as the Government propose today, does not fix the fundamental wrongs at the heart of this awful policy. I will speak in favour of amendment 6, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), which would remove those problems altogether by doing away with this pernicious tax.
What are the claims? The Government have claimed that farmers are rich and so can afford to bear the cost of tax increases. To the surprise of nobody who actually works on a farm, that myth is born of a fundamental misunderstanding of how agriculture works. A farm is not simply another asset like a share portfolio where we can sell a little today and buy a little tomorrow. The assets of a farm—primarily its land, its crops or livestock, and its equipment—are huge long-term investments, completely inseparable from the ability to produce whatever it makes. There is often little relationship between the value of the land held by a farmer and the profitability of that farm. That is particularly true at a time when, to sell their produce at all, farmers must abide by a seemingly endless list of regulations, all of which drive up costs and reduce profit margins. Farmers tolerate a rock-bottom level of return on investment that most businesses would never consider.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism in the Bill. It shows a commitment from this Government to supporting British industry, which underpins the fabric of local economies and communities across the country, including Mid and South Pembrokeshire.
For British industries included in its scope, a CBAM means they can compete on a level playing field with industries in the global market. It works by applying a charge to the carbon emitted during the production of imported carbon-intensive goods. That ensures that our domestic producers do not face higher production costs compared with their foreign competitors operating in countries where the price of carbon is lower. That is critical, for without a CBAM, those industries will go elsewhere, moving production to low-regulation, high-emission countries. We would lose jobs, investment and our industrial base while simply offshoring our emissions. That is carbon leakage: decarbonisation at the cost of deindustrialisation. It would be devastating for industrial communities across the country, in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. That is why I call on the Government to expand the scope of the CBAM to include the oil refining industry.
Refined petroleum products are highly exposed to carbon leakage, and without the protection of the CBAM, we risk losing this industry. There would be untold consequences for communities like mine in Pembrokeshire, which is the home of one of the UK’s four remaining oil refineries. Locally, the refining sector employs over 1,000 people. Nationally, it accounts for 15% of Welsh export GDP. Oil refinery continues to be foundational to the UK’s economy and energy security; oil products supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand and support thousands of skilled jobs in industrial communities like Pembrokeshire.
The transition to net zero must be a just one. It cannot come at the cost of deindustrialisation and greater economic deprivation in communities like mine. As the party of working people, it is incumbent on this Labour Government to manage this energy transition by protecting the jobs and skills base of today while building the industries of tomorrow. Recent global events have shown once again how trade flows can change overnight, threatening our energy security and directly impacting the cost of living for our constituents. As a Government, we must be agile in responding, providing the support and certainty our communities and industries need to weather the storms.
A CBAM can provide targeted support to industry during turbulent times. However, the Bill in its current form requires the effectiveness of the CBAM to be reviewed only after five years. I hardly need to remind the House how dramatically the geopolitical landscape can change in that time. That is why I urge the Minister to consider making provision for yearly reviews of the CBAM during its first five years. This would allow the Treasury to respond to unforeseen events and ensure that the CBAM continued to achieve its objective, minimising the risk of carbon leakage for carbon-intensive industries in the UK, so that our decarbonisation efforts could lead to a true reduction in global emissions rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas.
We are at a critical juncture for British industry. Decisions made by this Government will shape the UK’s ability to safeguard industrial jobs and maintain global competitiveness while meeting net zero objectives and creating jobs for the future without simply offshoring our emissions. This Bill continues the Government’s work to build a stronger, fairer country by growing our economy, raising living standards and, crucially, investing in our public services. The introduction of the CBAM is a vital part of this broader package of measures, but I urge the Minister to consider expanding its scope and reviewing it annually to ensure that it delivers on its important objectives in a rapidly changing world.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I rise to speak about the changes that have been made in relation to inheritance tax, which is impacting many of our family farming businesses and also those family businesses that operate in many of our constituencies. I rise specifically to speak to amendments 89 and 90, which, if agreed, would remove the liability for inheritance tax on the share of a tenancy at arm’s length that transfers on death.
This Government’s ill-handling of the family farm tax has left our farmers in limbo and their confidence in tatters. Thanks to Labour’s disastrous family farm tax and family business tax, our farmers and many hard-working businesses have spent over a year navigating an already challenging time for the sector, with added anxiety and uncertainty hanging over their heads. Despite the warnings from the entire farming community, this Government pushed ahead with the tax, creating chaos, fear and real damage.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the way the Government have approached this has hurt their main aim of economic growth, because farmers have delayed ordering and, because of the new rules, there is now no incentive to grow their farms over that £2.5 million threshold?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Despite the minimal, partial Government U-turn by increasing that threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, the changes are still impacting many of our farming businesses and therefore the wider supply chain. This not only has a negative impact on the level of investment that a family is willing to put into their family business, but has a hugely detrimental impact on the wider supply chain, including on investment in agricultural machinery and the willingness to purchase stock. This is therefore having a massive detrimental impact on the real rural economy right now.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is speaking very powerfully. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has estimated that 4,500 farms, mainly in the dairy industry, will still be impacted by the set changes. Does he agree that, given the need for food security, we need to protect our farms, not do away with them?
Robbie Moore
We absolutely do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point, because we all know that the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is proportionately higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and therefore a huge proportion of Northern Ireland farmers—4,500 of them—who are working incredibly hard are still going to be impacted by the rate relief change that this Labour Government have implemented. They are going to be detrimentally impacted, and that has a wider negative impact on the rural economy.
Despite this partial U-turn, by increasing the level of the agricultural and business property relief thresholds from £1 million to £2.5 million for inheritance tax, the Government will risk once again showing their disregard for the farming community should they neglect to support amendments 89 and 90, which seek to address yet another measure seemingly designed to punish our farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association is a dedicated organisation that represents the interests of all those within our farming community who do not own land, and it is heavily involved in supporting the tenanted sector. I spoke with members of the TFA just this morning and the chief executive, George Dunn, who has excellent knowledge of, and commitment to, the tenanted sector and has provided many a briefing to many Members of this House.
It is deeply disappointing that Government Members do not seem to support amendments 89 and 90 to schedule 12. Should the House fail to agree to the changes in these amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and me, those who inherit a share of a joint tenancy will have no means to capitalise on that share while also having no way to liquidate the asset in the context of continuing business to allow them to pay the tax liability.
To date, the value of any inherited portion of a business or agricultural tenancy held jointly following the death of one of the joint tenants has been fully relievable either through agricultural property relief or business property relief. Given that in most cases it will be impossible for the surviving joint tenant or tenants to realise the value of any inherited share of the tenancy on death, it is completely unfair that this tax, proposed by the Labour Government, should be levied. The unfairness is underlined by the fact that an input value for the share of the joint tenancy would have to be calculated on the profit rent basis, which is the best at theoretical value in any case, which just blows out of context the real damage that is being implemented by this Labour Government. Therefore, I urge the Government to learn from their previous mistake, listen to our farmers and protect the value of joint tenancies by supporting these amendments.
Amendment 88 seeks to delay the triggering of the instalments that are going to be brought forward by the payment of inheritance tax from the current period of six months by 12 months to a full 18-month period. This is so important—the Government fail to realise this—because of how complex it is to value the assets that are likely to be subjected to an IHT liability. When looking at farming businesses, we are not only valuing the farmland. There may be a farmhouse and a cottage or two, and the livestock, the machinery, the growing crops and the crops in store will all have a value associated with them. It is therefore complex to ascertain the value within the six-month period that the Government have outlined.
And it gets more complicated still. We find ourselves in the bizarre scenario where two assets on death with a value of £5 million could be subjected to different IHT liabilities depending on the ownership structure and whether the spousal allowance is being utilised—therefore exposing any tax liability on death to challenge, quite rightly, by those with whom the tax liability sits. To have a deadline of six months for that tax liability to be triggered, and for an instalment to be paid, will simply not be sustainable. I therefore urge the Government to support amendment 89 in my name and that of the official Opposition.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that, like me, he has received many emails and letters from farmers over the last few days, given that the price of red diesel, heating oil and fertiliser has gone up in the light of recent uncertain events. Does that not demonstrate and remind us all how fragile farming businesses are? The idea that farmers will have sufficient money sitting in the bank to pay this tax bill is for the birds.
Robbie Moore
It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities.
This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government.
Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million.
We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates.
