Commons Chamber

Tuesday 13th January 2026

(began 3 weeks, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Q2. What steps his Department is taking to move clinics and routine appointments into community hospitals. (907223)
-

So stay.
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Luke Evans. >> Community pharmacies are a vital part of that primary care infrastructure, including in Epping infrastructure, including in Epping Forest. So using the NHS ODS data, can the Minister tell the House how many pharmacy contracts ceased in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

England last year? I thank him for that question and congratulate him on the and congratulate him on the addition of the facial. Glad he's joining that particular club. I think that's the only club that we think that's the only club that we may both be a member of. But look, may both be a member of. But look, I, we are aware of the pressure on pharmacy. It is a major challenge pharmacy. It is a major challenge that we are facing.

But we did give pharmacy a 19% uplift in the last spending review of all of the sectors in my portfolio. That was the one that received the largest uplift. We're also looking to secure better progress in terms of the use of technology, looking, of course, at the medicines margin, looking, of course, at the dispensing fee, recognising the significant financial pressures that pharmacies are under, but through reform and investment, we believe that we can turn the corner and rebuild pharmacy in our country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Luke Evans Mr. speaker, I appreciate his answer, but it is 650 contracts across England and 650 contracts across England and Wales. He only has to look at the newspaper headlines yesterday to see that in his department, in his portfolio. And the chair of the IPA, Layla, has specifically warned that Layla, has specifically warned that higher business rates and increases in National Insurance contributions are to blame, both of which are set are to blame, both of which are set by the government, which drive up costs while pharmacy income remains fixed, which again is set by the government.

So does the Minister accept that these tax decisions taken by his government directly increase the costs and contribute to the loss of pharmacy contracts? And will he therefore raise it with the Chancellor immediately?
12:12
12:13
None Portrait Q12. What steps he is taking to help reduce waiting times at A&E departments. (907233)
-

>> Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. Number 12. Romford.
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:50
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
decision to be taken by planning Ministers independent of the rest of government. As I've said before, in this House, this government is committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence based ensure robust and evidence based decision making. Planning Ministers must take decisions following a quasi judicial process, meaning they must take decisions fairly based on evidence and planning rules, as the case is currently before the Department for before the Department for consideration and due to Ministers statutory role in the planning process, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further on this live case.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I understand fully members interest in the case and so I can briefly set out the process this case has followed. Today, a public inquiry into the applications was held by an independent planning inspector between the 11th and 19th of February, 2025, the Department received the inspector's report into the applications on the 10th of June that year. On the 6th of August 2025, a reference letter was sent to parties seeking further information, specifically in respect of the redacted plans and some issues raised by the Home Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office from parties, and that was recirculated for further comment on the 22nd August and again on the 16th of October, 2nd of December and 17th of December, and recirculated for information on the 6th of January 2026.

Referring back to parties is routine when further information is required. The government does not provide a running commentary on planning casework decisions, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and it would be particularly inappropriate to make any comment on material which has been received. The reference back material will be available on request when the decision is issued. The timetable has been varied to allow full consideration of the applications. Given the detailed nature of the representations provided and the need to give parties sufficient opportunity to respond, a final decision will now be made on or before the 20th of January 2026.

The variation to the timetable is routine when additional time is needed for determination, members can be assured. And I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, I will be required to state the following abnormal ad nauseam that Ministers will take all material planning considerations into account when the final decision is made, and Ministers will inform the House of the decision accordingly.
12:52
12:52
Alicia Kearns Portrait Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. technocratic history lesson rather than an answer to the meaningful question. Exactly. 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just one metre from cable, serving the City of London and the British people. That is what the unredacted plans tell us, that Chinese Communist Party has planned for its new embassy. If the government gives them the go ahead. Indeed, we now know they plan to demolish the wall between the cables and their embassy cables, on which our economy is dependent.

Cables carrying millions of British people's emails and financial data, and access that would give the Chinese Communist Party a launch pad for economic warfare against our nation. The Home Office and the Foreign Office say security concerns have been addressed. So I put to the Minister, had any Minister seen these unredacted plans before the Telegraph uncovered them, and if not, why not? Was Parliament misled when we were told that all documents were publicly available? Is it true that in December a briefing was given to Five Eyes partners on these risks? And does the Minister really have no concerns at all over plans to install heavy ventilation equipment parallel to these cables? What is that for? If the government is as shocked as we are today on this.

Have the Ministers already called in the Chinese ambassador to explain these secret rooms? And if not, why not? The embassy would create a daily headache for our security services. What confidence can we have that the CCP's technological capabilities can be contained for a decade, let alone ten? I have consistently asked the government to require the Chinese to pay for any rerouting of cables if they are going to give this to go ahead. So will the government commit to that today? The Prime Minister, we understand, is planning to visit Beijing this month.

Is it true the embassy will be approved this week that the Prime Minister plans to reward the Communist Party holding a British national hostage, torturing him in confinement? Who put spies at the heart of our democracy is bad enough to turn up with a gift in hand. Begging for handouts is beggars belief because Labour promised a new relationship with China. Yet UK export goods are down 23%. Surrendering our security for Chinese trade was always a bad policy, but surrendering our security while exports plummet is frankly insanity.

The government can claim today that they had no idea about these secret rooms, and we will not that word, but they cannot now say they have no power to protect us, protect our economy, protect the British people, deny the Chinese Communist Party their embassy.
12:54
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. I am obviously not going questions. I am obviously not going to comment on speculation in the press when it comes to the specific case. That's before Ministers at case. That's before Ministers at the application stage. It was a matter for parties. What information was put forward for consideration. And it was a matter for Tower Hamlets. What information was put on the planning register and the inquiry website? We've not misled the House.

All inquiry documents are publicly available on that website. If new, potentially relevant information is drawn to the department's attention, it will be assessed. This includes consideration of its relevance and whether it's necessary to obtain that information or refer back to parties, and that is a routine process. The Secretary of State transparently sought further information on the redacted drawings, via a reference back to parties issued on the 6th of August. I again say, Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on the case.