I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Before I start, I should declare that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform. I want to talk about new clauses 8 and 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke to earlier. They are thoughtful, well-meaning new clauses that address real concerns. I want to add a bit of context, and set out what the evidence shows about the black market and the situation in Gibraltar.
Industries associated with harm often use the black market as an excuse to avoid regulation or additional taxation. When I was on the Finance Bill Committee last year, we received a lot of correspondence from the tobacco industry, in which it made the same sort of claim. We were seeking to increase taxes—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), might remember the debate—and the tobacco industry was using the black market as an excuse for why that should not happen. In the gambling sector, the threat of the black market is overblown. The regulated market is dominant, and in recent years there have been lots of taxation changes that have not increased the size of the black market. I will give two examples.
When we changed from taxing turnover to taxing profit in 2001, the black market was highlighted as a risk, but there were no real changes. Again, when we introduced the point-of-consumption tax in 2014, there was no surge in unregulated or black market gambling. Indeed, a 2021 Gambling Commission study found that only a very small proportion of UK gamblers ever used unlicensed sites, and they did so mostly by accident. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central accurately pointed out, people who are banned from regulated sites sometimes turn to the unregulated sector, and that truly is a problem.
Focusing on the black market risks diverting attention away from the significant and better-evidenced harms in the regulated sector. Those harms are most widespread in the areas in which we are seeking to increase taxes—we have discussed that, so I will not go into it too much. However, it is important that we tackle the black market, so I welcome the illegal gambling taskforce that has been introduced, as well as the additional £26 million for the Gambling Commission to address those issues. We should not buy into the narrative that risks from the black market should stop us making changes to keep people safe from the most harmful forms of gambling.
If the tax changes are as economically damaging for Gibraltar as has been claimed, we need to consider how they work in other jurisdictions. The same gambling organisations often operate in other countries with much higher tax rates than the UK, and they manage to survive profitably in those sectors. I think that we should take that into account when considering new clause 9 and the impact on Gibraltar.
Kirsty Blackman
You would not believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, how far beyond delighted I was when I discovered that I would be stepping in for a colleague on the Finance Bill. I am sure that the House is similarly ecstatic to hear me speak on the Bill. I did a significant number of Finance Bills in my first few years in this place, and I have missed it. I have also missed the former Member for Amber Valley, Nigel Mills, who used to make a speech from the Government Back Benches about something that nobody else had even considered or knew existed. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is very kindly stepping into his shoes and raising issues relating to gambling tax, which, to be fair, are important. He is asking very important questions, as Nigel Mills used to, about a fairly niche subject. In the light of the hon. Member’s comments about gambling taxation and the black market, it would be great if the Treasury provided updates on how the tax has worked.
In fact, I think the Treasury should generally provide more updates on every tax measure that it implements. If the Treasury says that a tax measure will raise £30 million, it would be helpful for the MPs who sat on the Finance Bill to know whether it did in fact raise £30 million, or if it raised £50 million or £10 million. Then, we could make better decisions about future tax changes, because we would have a better idea of whether they would achieve the Government’s aims. Successive Governments have been particularly bad at undertaking post-implementation reviews, particularly of tax measures. It would be really handy to see that information more regularly, so that we can make better-informed decisions.
Let me touch on the transparency issues that have been mentioned. Earlier, I raised my concerns about the fact that additional Ways and Means motions were added at this point. I also raised the fact that we do not have oral evidence sessions during the passage of the Finance Bill. I continue to make the case that that could be done after Committee of the whole House. Usually the more technical aspects of Finance Bills are considered in a Public Bill Committee in a Committee Room, rather than in a Committee of the whole House in the Chamber.
The Minister said that some Government amendments had been tabled following stakeholder feedback—particularly through written evidence—to clarify the intention of the legislation. The Government had intended to do something, and stakeholders said, “We don’t really understand this; it’s not clear enough. Could you clarify it?”. If the Government had held oral evidence sessions, they may have been able to make those changes in Committee, rather than on Report. I urge them, and any future Government, to consider holding oral evidence sessions. Anyone who has been on a Bill Committee in which there are oral evidence sessions will understand their great value, and we refer back to them so many times throughout the course of a Committee. There is nothing quite like being able to ask an expert questions, rather than just looking at the written evidence, which is helpful, but it is not the same. We do not remember written evidence in the same way, and we do not have the same ability to probe it.
I want to touch on the four amendments that may be put to a vote. The SNP and I are happy to support new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I was thinking about the history of some “get rich quick” schemes. We had Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes. The new thing—the Ponzi scheme of the day—is the scheme that says, “This is foolproof. This is failsafe. You are going to make loads of money doing this,” but it is actually unregulated. The new clause would be incredibly helpful. I would have preferred the new clause to say “user-to-user services” instead of “social media”, so that it would cover all the stuff in the Online Safety Act 2023. That covers things that we may not classically define as social media. For example, if somebody gave really terrible tax advice on a money-saving expert forum, would that be included in the definition of social media? Social media is not 100% defined, which is why I would have preferred a different term. However, the new clause is sufficient to cover the majority of people.
Ms Creasy
I feel the need to stand up for Martin Lewis, because he is one of the good guys when it comes to advice, and those forums are policed very well. The problem is people exploiting the fact that social media companies also have a vested interest in generating content that goes viral. They are the sole publishers of these videos—they make money from them—that tell people outlandish things that they can do with their taxes. I think we all agree that it is worth looking at the Money Saving Expert forum. I peruse it at length myself, much to the detriment of being able to make decisions.
Kirsty Blackman
It is absolutely worth looking at that forum, but as the hon. Member said in relation to the new clause, people who are promoting schemes with no expectation that they will actually work should not be doing it on money-saving expert forums, or anywhere else. I agree that Martin Lewis has been very clear that he does not give advice online, and that people who, for example, say, “This is a Martin Lewis tip” are lying. It is worth highlighting that the way in which he has chosen to put forward tax advice or information is totally different to the way chosen by the financial influencers referred to in new clause 4. As I said, I am more than happy to support it; I would have just liked it to be wider.
We are happy to support new clause 11 on the uprating of agricultural relief, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. If the new clause and the uprating is not to be implemented, it would be incredibly useful to see the Government’s rationale for why they have chosen not to do annual uprating in a way that would be standard for the majority of other reliefs. What is the logic for that? As I was not on the Bill Committee, I am not as across this part of the Bill as I perhaps should be, so I am not clear what mechanism is in place to uprate the relief. Is it done under the negative or affirmative statutory instrument procedure? Will the House actually see a statutory instrument, or is a delegated authority given to the Minister? It would be helpful to have an idea of what the mechanism is, and whether, if inflation continues at the current rate or goes up again, the Government are likely to put in place an increase to ensure that agricultural relief continues to wash its face—to provide the relief it is supposed to.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member is saying in support of new clause 11 tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Lots of my farmers in North Cornwall are constantly telling me that they are pleased with the Government’s decision to change course on the family farm tax, but it is essential that they keep rising prices in mind, exactly as the hon. Member says.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. With the uncertainty in the middle east just now, we are seeing an increase in fuel prices, which will heavily impact farmers, and fertiliser prices. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, fertiliser prices have gone through the roof and it has been difficult to get hold of at all, so farmers need support. We have always relied on growing food, but in this ever more uncertain world we really need to rely on growing our own food. This Government—and all Governments—need to consider whether we want to be self-sufficient, or anywhere near self-sufficient, in food, or we are happy to see our farms dismantled to create ever-larger, Australian-style sheep farms, with thousands of sheep on them and nothing else. We need to consider what future there is for our farmers and ensure that we are backing that future.
Robbie Moore
I endorse what the hon. Member says. I cannot get my head around the fact that there are so many family businesses, beyond the agricultural sector, that will be impacted by the business property relief threshold at £2.5 million. They include manufacturing businesses and those in the hospitality sector, and many of them will be in the constituencies of Labour MPs. I cannot understand why, during the course of this Bill, many Labour MPs have been silent on the issue of business property relief, and why they are not standing up for family businesses. I endorse what the hon. Member says about fire sales happening as a result of an increased inheritance tax liability.
Kirsty Blackman
Given that we have a Labour Government who care about workers’ rights, the family businesses that I have visited have a strong worker involvement. The people who work there are cared for and looked after because it is a family business, and one would think that the Labour party would want to support more of those rather than encouraging people to get out of that place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I have big concerns on the matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is currently leading a debate in Westminster Hall, he is unable to speak to his amendments himself, so I would like to talk about the reasons that he has tabled them. He has tabled a number of amendments in relation to APR and the anti-forestalling clauses. We are pleased that the threshold for APR was raised—that is welcome—but we are concerned about the backdating and the fact that the changes relate to things from 2024 onwards, rather than from April 2026 onwards. My hon. Friend’s amendments relate specifically to those anti-forestalling issues and ask for changes to be made, so that there is no backdating on the transactions. A number of agricultural organisations and farmers in his constituency have asked for those changes to be made, which is why he has put forward those amendments. The Government have raised the threshold, which is welcome, but if they continue to push forward with this measure, that will not be enough. Either cancelling it completely, as suggested by the Conservatives, or looking at the date would be incredibly helpful in ensuring that it is not backdated or retrospective, so that people do not lose relief on changes announced or made previous to the Budget.
My hon. Friend also tabled amendments in relation to whisky duty, which would take out clause 86. Over the last three years, we have seen an 18% hike in whisky duty. The figures show that there will be a £600 million downgrade in receipts as a result of continuing to increase this tax. Increasing the tax will reduce receipts, which will result in jobs in Scotland being put at risk, and the Government getting less money. I do not understand the logic of continuing to push ahead with raising whisky duty.
We really want the Government to think again. [Interruption.] To be fair, the 18% hike over three years was down to both Labour and the Conservatives, so I am afraid that the Conservatives do not have a huge amount of high ground. This issue has happened under both parties, but we will continue to fight on behalf of Scottish whisky producers. The tax on spirits needs to be looked at seriously, because this is an important part of the Scottish economy; it provides jobs in rural areas where depopulation is a big issue. We need these companies to continue, but if the Government continue to raise tax and hike the tax rates, we will see those jobs dropping off.
Amendment 140 has not been selected, but it is the only amendment put forward by our merry band of Reform colleagues, although they signed some other amendments. If anyone looks at that amendment, which we would presume is Reform’s key priority, given that that is the only amendment it has put forward, they will see that it would remove clause 88, which increases cigar duty. The main priority of Reform in the entire Finance Bill is that the Government should not be allowed to increase duty on cigars. That says a huge amount about the priorities of those who sit on the Reform Benches for the general people. To be fair, no Reform Members are here.
Kirsty Blackman
That was truly brilliant.
With all the craziness that we face in the world and all the issues faced by farmers, businesses and those who are badly advised by people making up tax advice on the internet, if the key priority of Reform is, “Let’s not increase the price of cigars”, it has got something wrong in the way that it deals with things.
I have laid out exactly how the SNP will deal with each of the votes that will take place, including our abstention on the income tax thresholds, because they do not apply in Scotland. I am very clear that we continue to have major concerns about APR and BPR.
I want the Government to think again about whisky duty and the level of transparency and scrutiny provided throughout the course of the Bill. This is not the first time I have asked for that, and Members are probably sick of me asking for oral evidence sessions to be included in the Bill, but I will keep asking until that happens. If the Government want to stop me having this conversation, just make it happen, and we will be completely grand.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I will speak to new clause 4 in particular, and to the wider issue of tax dodging and enforcement in this country. I make these remarks as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax.
I begin by congratulating the Government on the action they have already taken to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. The measures brought forward by the Chancellor and the Treasury team to strengthen HMRC’s powers, invest in enforcement and crack down on abusive tax schemes represent an important step in restoring fairness to the system. They have sent a clear signal that in Britain, the rules should be the same for everyone. The same rules should apply to the multinational company and the market trader, to the billionaire and the builder, and to those with the most expensive accountants and those who simply pay what they owe. More broadly, I also welcome the Government’s wider economic plan, which, despite global headwinds outside the Chancellor’s gift, is beginning to restore stability after years of uncertainty and drift. After 14 years in which economic instability and mortgage-spiking kamikaze Budgets became the norm, restoring stability is no small achievement. It is the foundation on which everything else must be built—investment, growth and confidence that the system is working in the interests of ordinary working people.
I turn to new clause 4. As a financial crime compliance officer in a previous life, in which role I spent many years dealing with the practical realities of financial crime controls, anti-money laundering systems and tax compliance, I recognise the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is pursuing—that of cracking down on the enablers of crackpot tax avoidance schemes. We have all seen the rise of so-called online finfluencers promoting dubious arrangements. These schemes are dressed up as clever financial advice, but in reality, they promise something that should always ring alarm bells: something for nothing. I make no judgment on the merits of my hon. Friend’s new clause, and I would welcome further discussion about it with her after today’s debate. My sincere hope is that HMRC is already fully alert to the risk posed by these schemes, and is monitoring the promotion of them closely. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that when he winds up.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has, on a fundamental issue in this country, hit the nail on the head. In many ways, aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion have become decriminalised, not through any change in the law but through something far more corrosive—a lack of enforcement. Laws can exist on the statute book, offences can be created and powers can be granted, but if those powers are not used and those laws are not enforced—if those who break the rules rarely face consequences—the signal that is sent is unmistakeable.
I am afraid to say that much of this decline occurred on the watch of the Conservative party. For 14 long years, we saw enforcement weaken, complexity increase, and a culture emerge in which some individuals and firms appeared to believe that paying tax was optional so long as they could afford sufficiently inventive advice. At the same time, the Conservatives drove the tax burden to the highest level in 80 years while turning a blind eye to those who simply refused to pay it. In response to an intervention earlier from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who unfortunately is not in his place, it was the Conservative Government in 2023 who scrapped the Office of Tax Simplification. Now, the official Opposition have the audacity to talk about making £47 billion of cuts, which is the equivalent of firing every police officer in Britain twice over. It is simply not credible.
Members may recall my speech on 27 November last year, during the Budget debate. For those who do not, in my remarks I referenced one of the more surreal examples of tax avoidance that has surfaced in recent years, which is the elaborate mollusc-based wheezes used to avoid business rates. These are schemes so convoluted that they led one high-profile individual to acquire more knowledge than anyone should ever reasonably possess about snail fornication, snail gestation, snail feed and—rather disturbingly—snail cannibalism. You really could not make it up: slimy advisers, snail farms and shell companies, all deployed in the service of dodging a lawful tax bill. It sounds absurd, and in many ways it is, but it also illustrates something deeper and more troubling. The creativity deployed in designing these schemes—the ingenuity, complexity and sheer effort involved—is often directed not towards creating wealth or innovation, but towards avoiding a basic civic responsibility. That is why I welcome clause 156, which prohibits the promotion of tax avoidance arrangements, with civil penalties and criminal offences built into the Bill to tackle the unlawful promotion of such initiatives.
On enforcement, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has highlighted just how far things have fallen in recent years. Prosecutions against enablers of tax evasion dropped by around 75% between 2018 and 2024, and HMRC has not fined a single enabler of offshore tax evasion or non-compliance in five years. That is a dramatic decline that sends the wrong signal. It also risks creating the impression that while most people must play by the rules, those with the right advisers can simply play around them. Since the introduction of a new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, we have seen very little enforcement. When prosecutions are rare, deterrence weakens; when enforcement is inconsistent, compliance declines; and when those who break the rules see others doing so without consequences, the entire system begins to fray.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I rise to speak to amendments 112 to 139, which stand in my name and those of other hon. Members. When the Chancellor introduced the Budget, she described it as a Budget for growth and a Budget to encourage business. The natural assumption was that we would have growth across the whole United Kingdom, that there would be no discrimination against any part of this United Kingdom, and that what was available to encourage growth in one part of the UK would be available in the others. That would be a natural expectation, given that we are a United Kingdom.
Sadly, this Bill does not live up to that expectation, because clauses 13 to 15 introduce scandalous discrimination against businesses in Northern Ireland. Clauses 13 to 15 are about updating the assistance to businesses in England, Scotland and Wales, but not to those in Northern Ireland. These are the very levers that enable businesses to grow. Clause 13 is about enterprise management incentives, which were introduced in 2000. Since then, thousands of companies have used them as a tool to attract, retain and reward their employees through options, enabling employees to acquire shares in a company without liability for income tax or national insurance contributions. Instead, any gain is usually subject to lower rates of tax under capital gains tax.
Under the enterprise management incentive, there have been caps on what is available. Under clause 13, the EMI limit on company options will be increased to £6 million for Scotland, England and Wales, but it will stay at £3 million for Northern Ireland. The EMI limit on gross assets will be increased to £120 million in England, Scotland and Wales, but limited to just £30 million in Northern Ireland. In England, Scotland and Wales, the number of employees a company can have will be lifted to 500, but Northern Ireland will retain the figure of 250. On that measure—one of a trio of measures capable of encouraging businesses to grow—we see an uplift for Great Britain, but a stagnation in the assistance for Northern Ireland.