I cannot comment on individual aspects of the case. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on any matter of national security, or on behalf of the security services. All inquiry documents, including the redacted drawings put forward by the applicant at application stage, are publicly available on the Tower Hamlets website when the final decision is published. The decision letter will contain a list of post inquiry representations, including those received as part of the reference back exercise. These will be publicly available on request.
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:33
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
thank the hon. Gentleman for his question? And can I express my deepest condolences to the family and the friends of the man who tragically lost his life in Cornwall during Storm Goretti last week, the Met Office issued a red weather warning for wind covering south east England, with wider parts of the UK covered by amber and yellow warnings for wind, snow and rain. As is normal when these alerts are issued, the government took action to ensure the necessary preparations for the arrival of the storm were in place.

In view of the potential threat to life to Cornwall and to St Ives. Specifically, the Cabinet Office issued two emergency alerts to approximately 500,000 people on the Isles of Scilly and in Cornwall, both of whom were under a red weather warning, urging them to stay indoors during the severe winds. Storm Goretti caused disruption across the UK. However, some of its most significant impacts were felt in the southwest. The storm saw a peak gust of 99mph on the Isles of Scilly, and was the worst windstorm in parts of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly for 30 years.

The storm damaged infrastructure, resulting in impacts on transport, power and telecoms sectors, particularly impacting rural communities in the southwest, over 250,000 customers lost power during the storm this morning. 193 customers remained without power in the South-West as a result of Storm Goretti, with 82 identified as vulnerable customers who continue to be offered support by local authorities. Industry expects all remaining customers will have their power restored by later this afternoon, while Reconnections are continuing at pace.

I am aware that a small number of customers have been off supply for an extended period. These are my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary remains in close contact with National Grid electricity distribution on the progress of restoration and to ensure remaining supplies are reconnected as soon as possible. Support is being provided to vulnerable customers by local authorities whilst power supply is restored. And yesterday the National Grid Electricity Distribution deployed 900 engineers and field staff across the southwest to further support restoration efforts and reconnect those without power as soon as possible.

Overall, the response to the storm has been managed effectively and the local response mechanisms have worked well. This is a testament to the work of the Local Resilience Forum, which include emergency responders and utility workers, as well as the local communities who have pulled together to work so hard in difficult conditions in order to keep people safe. Madam Deputy Speaker, during these periods of disruption and damage, for so many, it is ordinary people looking out for their neighbours and those those most vulnerable who help us recover and repair and begin to get back to normal life.

I am sure that the whole house will join me in paying tribute to those communities, and commit to doing all we can to support them now. And when severe weather hits again.
13:36
Andrew George Portrait Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Andrew George to the Minister for his reply, and he's described for his reply, and he's described the impact that it's had on on our communities. As you rightly says, the West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly took the brunt of the storm, but it nevertheless had a devastating effect throughout Cornwall and indeed in southwest England and, and and beyond. I mean, nursing home patients were evacuated at haste, homes were without power for for many days, and thousands of vulnerable people were isolated and still are.

I have to say, many residents in my constituency observe that if this same level of destruction, service, outrage, loss of life had happened in London and the and the Home counties, they believed that the national media would have given it a high headline billing for days, and the government would have declared a national emergency, of course. Frontline workers have been have been amazing and indeed communities have come together incredibly well. However, in spite of the minister's optimism, I discovered that utility companies reports of figures home reconnected to be unreliable.

And indeed, I also discovered that we have now a society which is now more reliant on these utilities and services and now less resilient, because many places affected by these outrages have been have not been able to communicate because all power, broadband, mobile signal had been cut. And of course, higher authorities have decided to turn off the analogue signal some time ago has actually meant that people in vulnerable positions have not been able to communicate their vulnerability. And that, I think, is a very serious matter, particularly people who are traumatised and isolated.

Service providers have told people to phone or follow advice on their website or just click the app. How can they do that if they're completely cut off? So therefore, I must ask the Minister why has the government not considered or viewed this a national emergency? And what additional support will the government provide beyond the compensation? Utility providers are obliged to provide? Will the government review the Bellwin funding formula, which seems designed not to help very small authorities like the Isles of Scilly, nor very large ones like Cornwall? And finally, will the government agree to review the resilience of systems which provide a means of communicating in circumstances like this.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.
13:39
13:39
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I say to the hon. Member that I very much appreciate the the reasonable and diligent way in which he's made his points? He's absolutely right to come here to represent his constituents, and he's done that very effectively. Whilst he will understand, it isn't for me to take a view about the way in which these matters are portrayed by the national media, I can give him an absolute categoric assurance that the government cares just as deeply about his constituents in Cornwall as we do about residents right around the country, and I personally know Cornwall incredibly well.

I think it is an extremely important part of the United Kingdom, and I represent the constituency that also feels it's a long way away from the centre, and often feels that it's neglected, and often feels that other parts of the country will get preferential treatment. So I can say to him and other hon. Members from the county of Cornwall that we take the points that they are raising today very seriously, and I give him an assurance that government departments, agencies and local partners have and will continue to work very closely together to ensure that Cornwall has the same emergency support, recovery funding and resilience measures that would be available to other parts of the country, including those parts of the country that he mentioned.

Now, let me give you a bit more detail about that, because this includes support for affected households and for businesses, and the very important issue of the co-ordinating activity that takes place with local authorities, as well as important engagement with utility providers and the emergency services, to ensure that collectively, we are working together to get services restored as quickly as possible. Now, we do fully recognise the particular vulnerabilities of coastal and rural communities, like the one that the hon.

Gentleman represents, and that the disruption and that severe weather will inevitably cause a significant amount of disruption to infrastructure and to livelihoods in areas such as Cornwall under the conditions that we've seen over the past few days. But the government remains absolutely committed to standing alongside Cornwall as the recovery effort continues, and to ensuring that no community in Cornwall or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, for that matter, feels overlooked or treated differently because of where it is located now. I do recognise the impacts of severe weather like Storm Goretti, that they're hugely disruptive and distressing for those who've been affected, and of course, this can feel even more acute for vulnerable individuals and those in more remote communities who can feel isolated from support.

The government took the decision to deploy an emergency alert following the Met Office red weather warning. I was there in the Situation Room when we took that decision and we issued that alert, and we did that to ensure that all communities across Cornwall and in St Ives, the hon. Gentleman's constituency, were aware of the incoming storm and could take the necessary precautions to stay safe. Now, I'm pleased to see that communities have been coming together to respond to the impacts of the storm, and I do want to take the opportunity, and I know that the hon.