We see the same in clause 14 on the enterprise investment scheme. That scheme, along with the venture capital trusts covered in clause 15, has been a very useful tool for companies attracting investment so that they can grow. It has been described by the British Business Bank as
“a government-driven initiative designed to stimulate investment in early-stage businesses through venture capital. It serves as a significant source of capital for these companies while also providing attractive tax reliefs to the investors who support them.”
What is happening to the enterprise investment scheme across this one United Kingdom? In England, Scotland and Wales, the gross asset requirement will be raised to £30 million, but in Northern Ireland it will stay at £15 million. There is an uplift for both standard companies and new growth companies in GB, but none in Northern Ireland. A knowledge-intensive company’s lifetime investment limit in Scotland, England and Wales will be raised to £40 million, but in Northern Ireland it is capped at £20 million. It is the same in clause 15 on venture capital trusts. Again, Northern Ireland is trapped at the level set in 2012, whereas the rest of the country is allowed to move into 2026.
When this Government talk about growth and pretend that it is growth for the whole United Kingdom, the fundamental question I have to ask is this: why does this Budget, in clauses 13 to 15, inhibit growth in my part of the United Kingdom while not giving a level playing field, not allowing equality across the United Kingdom and denying parity to Northern Ireland in this way? This amounts to systemic discrimination against business in my constituency. One is tempted to ask: are the Government trying to incentivise companies to locate in GB? Is that the motivation, because if someone about to set up a company realises that their venture capital thresholds and the incentives they could be given are higher in GB, why would they go to Northern Ireland?
That is the disparity this Government are creating, and it is certainly not because the private sector is doing too well in Northern Ireland. Alas, Northern Ireland still has 27% of its workforce in the public sector in comparison with the UK average of 18%. The answer, sadly, lies in the fact that this Government and this Parliament embrace that discrimination against Northern Ireland because they are wholly beholden to the European Union. Northern Ireland, under the iniquitous Windsor framework, has been left under the EU state aid rules. That is the effect of article 10 of the Windsor framework. It leaves us subject to the state aid rules of foreign institutions, not the state aid rules of this United Kingdom. That has caused the Government, in their beholden attitude to the EU when it comes to enterprise schemes, venture capital and all the things in clauses 13 to 15, to simply retain Northern Ireland at the levels of support that were permitted pre-Brexit. Why? Because they are not prepared to face down the EU on the imposition of their foreign laws on my part of the United Kingdom in respect of support for industry.
Carla Lockhart
Many small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency are looking to expand, invest and grow beyond being an SME, but the Bill does not afford them that opportunity. You would forgive businesses in Northern Ireland for feeling deeply disadvantaged. That, on top of the practical daily problems they face as a result of the Windsor framework, is putting them at a disadvantage.
Jim Allister
There is absolutely no doubt about that, and the Government are putting it up in lights. They are saying to new businesses coming into the United Kingdom or starting in the United Kingdom, “If you place yourself in GB, you will have an uplift available to you in terms of the aid we can give and the venture capital you can draw in, but if you stay in Northern Ireland then you will be at the bottom of the pile, treated unequally.”
Charlie Maynard
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please remind the House what last year’s growth rate was for Northern Ireland compared with for the whole UK? I think it might have been three times higher.
Jim Allister
That is a very insightful question, but the answer is even more insightful. The growth we have had in Northern Ireland is in the services sector—lo and behold, the sector that is outside the Windsor framework. The manufacturing sector, which is clobbered by the Windsor framework, has not grown. The growth we have had—and thank goodness for it—is in the services sector. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman’s mantra of believing that all things EU are precious and beneficial, that is an illustration and an indication that our liberation from the EU in terms of services has served us well, but our entrapment in the EU in respect of manufacturing has served us very ill. The Bill underwrites that disadvantage to Northern Ireland.
I say to the Minister: tell my constituents and my businesses why they are treated differently, why they are less deserving of the same capacity to be supported, why they cannot draw in the same level of venture capital or investment schemes, and why they are the second-class citizens of this United Kingdom. The answer, as I have said, is because this Government are wholly beholden to the EU. This is a Government with a reset policy. If they follow the trends of Northern Ireland, then very shortly under their reset policy, they are going to enslave themselves again to EU state aid rules; they are going to end up in the same predicament, where they will not be allowed to increase their state aid, such as they are doing here.
There is one final point that the House needs to understand. If there is a dispute over whether there has been state aid that might breach the rules of our foreign masters, it is not the courts of this land that would decide on such a matter, but the European Court of Justice. It is so obnoxious, so wrong and so offensive that, though I sit as a Member for a United Kingdom constituency and come to this Parliament of the United Kingdom, this Parliament cannot make laws governing these issues in Northern Ireland because of the surrender of sovereignty to the EU. If this Government had any backbone and cared about parity in the United Kingdom and about the businesses in my constituency, they would be setting about giving us an equal playing field and facing down those who insist that it is their laws, not ours, that must apply.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank all Members for their contributions at this stage of the Bill’s passage—we are almost there. I will take some time to respond directly to the amendments that have been discussed today.
I will first address amendments 1 to 4, 5 and 7, which were spoken to by the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). Amendments 1 to 4 would remove the increase in dividend, savings and property income tax rates; amendment 5 would prevent income tax thresholds from staying at their current levels until 2030; and amendment 7 would remove reforms to the inheritance tax treatment of pensions. Based on costings that have been certified by the OBR, the direct impact of these amendments would cumulatively reduce forecast revenue raised in 2029-30—the year of relevance for our fiscal rules—by a whopping £12 billion. These amendments therefore pose a significant risk to the sustainability of our public finances and to our ability to fund the NHS and the public services that we all rely on. I therefore urge the House to reject them.
Sir Ashley Fox
Would the Minister concede that if that was offset by £12 billion less welfare spending, there would not be any threat to the sustainability of the finances?
Dan Tomlinson
If the Conservatives had credible plans and a credible history of reining in welfare spending, then I would, of course, be interested in taking them seriously. However, it was the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who was the Work and Pensions Secretary when the welfare budget exploded. We are now trying to get on top of that.
I will not address new clauses 15 to 19 directly. The Government have set out our position on them at previous stages, although I do urge the House to reject them today.
I will now turn to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) around amendments 112 to 139, which would have the effect of removing the distinction between the options available in respect of “specified Northern Ireland companies” and other companies from clauses 13, 14 and 15. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his views known very clearly both today and on Second Reading. I will make the same point that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made on Second Reading: as he will be aware—although he did not, I believe, mention this in his speech —service companies are able to benefit from the increase in the threshold. It is the Government’s understanding that there are very few, if any, goods and electricity companies in Northern Ireland that are close to the current enterprise management incentive limits, and we therefore think there will be minimal impact from these companies being subject to the previous scheme limits.
Jim Allister
Is the Minister saying to the House that the criterion here is to look at each region and see who is near the thresholds, and then to magically increase those that are? Surely the truth is that the Minister is not increasing the threshold because he has handed the power to do so to a foreign jurisdiction.
Dan Tomlinson
I am just stating a fact, which is that there are few—if any—businesses near the relevant thresholds. The hon. and learned Member made the point that the Government’s decision may be hampering growth and investment; I do not think that is the case. I am proud to be a member of a Government who are seeking to deepen and strengthen our ties with the European Union so that we in this country can increase our productivity through better flowing trade, working together with our partners. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 112 to 139.
Amendments 6 and 8 relate to the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief as raised by the shadow Exchequer Secretary as well as the hon. Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). If we were to adopt those amendments, we would weaken the public purse by about £300 million a year. It would also leave a status quo that contributes to the very largest estates paying lower average effective inheritance tax rates than the smallest estates. I therefore urge the House to reject those amendments.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked for clarity on payment deadlines in the inheritance tax system. The Government’s position is that the six-month point is the right one. It has applied for a long time, and it is not our position to change that timeline when these changes come into force.
Robbie Moore
I note that that is the Government’s position, but what level of assessment have they done of the negative implications of having just a six-month period as opposed to extending that to 18 months? From the engagement that Opposition Members have had with many stakeholders, we have found that the consequences are huge. What assessments have the Government done in relation to this specific issue?