Member will join with me in doing that. In commending the tireless work of network operators to reconnect the remaining properties with power for the final 193 customers. Power restoration is challenging as repairs may be required at individual properties in remote locations, and access to these properties may be blocked still by fallen trees or by debris. Now, the Department for Energy Security and zero. I'm very pleased to see that Minister of State is here for this response, are continuing to work closely with the National Grid to deploy generators to individual properties while repairs take place.

This is in addition to the point that I mentioned earlier, to the further 900 engineers and field staff that were deployed yesterday. Vulnerable people are being supported and have been offered alternative accommodation, transportation support and hot food. I can give the hon. Member and the House an assurance that the Cabinet Office continues to work closely with DESNZ, MHCLG and with Defra to ensure that the recovery efforts are progressing.
13:43
Jayne Kirkham Portrait Jayne Kirkham MP (Truro and Falmouth, Labour )
-
-
Order. I very much appreciate, as I'm sure Cornish members do, the Minister's comprehensive response to that urgent question. It was twice the length of his initial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response and perhaps answers could be slightly shorter. Jayne Kirkham thank. You madam. Firstly, I'd like. To take this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To take this. Opportunity to thank members of the emergency services and the utilities and the volunteers and everyone across Cornwall who's everyone across Cornwall who's looked after their neighbours and responded so brilliantly to what was a storm that tested the was a storm that tested the resilience of rural and coastal Britain to the hilt and exposed vulnerabilities in our infrastructure and our emergency planning that could affect any part of the country. Now, the hon. Member has mentioned communications technology that proved unreliable after the shift from digital to analogue that failed without power, leaving people completely cut off.

I would ask that this could be taken into account for future back up with communications, maybe satellite using satellite and moving more quickly to that. The priority response services for vulnerable people also rely on sign up and rely on being able to contact those people. So again, could the Minister please agree to look at this when it comes to future incidents? Because the climate is changing. This storm was incredibly ferocious and terrifying, but there are likely to be more like it.
13:45
13:45
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Mike Wood. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join the Minister in thanking the emergency services, the local authorities and Emergency authorities and Emergency Environment Agency staff and volunteers who worked tirelessly to recover from the storm and to keep the public safe and in sending our condolences to those families who are grieving and whose lives have been upended by the storm. Given the severity of this and previous extreme weather events, can the Minister outline what further preparations the government will make for future storms and for adverse weather? Does the government plan to carry out a further storm preparedness exercises, and to implement lessons learned from the previous test of the Emergency Alert System? In response to these extreme weather events? Can the Minister confirm what further discussions the government has had internally and with local authorities, utility providers and emergency services to coordinate the continued response to this storm? And does the Minister agree that the latest mass power outages in the South West show why the government should reconsider its drive for more electricity pylons, and instead back faster undergrounding of cables, and particularly in high wind zones? As the hon.

Lady said, many people reported that when the power failed, mobile Signal followed shortly after. So what is the government doing to ensure the telecommunications masts have sufficient battery or generator backup to remain operative during 48 or 72 hour storm cycles? And what assessment has the Minister made of the implementation and the operation of the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol to support the most vulnerable, and particularly those sleeping rough, in rural areas like Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly? Storm Goretti has led to significant rainfall across many parts of the country.

So can the Minister confirm what assessment the government has made of localised flooding, and whether support will be made available for those affected by Storm Goretti through the flood recovery network? And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand the Flood Resilience Task Force met on the 8th of September. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what actions were taken following that meeting on the 8th of September to prepare for eventualities such as this stuff.
13:48
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm grateful to the shadow Minister for the points that he has raised, and he's absolutely right to recognise the efforts of all of those involved in the operation, both to support local residents and to restore power. It's been lost. I think it is worth making the point where normal people will hunker down under these very difficult conditions. We should collectively pay tribute to those who don't do that, but go out and brave the elements in order to restore power and provide support to those residents who need it.

I thank the hon. Member, made some good points about the importance of looking very carefully at these matters and ensuring that government is properly prepared for future incidences. I've already looked quite carefully at the way in which there was a response to Storm Arwen a number of years ago, and I think the government can learn quite a lot from that particular response. And I will ensure through the Cabinet Office, working with colleagues across government, that we look very carefully at the response to this recent storm and ensure that we are drawing lessons out of it so that as a country, we can be as resilient and as best prepared for future challenges that undoubtedly we will face.

The Shadow Minister specifically raised the issue of of telecoms, and whilst I know that he will understand that telecoms equipment is usually highly resilient and may major outages are extremely rare and most telecoms equipment relies on a power supply, which of course can be disrupted by severe weather. On the rare occasion that the sector does experience an outage, there are statutory obligations on telecoms providers to maintain the availability of services and report significant outages to Ofcom. But in general terms, I give the shadow Minister an absolute assurance.

The seriousness with which we take these matters will look very carefully at the response and ensure that we draw all the right lessons from it.
13:50
13:51
13:51
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Tim Farron. I want to. >> Thank my hon. >> Friend for his characteristic passion and energy in defending his communities in St Ives. I also wish communities in St Ives. I also wish to send mine and the Liberal Democrats collective deep sympathy to the family of the man who lost his life in the storm. And to add my thanks to our amazing emergency services and the frontline utilities staff. The Minister rightly says that it's not up to him or the government how the media covers things.

Nevertheless, it's worth bearing in mind that four years ago, when Storm Eunice hit London and the south east hitting 200,000 homes, Cobra was convened. 200,000 homes have been hit in the West Country. Cobra not convened. He will understand why people from Cornwall, Caithness, Cumbria feel sometimes a little bit, a second after thought. Does the Minister agree that this storm does expose the frailty of our energy, water, communications infrastructure and the vulnerability of those who rely upon them, especially in this entirely and, dare I say, foolishly post analogue age, given that so much land, especially in our rural communities, lie saturated, causing water supply and waste water crises at the moment? Will he ensure that this is reflected in the qualifying criteria for the farming recovery? And does the Minister agree that the damaging impact that flooding has on food security means that the Elmer's Budget should be increased by a minimum of £1 billion a year to underpin that vital resilience?
13:53
13:54
13:55
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:03
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:20
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:25
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:28
14:28
14:28
14:29
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
To update the House on the disturbing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In Iran. Horrific reports suggest that potentially thousands of people have been killed and many more arrested in the most brutal and bloody repression against and bloody repression against public protest in Iran for at least public protest in Iran for at least 13 years. On the 28th of December, protests began on the streets of Iran following a plunge in the value of Iran's currency. Over the value of Iran's currency. Over the following week, the protests grew in scale, intensity, and geographic spread.