Dan Tomlinson
I am sure this issue was considered before the policy was announced, and I have considered it too since I have been in post. It is worth pointing out that HMRC already offers several payment options to help personal representatives pay inheritance tax. That allows banks, building societies or investment providers to pay some or all the inheritance tax due from the deceased person’s accounts before probate is granted. There are a range of ways available to people to enable them to pay IHT within six months. I therefore urge the House to reject amendment 88.
Dan Tomlinson
The president of the National Farmers Union mentioned in his speech to the farmers’ conference just a few weeks ago that he was glad of my engagement with farmers—he personally called out that engagement. I took a trip to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), after being invited there by him, and I was glad to meet farmers there and learn about their experiences.
Amendments 89 to 94 seek to exclude the value of any joint interest in certain agricultural business tenancies from the £2.5 million allowance for 100% relief. It is worth pointing out that the drafting of the amendments risks those tenancies falling outside the allowance entirely so that, rather than providing 100% relief, the Government are concerned that the drafting would mean that the relief might well be capped at 50% for those with joint tenancies. That is certainly a reason to reject those amendments.
Dan Tomlinson
If the right hon. Member will forgive me, I will make progress, having spoken for eight minutes already.
Amendments 102 to 107 would mean that unlimited 100% agricultural property relief would be available on agricultural land rented out for at least 10 years. The Government’s position is that the House should reject these amendments.
The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) also spoke to new clause 11. The Government have decided on a range of thresholds that will continue to be frozen until the end of the decade. We have made the decision across the piece, as was mentioned earlier, to sustainably and fairly raise revenue to fund our public services and get borrowing down. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 102 to 107. I will not address in detail new clause 12 or amendments 67 to 87, 95 to 100 and 108 to 111, as the Government have set out their position on those amendments at previous stages, and I urge the House to reject them.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), both made important contributions on the amendments relating to gambling duty. I have twice met the Minister from Gibraltar mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and have been in correspondence with him. I understand that there are significant impacts on the economy in Gibraltar, and I hope to keep engaging on and discussing that.
Gareth Snell
I am glad about the Minister’s meetings, but while he is at the Dispatch Box, will he give an assurance that there are no future surprises and no significant tax-change announcements planned that will disproportionately affect areas such as Gibraltar as a result of their dependence on certain industries?
Dan Tomlinson
We will, of course, continue to engage with Ministers in Gibraltar. It would not be appropriate for me to write future Budgets at this Dispatch Box today, but we have made a significant change when it comes to gambling taxation. Rather than make further changes, the Government will monitor the impact of that change. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen for his contributions and representations.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a helpful speech— with not much notice, I understand. She raised the matter of alcohol duty. It is worth pointing out that the uprating in alcohol duty just keeps the revenue in line with inflation. We have seen reductions in alcohol consumption, driven not by the tax staying in line with inflation, but changes in consumers’ consumption habits. I therefore urge the House to reject amendment 101 and new clause 20.
Graham Stuart
The Minister has overcome his natural reluctance, and I am grateful to him. A lot of people get confused about the BPR tax changes. If there was £10 million in a company that someone inherited, and it was subject to those changes, the claim is that they would only have to pay £2 million in tax, but in fact the money to pay that tax has to be extracted from the company, so the person who inherits it, rather than the company, pays it. Will the Minister confirm that? In other words, if the money was taken out in the form of dividends, it would be £3.3 million, instead of £2 million, and that would have a very real impact on a small company. In fact, it could be existential.
Dan Tomlinson
I will not get into specific worked examples. The general point is that the Government have made changes both to business property relief and to agricultural property relief, in order to raise additional revenue from the very wealthiest estates. We have sought to do that because we want to put fairness into our tax system.
The CBAM was mentioned by the Opposition, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). I thank him for his strong advocacy for his constituency, and the thousand people who work in the refinery there. The Government said at the Budget that we recognise the important role that refineries play in our energy security, and we are now considering the feasibility and impact of including refined products in the CBAM in future. It is very complicated, and there would be knock-on impacts on other sectors if the Government were to proceed with that. I have met representatives from the sector recently, and I will continue to engage with them.
Finally, I turn to new clause 4, which requires the Chancellor to report on how the regulations in the prohibition address the harm to individuals and businesses from online tax avoidance promotion, and the steps that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs should take to inform the public of the risk posed by online tax avoidance. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for raising the important issue of avoidance promotion. I agree with her that it is appalling that these individuals promote tax avoidance schemes and get away with it. It causes misery to those caught up in the schemes, and deprives our public services of vital revenue. The Government are taking action via this Finance Bill to crack down on them.
I confirm to the House that the measures introduced in clauses 156 to 162 apply equally to those promoting avoidance schemes online, including on social media, and to those promoting them through more traditional routes. I can also confirm that the promoter action notice in clauses 163 to 173 will also apply.
I would also like to reassure my hon. Friend that we are publishing guidance on these matters, and I will ensure that it is clear throughout that the Government’s intention is to capture anyone who is promoting tax avoidance. This includes social media influencers who are making a monetary gain through clicks, as highlighted by my hon. Friend, and I would welcome her engagement in developing the guidance.
Ms Creasy
I thank all the MPs across the House—except those in the obvious party—who understand the risks to our constituents from this advice. It is very welcome to see a Government respond so quickly to social media problems, unlike the last one; we remember payday lending and the “buy now, pay later” lenders. The Minister talks about issuing guidance. Does he have a rough timeline for when that guidance will be available? I guess what I am really asking, on behalf of the millions of people who have been ripped off, is when Samuel Leeds will get a knock on the door from the taxman.
Dan Tomlinson
I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, and other Members who are interested in this topic, to make sure that we move as quickly as we possibly can. Let me thank all Members for their contributions during this this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Offshore income gains: savings
“(1) This section applies in relation to an offshore income gain arising to the trustees of a settlement in a case where Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 (transfer of assets abroad) applies in relation to that gain for the tax year 2025-26 or any subsequent tax year because of the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains).
(2) If the offshore income gain arose in a tax year before the tax year 2025-26 and, by reason of that offshore income gain or a part of it, an offshore income gain was treated as arising in a tax year before the tax year 2025-26 to an individual under paragraphs (2) to (5) of regulation 20 of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/3001)—
(a) Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 is to be treated as not applying in relation to the offshore income gain arising to the trustees or that part of that gain, and
(b) references in section 734 of ITA 2007 to chargeable gains treated as accruing to an individual are to be treated as including the offshore income gain treated as arising to the individual.
(3) An individual is not chargeable to income tax under Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 on income treated as arising to the individual under section 732 of ITA 2007 by reason of the offshore income gain to the extent that the income, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b)—
(a) would have been treated as arising to that individual under paragraphs (2) to (5) of regulation 20 of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/3001), and
(b) would have been non-chargeable income (see subsections (4), (5) and (6)).
(4) The income would have been non-chargeable income if, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b)—
(a) the income would have been treated as arising by reason of—
(i) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual before 6 April 2008 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2025, or
(ii) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2025 with an offshore income gain arising before 6 April 2008, and
(b) paragraph 100 of Schedule 7 to FA 2008 would have applied to the income.
(5) The income would have been non-chargeable income to the extent that, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b), it would have exceeded the relevant proportion of income—
(a) which would have been treated as arising to the individual by reason of—
(i) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2008 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2025, or
(ii) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2025 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2008, and
(b) to which paragraph 101 of Schedule 7 to FA 2008 would have applied,
and, for that purpose, “relevant proportion” has the meaning given by sub-paragraphs (9) to (18) of paragraph 126 of that Schedule as they would have been modified by sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 101 of that Schedule.
(6) The income would have been non-chargeable income to the extent that, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b), it would have exceeded the relevant proportion of income—
(a) which would have been treated as arising to the individual by reason of—
(i) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2008 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2025, or
(ii) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2025 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2008,
(b) to which paragraph 102 of Schedule 7 to FA 2008 would have applied, and
(c) to which paragraph 101 of that Schedule would not have applied,
and, for that purpose, “relevant proportion” has the meaning given by sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) of paragraph 127 of that Schedule as they would have been modified by sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 102 of that Schedule.
(7) Subsection (3) does not prevent Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 from having effect as though the income not chargeable to tax under that subsection had been charged to tax under section 731 of that Act.