Crowds surged onto the streets from major cities to rural towns. Voices ranging from shopkeepers to university students protesting for change. Instead, they have been met with the most bloody repression a total internet shutdown instigated by the Iranian regime from the 8th of January, together with restrictions on phone communications, means that the full facts are not yet clear. But I am fearful that the reports that we have seen may underestimate the full scale of the horror. As further evidence and testimony reaches the outside world, videos are still emerging, including of what appear to be protester corpses lined up in body bags outside a hospital in the outskirts of Tehran.

The Iranian regime has called for a three day period of national mourning, but only for its security forces. No acknowledgement of dead protesters. Instead, the regime peddles its manufactured narrative of foreign manipulation and seeks to portray peaceful protesters as criminals and terrorists, all the while pursuing a brutal and relentless crackdown on its own people. It takes huge bravery to protest and to speak out in the face of this oppression, especially for women who continue to face and endure severe repression in their daily lives.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the United Kingdom condemns in the strongest of terms the horrendous and brutal killing of Iranian protesters, and we demand that the Iranian authorities respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens. On Friday, the Prime Minister joined with the German Chancellor and the French president in condemnation of this violence and to call for an end to the violence. It is a message that I have also delivered directly to the Iranian Foreign Minister, Araqchi, yesterday, setting out the UK's total abhorrence at the killings, the violence and the repression that we are seeing, urging them to immediately end the violence and change course.

And today, as the further reports have come through, the Minister for the Middle East, at my instruction, has summoned the Iranian ambassador to underline the gravity of this moment and to call Iran to answer for the horrific reports that we are hearing. But this latest conduct by the Iranian regime is no aberration. It is no outlier. Rather, it is all too in keeping with the fundamental nature and track record of this regime, consistent with its previous conduct towards its own people.

As we saw during the lethal repression of protesters led by Iranian women following the death in custody of Mahsa Amini at the hands of Iran's so-called morality police, or consistent with its destabilising actions towards its neighbours in the region, as we have seen in its backing of terrorist and extremist proxies of Hezbollah, of Hamas, of the Houthis and militia groups in Iraq and Syria, and from Iran's barrage of missile attacks on Israel, and consistent, too, with Iran's malign global impact, whether it be in terms of weapons support for Russia against Ukraine or its nuclear program, and consistent two with Iran's state threats activities on UK soil posing danger to dissidents, journalists and the Jewish community here in the UK.

With more than 20 potentially lethal Iran backed plots over the last year alone, as tracked through the vital work of the UK's security agencies. So let me set out the action that the government is taking in coordination with allies in response to this consistent threat that the Iranian regime poses to the stability, security and freedom, and to the UK national interest. First, on domestic security threats, we will not tolerate any Iran backed threats on UK soil. In May, three Iranian nationals were charged with offences linked to the Iranian regime under the National Security Act in 2023.

And I want to thank the police, security and intelligence services for their tireless work to keep us safe. Last year, we placed Iran on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme to detect, deter and disrupt malign and undeclared efforts to undermine our democracy. We sanctioned the Criminal Foxtrot network for the violent threats it posed against Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe on behalf of the Iranian regime, and we have geared up the UK security infrastructure to better tackle hybrid threats.

As Home Secretary, I commissioned the review by the independent reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, into what more needed to be done so that we could apply counter-terrorism style powers, including on prescription to state backed threats as well. And we announced last year that the government will take forward the recommendations so we can deal with all the UK based threats that we face. Second, support for British citizens. Madam Deputy Speaker, the first duty of any government is the safety and security of our citizens, and my department is working tirelessly to ensure the safety of British nationals in Iran.

I spoke yesterday with the UK's ambassador in Tehran about the vital work that he and the team are doing on the ground, and the FCDO is in contact with the relevant Iranian authorities regarding detained British nationals and their welfare. Is Iran remains a priority? We are, of course, deeply concerned that Craig and Lynsey Foreman have been charged with espionage in Iran, and just yesterday Minister Faulkner met with members of the Foreman family and we continue to raise this case directly with the Iranian authorities.

Thirdly, the coordinated economic and diplomatic pressure on this regime, this government and our predecessors have continually raised human rights violations in Iran through the UN and international forums, including, most recently this autumn resolutions calling for an end to the regime's reprisals against women, against journalists and against human rights campaigners. But then in October, alongside our E3 partners France and Germany, the UK triggered the snapback process, which saw the reinstatement of six previously terminated UN sanctions resolutions on Iran.

We did so because of the repeated failure by the Iranian regime to comply with its nuclear commitments. On the 1st of October, we updated domestic legislation to reapply extensive sanctions measures contained in these resolutions, also going further by designating 71 individuals and entities in sectors which have links to Iran's nuclear programme. Overall, this government has imposed over 220 Iran sanctions designations since coming into office, and we are backing strong sanctions enforcement. Just last week, the UK provided support to the US seizure.

Seizure of Bella, one accused of shadow fleet activities and Iran sanctions breaches. And at a time when the sanctions at the time when the sanctions were reinstated in October, I also urged the Iranian regime, even then, to change their approach to work with the international community to comply with their obligations. I told them then that it would take time to fully implement the UK sanctions, and during that window they should start compliance and engagement with the international community and end the deception and obfuscation.

They have not done so. Weapons inspectors still have not been given access and far from changing their approach, we have seen instead a reversion to the most brutal forms of repression on their own streets. As a result, I can confirm that the UK will bring forward legislation to implement full and further sanctions and sectoral measures. The UK has already designated key players in Iran's oil, energy, nuclear and financial systems. Further measures will target finance, energy, transport, software and other significant industries which are advancing Iranian nuclear escalation.

And we will we will work further with the EU and other partners to explore what additional measures now might now be needed in response to developments. And I also send a message to other countries who have sought to avoid implementing UN sanctions or to undermine the legitimacy of the UN sanctions reinstated following the snapback process, because no one should be supporting the kind of approach the Iranian regime is currently taking, and all member states should be fulfilling their UN obligations on such a grave and serious issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say something else about the events in recent days, just as they did in 2022, it's absolutely clear that the Iranian regime are trying to paint these protests as the result of foreign influence and instigation. They're using that accusation to try and whip up opposition to the protests amongst anti-Western Iranians, and try to justify their vicious and sickening attacks on the ordinary civilians marching in the streets. These are nothing but lies and propaganda being spread by a desperate regime.

They must not be allowed to undermine a genuine grassroots movement, drawing together people from all parts of Iranian society and spreading across multiple cities and regions. And that is why we and other governments across the world are determined not to play into the hands of the regime, or to allow our words or actions to be twisted, to support their lies and propaganda. And with a functioning embassy on the ground in Tehran and British nationals being held in Iranian jails, we recognise that responsibility, as previous governments have always done.

In the last 18 months we have taken stronger action to tackle Iranian threats at home and abroad than any recent government, and we have done so with broad cross-party support. That must continue. The world is watching. Iran and the UK will continue to confront the regime's lies, to call out its repression and to take the steps necessary to protect the UK's interests. I commend this statement to the House.
14:40
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, David Priti Patel. Rotherham Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the sight of her statement earlier on every day for the last two weeks across Iran, we have seen brave and courageous men, women and children standing in defiance of a cruel and barbaric despotic regime which has suppressed lives and freedom for over five decades. People are being arrested, attacked and murdered in the streets. It has been reported that over 2000 people have now been killed in Iran, with one report even suggesting that the real figure is over 12,000 and over 10,000 have been arrested, according to the human rights activists in Iran, towns have been flooded with soldiers to suppress protests and hospitals are overwhelmed with the injured and murdered.

Thousands upon thousands of Iran's young. Like the 23 year old fashion student Rabina Amini, have been shot, killed, buried by the side of roads as they called for a free Iran. And we've seen reports of executions due to take place for those arrested just days earlier. We cannot let their dreams be buried as we mourn the victims of Tehran's atrocities. These were ordinary Iranians doing extraordinary things, fighting for their freedom. We stand with those brave Iranians. We back their calls for freedom, and we join demands for the regime to end.

This is a regime whose cruelty goes beyond the brutality we have seen in recent days. The theocratic terrorists in Iran have for too long threatened regional security, from Hamas to Hezbollah to the Houthis backed by Iran. They have backed Putin's war in Ukraine and China's campaign of repression. They have ignored demands to stop their nuclear weapons programme, and they circumvent sanctions. They're holding British nationals Craig and Lindsay Forman and cruel captivity. Iran is a hostile state and a threat to our country, a threat to the Middle East and a threat to the world.

And Britain must have the resolve to deal with them. So ask the Foreign Secretary, where is the government's resolve to stand up to Iran, back those protesting and work to bring about the end of the cruelty of this regime as Iranian citizens are sacrificing their lives in the fight for their own liberation. What message of hope and reassurance does the Foreign Secretary give to those risking their lives on the streets of Iran each day? What is being done to challenge the Iranian regime over the violence it's conducting? What is her assessment of the numbers killed and injured? It is right that the Iranian ambassador has finally been summoned.

But why has this only happened today? Will the foreign. The Foreign Secretary says she has spoken on the phone to her counterpart. What was his response? And did she raise with him the Forman case and what was his response? The Iranian regime now claims to have the protests under total control. What assessment has the government made of this claim? Britain and this House should stand with those campaigning for a free and democratic future. And if change comes, we should be ready to support this change.

Given the statements from President Trump, what discussions have taken place with the US administration over their plans? And are we aligned with the US and our regional partners? Are all scenarios being considered and planned for, including the potential of UK US military bases to stop brutality of the Iranian regime? And if the regime is being weakened, what assessment has been made of the risk? Iran, in terms of retaliating and escalating plots to undermine our security here? Madam Deputy Speaker, last year the US and Israel took direct action to protect Western and regional interests from Iran's nuclear threats.

The then government refused to give a view at the time on those actions. They sat on the fence in a feeble attempt not to upset its backbench MPs. As people fight, dying for their rights and for democracy, this is no time for weakness and Britain should be robust in cutting off the Iranian regime and removing the funds they rely on. So will the Foreign Secretary state. What further direct sanctions? And I know she's touched on some of this will be placed specifically on the regime and its key henchmen in particular, will she confirm that no one from that regime will ever step foot in our country and threaten the security of Britain, should they try to flee Iran? Why has it taken so long to implement the reintroduction of sanctions under snapback? And on the IRGC? In opposition, Labour said they would prescribe the IRGC, but they have not done so in government.

It is incumbent upon them to share their reasons for not doing so with the House. The Foreign Secretary returned refers to the report from Jonathan Hall, which she says will they will take forward. And of course, that was eight months ago. So when is this coming, and why was Downing Street briefing yesterday that prescription would not happen? Will they be prescribed? Madam Deputy Speaker, this side of the House will work with the government in the national interest and in the interests of global security and stability, to pass legislation and other measures needed to keep us safe from Iran and put maximum pressure on this despotic regime.

So a suggestion for the Foreign Secretary, instead of legislating for the £35 billion surrender of Chagos, will she use the time we have in this House to deal with the IRGC and Iran, the regime, and keep us safe, and even use the 35 billion to bolster our defences? Because at this critical moment, Britain must do all we can to stand with Iranians fighting for their freedom and to protect them and us from Tehran's threat.
14:46
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Foreign Secretary. >> Well, I do agree with the shadow Foreign secretary in her condemnation of the brutality and the horrendous actions of the Iranian regime and the threats that it poses. I would say to her, she will know that when she was Home secretary and when I was shadow Home secretary, we strongly supported the national security actions on Iran. In fact, I said specifically that I hope the House will be able to come together to support our national security and defend our democracy.

And I would urge the hon. Members opposite to see this as the same cross-party approach to defending our national security, but also the regional stability as well, because the scale of the truly brutal and horrendous actions in Iran mean that we should stand together in condemnation of that action, and also in the action that we need to take in concert with our allies, including on further sanctions, including on further pressure, immediate pressure on the regime as well.

She asked for my assessment on the scale of what is happening. Like her, I have seen the reports that suggest there may have been 2000 people killed. There may have been more. My fear is that the number will prove to be significantly higher, because we are currently getting so little information, because of the internet blackout that the regime has instigated, because they are trying to hide what they have done and the consequences of it. And that is why we are also talking to other countries about what can be done swiftly, to try to restore some sort of internet access or phone communication to people across Iran, as well.

As she asks about the Commons, I raised in fact directly raised the Formans directly with the Iranian regime just before Christmas. And we continue to raise this case because it is a huge consular priority for us, and we are to also in close touch, not just with the US, but also with other allies across Europe, across the G7 as well. And looking further at what the sanctions measures are that we need to take, she asked about the snapback. She will know that obviously this had been a running issue for very many years.