(8) Accordingly—
(a) in the application of section 733(1) of ITA 2007 to the individual for subsequent tax years, the amount of that income will be deducted at Step 2 and at paragraph (a) of Step 5, and
(b) in the application of section 733(1) of ITA 2007 to any other individual for subsequent tax years, the amount of that income will be deducted at paragraph (b) of Step 5.
(9) In section 733 of ITA 2007, after subsection (2D) insert—
“(2E) See subsections (7) and (8) of section (Offshore income gains: savings) of FA 2026 (offshore income gains: savings relating to amendments made by section (Offshore income gains) of that Act) for special provision about income that is treated as arising under section 732 but that is not chargeable to income tax under subsection (3) of that section.”
(10) This section—
(a) is to be treated as having come into force on 6 April 2025;
(b) has effect for the tax year 2025-26 and subsequent tax years.” —(Dan Tomlinson.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Pensions: abolition of the lifetime allowance charge
“(1) Paragraph 134 of Schedule 9 to FA 2024 (power to make further provision in connection with the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) have effect for the tax years 2024-25 and 2025-26 (as well as subsequent tax years);”;
(b) in paragraph (d), at the end insert“(including any provision that could be made under paragraph 133)”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (3) omit “that increase any person’s liability to tax”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (4), for “5 April” substitute “30 June”.” —(Dan Tomlinson.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Uprating of allowance amounts for agricultural property
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential merits of uprating annually the relief allowance amount for agricultural property by the change in the value of agricultural land.”—(Charles Maynard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Budget in November was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy. It contained fair and necessary choices to deliver the public’s priorities by cutting the cost of living, cutting debt and borrowing, cutting child poverty, and cutting NHS waiting lists. At its heart were three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability and getting inflation and interest rates down, we gave businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected over £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing British companies of the future, we supported the investment, the innovation and the economic dynamism that will increase growth, raise living standards, and boost the country’s prosperity in the next decade and beyond. The measures in the Bill deliver on those choices by introducing tax levers to unlock investment, back our wealth creators and attract talent by sticking to commitments in the corporate tax road map to provide certainty for businesses, and by doubling the limits for our enterprise tax incentives so that scale-ups can attract the capital and talent that they need in order to grow.
The Bill contains a series of other responsible decisions on tax, and that is because, at the time of the Budget, the Government faced choices. We could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services as the Conservative party did and undermining capital investment, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure and to build a better, stronger, more secure economy.
In line with our commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Bill maintains income tax thresholds for employees and the self-employed at the current levels for a further three years, from April 2028 until April 2031. It also contains measures to strengthen the integrity of the tax system by closing loopholes and removing barriers. That includes reforms to collect more unpaid taxes and to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right first time. We are introducing new powers to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, and to challenge those who knowingly engage in fraudulent business in the construction industry. Alongside the measures announced in the 2024 Budget, the measures in the Bill to close the tax gap will bring the total revenue from tax gap measures announced in this Parliament to £10 billion in 2029-30.
I wholeheartedly thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for their contributions during the Bill’s passage. The Bill contains the right choices for the public finances, the right choices on investment, the right choices for businesses and for working people, the right choices for our public services, and the right choices for Britain. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
James Wild
I join the Minister in thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate—there are rather more of them here than there have been throughout our proceedings. I also thank the parliamentary staff, and the hon. Members who chaired the Committee.
In this 534-page Bill, the Government have chosen to impose a raft of tax-raising measures that hit work, enterprise and investment, and which add significantly to the regulatory costs on UK businesses. They have extended the freeze on income tax thresholds, dragging hundreds of thousands more working people into higher tax bands; they have introduced a family farm and family business tax, targeting rural communities and family firms; and they have increased taxes on savings, property income and long-term investment. Taken together, these measures amount to billions of pounds-worth of extra taxation, pushing the overall tax burden to record levels. Ultimately, the Chancellor has chosen to make the UK a less attractive place for businesses and for the investors who we need to grow the economy.
Just last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility cut growth projects again. At a time of global uncertainty, the Government are taking the wrong course, and it shows. Unemployment is up, taxes are up, welfare spending is going up, and living standards will fall over the course of this Parliament. This Government have led the country into a high-tax, low-growth doom loop.
There is a long list of voices sounding the alarm over the economy, but the Chancellor is still not listening. Rather than change course, she is sticking to her failing plan of higher taxes, higher spending and borrowing. This Bill breaks the promises to the British people, and we will oppose it this evening.
Charlie Maynard
I speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and the shadow Minister’s audacity in talking about a “high-tax, low-growth doom loop” is pretty high.
With regard to this Bill, I ask the Government to look again at four things. I will go through them quickly, and then I will sit down. I ask the Government to provide more detail, and quickly, on their plans to prevent pensioners from being dragged into paying income tax; to publish information on how the freezing of tax thresholds until 2030-31 impacts households at various income levels; to recognise the impact that the Government’s policies are having on youth unemployment, which is up by 100,000 in the last year, and to take steps to halt this rapid rise, which at a minimum would include reducing the national insurance contributions rate paid by employers on part-time employees earning between £5,000 and £9,100 per year; and, finally, as per new clause 11, which we just pushed to a vote, to look again at taking a fairer approach to farmers by allowing the thresholds on agricultural property relief to rise over time in line with agricultural land prices, rather than having those thresholds eroded over time.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before we move on to the next business—unfortunately the Government Chief Whip has left the Chamber—may I emphasise to all Members the need to vote in a prompt manner? There can be no excuse for loitering in the Lobby.
Business without Debate
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Commonwealth Day 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful for the chance to lead the House in acknowledging and marking Commonwealth Day 2026. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth and a member of the executive of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—and as, in many ways, a child of the Commonwealth.
As you know Madam Deputy Speaker, the Commonwealth was formed way back in 1949—not that you were present, for clarity—with His late Majesty King George VI as its first head; we think, of course, about Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries across the globe. It is home to 2.7 billion people and includes both advanced economies and developing countries. Thirty-three of its members are small states, including many island nations in all corners of the world, from Jamaica—the land of my grandfather’s birth; that wonderful green island in the West Indies—to Tonga, Tuvalu and Malta. Its member states have agreed to shared goals on development, democracy and peace, and its values and principles are expressed in the Commonwealth charter.
Though I am firmly of the view that the Commonwealth must be recognised every day by all of us, I am pleased that on the second Monday in March, every year since 1977, people from across the Commonwealth, representing nearly a third of the world’s population, come together in a shared moment of reflection and celebration. So it was again this year; the world marked Commonwealth Day on Monday this week, and people across all 56 member countries took part in cultural events, school activities and faith-based services.
On Monday, thanks to Mr Speaker, the Commonwealth flag was raised here, in this mother of Parliaments. Sadly, I had not quite reached this place from Newcastle-under-Lyme—the centre of our collective universe—to attend the ceremony, but I pay tribute to Mr Speaker for the seriousness with which he takes furthering links between Commonwealth Parliaments, peoples and traditions.
Although I could not attend the flag raising, I was privileged to mark Commonwealth Day in the presence of Their Majesties at a service of thanksgiving at Westminster abbey, attending on behalf of my constituents back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It allowed me and the many hundreds of people present the opportunity to reflect, remember and celebrate all that makes the Commonwealth—a family of nations in all corners of the globe—what it is, what is has been, and what it can be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate? It is important that we remember Commonwealth Day, and he is right to mark it. Commonwealth Day is more than the hon. Gentleman says. We celebrate a network of 56 nations with shared values, but for Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth also offers real economic opportunities, from expanding trade in agriculture, technology and manufacturing to attracting investment and fostering innovation. Does he agree that by embracing these partnerships, we in Northern Ireland and around the United Kingdom can grow our economy, empower our youth and build a stronger future in the Commonwealth?
Adam Jogee
If the hon. Member waits a little minute longer, he will hear all the important points that I make, some of which he has just mentioned. I agree with him. He knows that I had the wisdom to marry a woman from County Antrim—
Adam Jogee
A very good choice. I am glad that she chose me. Actually, I am sure that she regrets it sometimes in this life. The importance of Northern Ireland both to the United Kingdom and to the Commonwealth is absolute, and he and I are at one on that.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention demonstrates why I am delighted to have secured this debate: it provides colleagues across the House with an important opportunity not only to reflect on the legacy of the Commonwealth and our own individual stories and connections, but to look to the opportunities before us. Every one of us in this place is a Commonwealth citizen, and it is about time that we all started acting like it. Our world is ever more fractious, there is geopolitical instability almost everywhere we look and, following our departure from the European Union, it is vital for jobs and livelihoods in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, Northern Ireland and right across our United Kingdom that we nurture and further our connections with the wider world. Where better to start than with the Commonwealth—
Adam Jogee
—and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell)?