The non-compliance with the nuclear regime, the previous conservative government had not taken the snapback action. We did take the snapback action. It was supported on a cross-party basis. I hope again that that will remain so because it was clear that that compliance was not taking place and that work was done in conjunction, not just with the E3, the France and Germany, but also with US allies. Many conversations with them about this as well. And then she also raised the issue around the IRGC, which again, she will know that again.

The previous government also had this issue raised with them over very many years. And I have raised particularly this issue about the legislation and the need to reform the legislation. And that is exactly why I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review, because I was concerned that legislation designed for terrorism threats was not applicable in the same way to state backed threats. And we need to ensure that we can deal with the hybrid and state backed threats that the country now faces. Now, it needs the international community to come together on this in the face of this brutality from the Iranian regime.

We need that concerted action, not just around sanctions, not just around the enforcement of the existing sanctions, but not just but also around the overwhelming pressure. We will pursue that through the UN. We will pursue that through every avenue we can. The world is watching Iran. The world needs to be watching, and the world needs to stand together against the brutality that we have seen.
14:50
14:51
14:52
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Calum Miller. Calum Miller. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Foreign Secretary for advance sites for her statement. Like members across the House, I feel humbled by the courage shown by so many Iranians to stand up to the tyrants in Tehran. Bravery. They also showed after the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022 at the hands of the religious morality police, a crime that showed the regime's particular violence towards women. It is abundantly clear that the regime in Tehran is utterly illegitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people, and it is deeply shocking to learn that thousands of protesters have now been killed by regime forces, and that further executions have already been scheduled.

Madam Deputy Speaker at this critical moment, we must take all the action available to us to support these brave protesters. We must also make sure that those in the UK who campaign for freedom and democracy in Iran, and members of the British Jewish community are safe here. I welcome the new sanctions that the government has committed to today. So in light of the grotesque efforts to brutalise these protesters, will the government now personally sanction Iran's senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Khamenei? I hear the Foreign Secretary's commitment to new legislation when it is in place.

Will she now commit to prescribing the IRGC, an organisation committed to suppressing dissent at home and exporting intimidation to our shores? Madam Deputy Speaker, Iran's decision makers must be held to account for their attacks on peaceful protesters and the UK must take a lead to ensure justice is delivered. So will the Secretary of State call on the UN Security Council to open an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the Iranian government against its people? And will the government commit to using the UK's satellite capabilities to record evidence of human rights abuses, which could be used to support such an ICC investigation? Madam Deputy Speaker, the Foreign Secretary is right to avoid giving the regime any excuse falsely to claim foreign influence.

Yet we know Donald Trump has proposed direct US military intervention. Does the government consider this would be merited politically and legally, and would it reduce or increase the risk to the brave protesters as evidence of the violence being perpetrated by the regime continues to reach international media, the safety of British nationals in Iran must remain a priority. And so I welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurance that plans are in place to support British citizens in Iran. And I thank our ambassador and his staff for all their work.
14:54
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-
Can I welcome the hon. Member's support for the ambassador and his support for the ambassador and his staff, who work in obviously very difficult conditions, but can I also particularly welcome his support for the bravery of those who have protested and who now we fear, have lost their lives as a result of their courage in the face of such a brutal regime. He asks about the the process of the future. We will set out, we will take forward the legislation around sanctions, and I have set out measures in the statement that we will go forward on, but also to look further in conjunction with the EU, at what further measures we can take.

He will understand that there are processes that we need to go through both around sanctions. He will also understand that the prescription process is always one for the Home Office as well. But we do want I do very strongly want to see them ensure that we have legislation in place that ensures we can deal with the different kinds of threats we face, because it's no longer just about terrorism threats. Very often we face now hybrid threats and state backed threats on UK soil as well.

We are looking further at the satellite or satellite issues as well as I have said, and we will continue to work closely with countries across the world, and we do urge the international community to come together in condemnation and action. Catherine West, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
None Portrait Presentation of Bills
-

Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Are we sure? Tomorrow. Presentation of Bill Kirsty Blackman. Not. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right. Removal of peerages. Bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday, the 13th of March.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, the 13th of March. Friday, the 13th of March. Now we go on to the ten minute rule, motion emergency and life saving skills. Schools. Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to require the teaching in schools of skills relating to emergency situations, including life saving skills and for connected purposes. The Emergency and Life-Saving Skills (Schools) Bill seeks to ensure that every child leaving school possesses the knowledge and skills to respond effectively in emergencies, including life threatening situations. It is a bill about equipping young people with capabilities that matter beyond the classroom, skills that can preserve life and, in certain circumstances, protect communities.

Every year, Madam Deputy Speaker, thousands of people in England find themselves at the centre of sudden, chaotic emergencies. A child at the roadside following a road traffic collision. A victim of knife crime bleeding out a medical emergency unfolding whilst unlocking. Wait for an ambulance. Watching as precious minutes slip away. All they want to do is help. But too many do not know how. Not
15:46
15:47
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
Delay, confusion or failure to communicate accurately with the emergency services can be fatal. emergency services can be fatal. And yet, despite this, our education system still leaves too much to chance. At present, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether a young person is taught how to recognise an emergency, how to remain calm under pressure, how to summon help accurately, or how to apply basic accurately, or how to apply basic life saving interventions depends largely on postcode, school discretion or family circumstance. Some pupils do receive this knowledge.

Many do not. There is simply no guarantee. This is not a criticism, Madam Deputy Speaker of our schools or our teachers who are already shoulder enormous responsibility. It is simply a recognition that we have not set a clear national expectation that these skills matter. This bill seeks to close that gap. It is built around three core aims. First, to ensure that pupils can recognise emergency situations quickly and accurately. The difference between an accident and emergency is not always obvious, particularly under pressure.

Training pupils to assess severity, identify immediate danger and understand when urgent action is required is foundational to this. Second, to prioritise effective summoning of emergency assistance. Knowing how to contact the emergency services, what information to provide, how to remain calm and how to follow instructions given by call handlers is not always instinctive and it must be taught. Clear communication saves time, and time saves lives. Third, to ensure that pupils receive practical, hands on instruction in the most critical, life saving interventions, with particular emphasis on the management of catastrophic bleeding.

Uncontrolled haemorrhage is one of the leading causes of preventable death in trauma. Pupils should learn how to identify severe bleeding, apply direct pressure, use tourniquets where appropriate and act decisively to stabilise the casualty whilst prioritising their own safety. This should include, of course, formal stop the bleed training. These life saving skills are not confined, of course, to domestic accidents. In mass casualty situations such as terrorist style attacks. Rapid recognition of danger, safe decision making and early bleeding control can save multiple lives before emergency services arrive.

What is equally important is that pupils should be trained to assess the risk for themselves, to avoid secondary harm, and to act only when it's safe to do so. This is, of course, not about encouraging recklessness, but about fostering informed, disciplined action. And the importance of this cannot be overstated in emergencies. Well-intentioned, but untrained bystanders can inadvertently worsen outcomes or place themselves in danger. The training that is envisaged under this bill should instil practical resilience knowing when to act, how to act and when not to act.

Evidence shows that repeated practice and realistic simulations significantly improve retention and the likelihood of effective intervention under pressure. The objectives of this bill are reinforced by the works of organisations such as Citizen Aid, which has led the way in educating young people on safe responses to major incidents. Citizen aid was founded by two of my former bosses, Professor Sir Keith Porter and Major General Tim Hodgetts, and I had the pleasure of hosting them to do a drop in event in Parliament last year.

Its programmes demonstrate that pupils can learn to recognise threats, manage catastrophic bleeding, communicate effectively and act without panic. Their work shows that structured training builds both competence and confidence, particularly in high stress scenarios. This is not about turning children into paramedics. It's not about overloading the curriculum. It's not about replacing professional emergency services. It is about ensuring that every young person leaves school equipped with a core set of practical, age appropriate skills how to recognise an emergency, how to respond safely and how to communicate clearly with emergency services and, critically, how to provide basic life saving assistance until help arrives.

This is because preparedness is not a niche concern. Madam Deputy Speaker it is a matter of resilience. One day, any one of us here may depend upon a not upon a professional, but on a passer-by that passer-by may be a young person standing there, willing and wanting to help, but uncertain what to do in the circumstances. That uncertainty should not be inevitable. Importantly, this bill is not proposing radical change. Many countries already include emergency response skills within their education system.

Here at home, we teach elements of first aid in health and safety in different ways, but we lack consistency and without the assurance that every child will receive that education. Concerns about pressure on the school curriculum are understandable, but this bill doesn't seek to require wholesale reform, nor does it seek to impose excessive burdens. Training can be delivered through a combination of classroom teaching, practical workshops and simulations. All of these can be supported by qualified instructors. The emergency services and voluntary organisations.

The focus must be on gaining those essential high impact skills. The intent behind this bill reflects a broader societal responsibility. It's not about ideology. It simply recognises that preserving life is a fundamental public good. Pupils trained in these skills will carry them into their families, their workplaces and communities and thereby have a multiplying effect. In doing so, schools will be directly contributing to national resilience and public safety. What this bill proposes is clarity and coherence, a national expectation that life saving knowledge is a fundamental part of the curriculum as much as literacy and numeracy.

When it comes to preparing young people for the real world. International experience reinforces this this argument. Countries that embed emergency response training in schools see higher levels of bystander intervention, improved survival rates, and greater public confidence. It also reflects a broader truth that resilience begins long before a crisis occurs. It is built through education, confidence and preparation by equipping young people with these skills. We do not only improve outcomes in emergencies, we foster responsibility, calm decision making and a willingness to act for others.

This bill is deliberately rooted in prevention rather than reaction in empowerment rather than fear. Of course, no legislation can prevent every tragedy, but we can ensure that when emergencies do happen, as they inevitably will, the people closest are not left powerless. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill does not ask the House to make a dramatic leap in policy. It asks us to take a sensible, proportionate step to ensure that our education system reflects the realities of the world our young people will face.

For the hardest burden of any of us to carry is not that we tried and failed, but that a life is lost whilst we stood by, not through indifference, but through the absence of knowledge. This House could have chosen to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provide the. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bring in the bill? John Cooper Lincoln Jopp. Charlie Dewhirst. Blake Stephenson. Charlie Dewhirst. Blake Stephenson. Bradley Thomas Jim Shannon. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

myself, madam Deputy Speaker. Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst Mitcham

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst Mitcham

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst Mitcham and Morden. Mr. Barry Gardiner. and Morden. Mr. Barry Gardiner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good. Thanks, madam. Thank you. Emergency and life saving skills. Schools. Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schools. Bill. Second Reading. What day? Friday the 29th of May, 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 29th of May, 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, the 29th of May, 2026. Clerk will now proceed to read the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

orders of the day. Finance number two bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee. Now. Order. Under the order of the House of the 16th of December, we shall now the 16th of December, we shall now move to Committee of the whole Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Finance number two, bill clauses 63 to 68, clauses 83 to 85 and 63 to 68, clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13, clause 86, and any new clauses or new schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses and that schedule.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clauses and that schedule. I remind members that in committee members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker, but please use our names when addressing the chair. Madam chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. We will start with the group on inheritance tax on pension interests, and we begin with clause 63, Stafford part with which it will be convenient to consider the clause stand part and new clauses on the selection paper. The question is that clause 63 stand question is that clause 63 stand part of the bill.

I call the Minister Lucy Rigby. Minister Lucy Rigby.
15:57
None Portrait Legislation: Finance (No. 2) Bill (Day Two): Committee of the whole House
-

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and it's a pleasure. my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary set out how this bill gives effect to a Budget that took fair and responsible decisions to stabilise and strengthen the public finances, address the cost of living and renew our public services. We are clear, Madam Chair, that we will not repeat mistakes of the last government. That means no return to austerity and no completely irresponsible unfunded spending commitments either, each of which, unfortunately, were features of the party opposite's time in power.

This government wholeheartedly rejects those failed approaches, and we instead choose a different path, one of fiscal responsibility, and one which will strengthen our economy so that it delivers for people right across this country. Today, the House will consider a further set of important and targeted measures relating to pensions, gambling duties and alcohol duty, which reflect this government's commitment to a tax system that is fair, modern and aligned with the realities of today's economy. Our approach to changes to gambling, taxation, or as we'll come to you later on this afternoon, fair and proportionate.