Henry Tufnell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for his excellent speech. In the light of our departure from the European Union, the intractable nature of our discussions with the EU, and our being unable to get a better deal than any other member state has, does he agree that we should look to benefit both his constituents and mine by taking a Commonwealth-first approach?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend—he is a very good friend—makes an excellent point. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will advance a Commonwealth-first approach in the coming years. My hon. Friend could not have put it better.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
We are celebrating Commonwealth Week. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely shocking to discover that the Government made the decision to freeze UK state pensions for 430,000 British citizens overseas, of whom 90% are in Commonwealth countries? It is particularly cynical of them to have introduced the legislation enforcing that freeze last Friday, using a mechanism that does not provide for parliamentary debate or votes, although the policy affects so many people who live overseas.
Adam Jogee
Who doesn’t love an intervention from the Liberal Democrats? The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that those issues have been brought to me, in my capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, together with my co-chair, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). We have raised them with Ministers, and I feel sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will pick up those issues in the coming weeks. It is a message that many of us have heard loud and clear, and we hope to see some progress on this.
The Commonwealth’s roots go back to the British empire, but today any country can join the modern Commonwealth, and that speaks to its potential—
Adam Jogee
I will happily give way to the Member of Parliament for my in-laws back in Northern Ireland.
Robin Swann
I thank the Member for giving way. He will be aware that a good friend of ours, Frank Feighan, the TD for Sligo-Leitrim, is in Westminster today. Frank has often championed the idea that the Republic of Ireland should return to the Commonwealth and expand that greater familiar connectivity that we have across the old empire. Does the Member agree that Frank should be encouraged to forward that argument?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to all my friends for coming out tonight with their helpful, pithy interventions, but if I wax lyrical too much I will get into trouble. The hon. Member raises an important point and more generally acknowledges the important role that Britain and Ireland together have played in advancing the causes of freedom and peace. We have seen much progress between our island and the island of Ireland in recent years. I feel sure that the hon. Member, with Minister Feighan, will continue to advance the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and he will have a strong champion in me as he continues to do so.
The modern Commonwealth that all countries can join speaks to its potential for good, for change and for progress, but we should not shy away from our history. Yes, it is complex and, yes, at times it is painful, but it is important that we reflect honestly on it. The Commonwealth emerged from that history as a voluntary association of nations committed not to hierarchy but to partnership, co-operation and equality. Throughout our history—a history that we reflect on every Commonwealth Day—Commonwealth nations have proudly stood together in defence of our shared values.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I congratulate him on bringing it to the Chamber today. On our joint bonds, I represent Bromley and Biggin Hill, and RAF Biggin Hill played a crucial part in the second world war when it was stocked full of pilots from the Commonwealth, so it is not just political or economic bonds but desperation and fighting for freedom that bind us together.
Adam Jogee
The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. I feel as though Conservative campaign headquarters has seen my speech, because I was just about to say that in world war two, soldiers from across the Commonwealth made immense sacrifices in the fight against fascism on the battlefields of Europe. They included Indians, Africans and those from the Caribbean and the Pacific. There were Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Christians from all over the Commonwealth, including Jamaica, Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe—Australia, India, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Malta, to name just a few.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the excellent speech that he is giving. I recently joined Tim and Lizzie for a walk around our main Commonwealth war graves site in Higher cemetery in Exeter, which sits at the centre of the shared endeavours across the Commonwealth in both world wars. It really keeps the memory of those people and of our shared history alive. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all the work it does across the world in tending the graves of the people who died in the service of our countries and keeping their memory alive?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the Gallery is Father Tommy Merry, who used to be the vicar of St Margaret’s at Wolstanton in Newcastle-under-Lyme, where there are a number of Commonwealth war graves. I was there recently and saw the amazing volunteers who live in my constituency—the centre of our collective universe, as I have said—who week in, week out volunteer their time, their compassion and their commitment not just to honouring our history but to ensuring that we live it, remember it and keep it in mind as we go forward. From Newcastle-under-Lyme to Devon, people take the Commonwealth War Graves Commission seriously. I pay tribute to them for all the work that they do.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) led a debate that focused on the more than 3 million soldiers and labourers from the Commonwealth who served nobly, diligently and bravely alongside the British Army in world war one. That shared experience remains an enduring example of our collective commitment to freedom and shows why the Commonwealth was formed back in 1949 and why it is so important that we mark Commonwealth Day 2026.
Adam Jogee
I will give way to the hon. Member, who I don’t think was there in 1949.
Andrew Rosindell
I commend my hon. Friend for his initiative in having this debate and for his work as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. Does he agree that the Commonwealth’s wider members—our overseas territories, the Crown dependencies, the external territories of Australia and the realm states of New Zealand—are also very much part of the Commonwealth family and should be included in some way in the work of the Commonwealth?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He calls me his hon. Friend; I am not sure what that does for his street cred or mine, but I am grateful to him for the compliment—it will probably cause you more trouble these days, comrade. But in all seriousness, he raises an important point. There are people up and down the United Kingdom and in our overseas territories, all of whom played an important part in the battles I referred to and in the efforts to bring our people together. I agree with him that ensuring they all have a seat at the table is important for all of us.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being typically gracious and generous. Last year I met Darren England, who goes out quietly and cleans and maintains and lovingly looks after the Commonwealth war graves in Withernsea. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating all those who go quietly about that business, looking after the graves and showing due respect to those who have lost their lives in protecting this country and the values that the whole Commonwealth shares?
Adam Jogee
I will, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad he has found his voice. He was losing it earlier on today, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. From Devon to Newcastle-under-Lyme and up to north Yorkshire, he is right that we want to ensure that we hold on to not just that community spirit, but an understanding of what went before us and how we also ensure we do not fall back into the battles that we were able to win in previous years.
In the latter half of the 20th century, the Commonwealth played a very important role in advancing the global cause of human dignity. The Singapore declaration of 1971 set out the recognition of racial prejudice and discrimination as an “evil of society”. This was followed by the Harare declarations of 1991, signed in the land of my father’s birth, which committed the Commonwealth to strengthen its ability to promote and protect democracy in member states.
The Commonwealth offers so much more, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to when he prematurely intervened on my speech, in the arts, culture, sport, education, health and other spheres. And while I speak of the historical significance of the Commonwealth, we must also recognise that it is a living network with immense potential.
Dave Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend and county colleague for giving way. I am listening intently because we are hearing of many of the wonderful things about the Commonwealth and much of what we have spoken about has been about the past and our shared sacrifice and the real history that we should celebrate. But as we look forward, will he join me in offering the best of luck to all competitors in the Commonwealth games this summer in Glasgow?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend from Lichfield in Staffordshire raises an excellent point. I am looking forward to him competing one day in the Commonwealth games when they are held in Lichfield—
Adam Jogee
I would bet on you, brother.
But in all seriousness, my hon. Friend raises an important point. The Commonwealth games is just one example of how the Commonwealth brings people together, and he and I will be cheering on team GB together as they do well. In the latter—excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend threw me there with his excitement at taking part in the tug of war in the Commonwealth games one day. The theme of this year’s Commonwealth Day is
“unlocking opportunities together for a prosperous Commonwealth”,
reminding us of the opportunities that stand before us. It is a massive regret that the Commonwealth is currently underutilised. It is underfunded and does not get the recognition it deserves by member states and its leaders. It needs meaningful support and a greater sense of direction to make it the useful network for the contemporary world we all live in.
That is particularly important given the fraying relations across the globe. With the aggression of hostile states like Russia and China, we face a period of acute geopolitical uncertainty. The Commonwealth has a unique opportunity to bring together nations that share a commitment to mutual respect and the rule of law. The Commonwealth makes a unique contribution to international relations, as it is an association built on dialogue, where large and small states are given an equal voice at the table. It also offers the opportunity to make progressive change. The Commonwealth already supports programmes focused on advancing women’s rights, expanding access to quality education and tackling the climate crisis. We use Commonwealth Day 2026 to recognise and celebrate that, because the Commonwealth must not be a symbolic institution: it must be a practical network that promotes progressive ideas across the world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) noted, reducing barriers to trade between member states could deliver significant benefits for my constituents, and yours too, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Darren Paffey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He will know that in the history of the Commonwealth, many have gone to it and come from it through the port city of Southampton. As he speaks about the future value of the Commonwealth, does he agree that port cities like Southampton will play a key part through local benefits to culture, education and the sharing of ideas?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend is right. As he talks about the importance of ports to the Commonwealth, I think of my grandfather who docked at Liverpool in February 1941 to help the war effort and fight the fascists. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which many of us in our cities, our families and our communities strongly feel.
Strengthening those economic relationships could help grow our economy here at home while supporting development and prosperity across the Commonwealth. Of course, partnership must also include honest conversations about difficult issues. In some Commonwealth countries, serious concerns remain about the protection of human rights, including the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. The Commonwealth should be a forum where such challenges can be addressed openly. Through respectful engagement, member states can act as critical friends to one another, encouraging progress while maintaining dialogue.
The world has changed dramatically since the Commonwealth’s founding almost 80 years ago. The advances in technology, the urgency of the climate crisis and shifts in geopolitics have presented challenges that no country can tackle alone, and so it is important that we now renew and innovate our forms of international co-operation. The Commonwealth offers exactly that opportunity—a network that connects nations across continents, languages, cultures and faiths. It demonstrates that diversity does not weaken but strengthens us when we are united by shared values and common purpose.
Commonwealth Day offers us an important moment not only to celebrate these bonds, but to consider how co-operation can be improved in the decades ahead. It must be a living, breathing partnership that amplifies the voices of its member states and strengthens connections between their peoples and economies. I urge Ministers in the Foreign Office to hear my calls to ensure that we redouble our efforts to make the Commonwealth fit for purpose, that the United Kingdom steps up to be counted in our financial support for the Commonwealth Secretariat, and that leaders across the Commonwealth recognise that we want action, not words.
Our leaders must empower our people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, in Newcastle in New South Wales, in Newcastle in KwaZulu-Natal, and—if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker—in north Southampton and Romsey. There is talent, ambition and creativity all over the Commonwealth, but it is time we harnessed it. My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Foreign Office have the potential to change that, and I look forward to playing my part working with them and colleagues across the House and the Commonwealth in delivering the final sentence of the Commonwealth charter:
“We aspire to a Commonwealth that is a strong and respected voice in the world, speaking out on major issues; that strengthens and enlarges its networks; that has a global relevance and profile; and that is devoted to improving the lives of all peoples of the Commonwealth.”
Happy Commonwealth Day 2026, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing the debate. All in this House recognise his tireless work in support of the Commonwealth as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group and as a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I also welcome the commitment to the Commonwealth demonstrated in the Chamber this evening, and the good spirit that obviously suffuses the Chamber when talking about the Commonwealth—it makes a nice change for me from many of the more controversial questions on which I am often engaged. I hope that there are some watching us in the Commonwealth, and I hope they can see the true spirit of friendship and goodwill that emanates from this place to all corners of the globe.
I will try to address the points that have been raised by hon. Members. I feel personally very connected to the Commonwealth. As a young man, I joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, now the FCDO. The first posting that I served properly in was in Pakistan—obviously, an important member of the Commonwealth. Pakistan and many other parts of the Commonwealth face challenging times, and I know that the Commonwealth is a much-needed source of strength and stability. As His Majesty the King reflected this week, it is often in such testing moments that the enduring spirit of this family of nations is most clearly revealed. The Commonwealth spans every continent and ocean, and it represents about a third of the world’s population. Now in its 77th year, it continues, as my hon. Friend said so articulately, to show its relevance as a family of nations bound by shared values, co-operation and genuinely deep appreciation.
The Commonwealth charter, from which my hon. Friend quoted, expresses the commitment of member states to the development of free and democratic societies and to the promotion of peace and prosperity. Commonwealth Week is an opportune moment to reflect on our shared values of freedom, peace and democracy. We were very pleased to join the 26th Commonwealth foreign affairs meeting here in London on Sunday. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary joined counterparts to discuss the most pressing challenges facing our societies and the international system. On Monday, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Commonwealth joined His Majesty the King, Her Majesty the Queen and Commonwealth representatives at Westminster Abbey to mark Commonwealth Day and to reflect on the deep strength of the partnership. We are looking forward to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow this summer, which should bring us together in a spirit of friendly competition. Later this year, leaders will meet in Saint John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, for the Heads of Government meeting, which is an important opportunity for the Commonwealth to show leadership in our changing world.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, this is a time of profound international challenge—from rising security threats and economic volatility, to climate pressures and democratic backsliding. These times demand contemporary partnerships that work. The Commonwealth, with its reach and diversity, is well placed to respond. Under the leadership of secretary-general Shirley Botchwey, we are seeing important steps being taken. The new strategic plan of September 2025 is focused on economic, environmental and democratic resilience. It reflects the realities of our age, and the priorities of member states.
The UK supports that direction; we continue to stand fully behind the Commonwealth. We remain the largest financial contributor to its institutions, including its secretariat, its foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning. Through its networks, including vital accredited organisations, the Commonwealth helps teachers, universities, parliamentarians and businesses to work directly with their counterparts across member states. That co-operation turns the shared values about which my hon. Friend spoke so meaningfully into practical results—be it from teachers sharing curricula, parliamentarians strengthening scrutiny or businesses navigating new markets. That is one of the Commonwealth’s real strengths.
At a time when global institutions are under strain, that network of nations is a powerful example of multilateral co-operation that delivers. That approach will be reflected in the global partnerships conference in London in May. We look forward to co-hosting that conference with South Africa, bringing together Governments, civil society and the private sector to help shape the international development system for a new era.
There is much more I could say about the work that we are doing through the Commonwealth on economic growth, democracy, good governance and indeed the vital climate challenges that we face, but in summary I turn once again to the importance of the Commonwealth, which has been demonstrated once again this evening, and to why it remains so vital in today’s world: the combination of its shared values, its global reach and its relevance at a time of growing instability. This is a significant year for the Commonwealth, with ministerial meetings, major events and leaders coming together.
Adam Jogee
I know that it is naughty to intervene on the Minister in my own Adjournment debate, but since we have five minutes left—four minutes, excuse me —I wonder whether he might touch on a couple of those economic benefits to which he just referred.
Mr Falconer
I would be delighted to do so. Growth is clearly a central mission for the Government, and the Commonwealth truly can play a valuable role in delivering it. The Commonwealth has a significant share of the world’s markets, critical mineral reserves and trading potential. The combined GDP is projected to reach $20 trillion by 2027. Shared language, legal systems and institutions make it easier to trade and invest with one another.
As we know, however, many members face real constraints, from debt pressures and volatile trade to limited access to affordable finance, all against a backdrop of global uncertainty. That is why the UK will work with Commonwealth partners to put economic growth at the very top of the agenda at the Heads of Government meeting later this year. The focus will be on reducing barriers to trade, making it easier to do business across borders, deepening digital trade, improving alignment of standards, strengthening supply chains and expanding the Commonwealth investment network, with which I know my hon. Friend is familiar.
We believe that that work is already making a difference, supporting small businesses from agritourism projects in the Caribbean to recycling and land restoration initiatives in the Pacific, helping them attract investment and build resilience. As a group of countries committed to free trade and the rule of law, we will also work together to support World Trade Organisation reform and a more stable and predictable global trading environment, including for small states.
Those are some of the steps that we will take on economic growth. It is also right to say that some of the climate pressures facing the Commonwealth impact very heavily on the growth prospects of some Commonwealth members. We have been glad to support some financial measures in that regard, including the climate finance access hub and the disaster risk finance portal, which help states to build resilience and respond more effectively to climate risk. We are taking action to try to ensure that Commonwealth countries particularly exposed to the vicissitudes of climate change do not face financing burdens in their ability to respond.
Before I conclude, I want to agree very sincerely with the points made by hon. Members and friends about the Commonwealth war graves. I remember visiting the pristinely maintained Commonwealth war graves in South Sudan. So much else has changed in South Sudan since those graveyards were put in place, and they have been maintained pristinely. One of the functions that often falls to British diplomats is to inspect those graves, which are the most moving and visible demonstration of the deep commitments that Commonwealth members feel to each other.
As I said, it is a significant year for the Commonwealth. Together, we will work to support growth, strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and back vulnerable states as they respond to climate change. We are determined to enhance co-operation in the months and years to come to ensure that the Commonwealth continues to deliver for all its citizens.
Question put and agreed to.