And as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her Budget our reforms to gambling taxation will significantly contribute to this government's efforts to lift an additional 450,000 children out of poverty. On pensions, the clauses before the House ensure that generous tax reliefs continue to support pensions core purpose that is helping people save for retirement. They address long standing inconsistencies and ensure that pensions are not used primarily as a vehicle for passing on wealth free of inheritance tax, but instead continue to protect the vast majority of estates and maintain strong incentives to save.

Madam chair, I'll turn now to clauses 63 to 68. Pensions. Enjoy significant tax benefits with gross income tax and National Insurance contributions. Relief costing £78.2 billion in 20 2324. It's therefore crucial to ensure that these reliefs are being used for their intended purpose, which is to encourage saving for retirement and later life. Changes to pensions tax policy over the last decade by the previous government led to pensions being used, and increasingly marketed as tax planning vehicles to transfer wealth rather than holding true to pensions primary purpose, which is, of course, providing a way to fund retirement.

As hon. Members will know, there are also long standing inconsistencies in the inheritance tax treatment of different types of pensions. Most UK registered pension schemes are discretionary, meaning members are able to nominate who they would like to receive any death benefits. But the scheme trustees are not obliged to follow members wishes. Under existing rules, any unused pension funds and death benefits from discretionary schemes are not subject to inheritance tax. By contrast, there are some pension schemes that are non-discretionary and these are subject to inheritance tax.

Under existing rules, Madam Chair, the changes made by clause 63 mean that most unused pension funds and death benefits payable from a pension will form part of a pension of a person's estate for inheritance tax purposes. From the 6th of April, 2027. Clause 64 ensures that personal representatives are responsible for paying any inheritance tax due. Clause 65 means personal representative. Personal representatives will be able to request that the pension scheme administrator withholds paying a proportion of benefits where certain conditions are met.

It also allows both personal representatives and pension beneficiaries to make pension scheme administrators pay inheritance tax due on pensions directly to HMRC, again provided certain conditions are met. Clause 64 makes some consequential amendments. The Inheritance Tax Act 1984, to ensure that the existing exemption for spouses and civil partners, and the treatment of payments to charities continue to apply. Clause 67 changes the income tax rules for pensions to provide for the payment of inheritance tax,
16:01
16:02
16:02
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
63 to 68, introduced measures to apply inheritance tax to unspent pension assets and other death pension assets and other death benefits for deaths occurring after the 6th of April 2027. Madam chair, this Labour government has taken this Labour government has taken taxes to record levels £26 billion in additional taxes in this Budget, £66 billion since the election tax increases that were not mentioned increases that were not mentioned in their manifesto. And Labour is increasing taxes on family businesses, on farms, on jobs, on dividends, on savings, on motorists and now death.

Removing the inheritance tax exemption for pensions could undermine efforts to encourage people to save at a time when people aren't saving enough. And what does the government do? They limit the salary sacrifice pensions contribution scheme and introduce a new raid on people's pensions pots. The Minister did not refer to the impact assessment, but it is worth pointing out that it estimates that 10,500 estates will now become liable for inheritance tax, raising £1.5 billion by 2029 and 38,500 estates will pay more inheritance tax than previously, was the case.

And that's why we oppose this extension of inheritance tax and the underlying principle which the Minister seemed to allude to, that people's money doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the state. Nucleus 22 is straightforward. It requires the Chancellor to set out the impact of these measures on pension saving, household saving decisions and on personal representatives. There is real concern. I'm surprised Minister didn't address this about the administrative burden that is being placed on personal representatives and the effect on the industry.

Personal representatives will be required to identify every pension asset, to calculate the inheritance tax due, and ensure payment within six months, and they will be personally liable if they fail to settle all the liabilities that are due. In many cases, that deadline will be impossible to meet and it must be extended. Furthermore, if a pension fund has to sell illiquid assets, such as commercial property quickly, it may well not get the full market value. But the bill does not introduce a relief where the underlying assets must be sold, and the proceeds were less than the value of the assets at the time of death.

Late payments will attract interest at 8%. By contrast, someone in self-assessment has ten months to pay tax on the income they already understand. Both the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute have offered some practical solutions. Firstly, to extend the withholding periods, personal representatives can ask pension administrators to withhold 50% of funds for up to 15 months, but that's simply not long enough for the complex cases I've referred to, particularly where business property valuations have to be agreed with the HMRC.

Will the Minister consider allowing HMRC to extend withholding in such complex cases? Second, they should allow instalment payments for illiquid pension assets. Billions of pounds of pension wealth are in these illiquid assets. The government allows inheritance tax to be paid over ten years for illiquid estate assets. Why deny the same practical relief for pensions when this policy was announced? The OBR gave it a very high uncertainty rating and estimated behavioural effects will cut the static yield by around 43%.

So the government's own forecasters accept these changes may well significantly alter saving behaviour, and the new clause simply requires the Chancellor to assess that impact and come to the House to make it clear. New clause 23 requires the Chancellor to consult on the impact of section 63 to 67, and whether they deliver better outcomes for savers and pensioners. The truth is, the government rushed this consultation out after the 2024 Budget and followed it with a very narrow technical consultation, which did not consider the principled question of whether this approach to pensions being brought with inheritance tax framework at all was appropriate.

As the Investing and Savings Alliance told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in their inquiry, which the Exchequer Secretary gave evidence to. They said if we were consulted and listened to, we probably not be having this discussion today because I do not think pensions will be going into IHT. And both the Chartered Institute and eight have criticised the government for consulting on pensions in isolation, rather in the context of individual's wider inheritance tax position. So our clause is explicit. Consultation must take place to assess whether these changes deliver better outcomes for savers and pensions, wording which reflects the commitment the Labour Party made in their manifesto.

Our third new clause, new clause 24, is essential. It would require the HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the new rules for pensions, and to set up a dedicated helpline. And why does this matter? Because this measure will be incredibly complex in practice. The Chartered Institute has said that professional executives are already questioning whether they can continue to operate in the market at all. Some firms, we're told, are already leaving the market, and if professionals step back, the burden falls on lay personal representatives, often grieving family members or friends with more errors, delay and potentially a wider tax gap ensuing.

Professional indemnity insurers also need clarity. Yet when is the HMRC due to deliver detailed guidance? Not until spring 2027, just weeks before these changes take effect. That is completely outrageous and far too late. And that's why this clause would require guidance to be published within six months of this act being passed. I want to touch on a broader concern, which has been raised with me around the serious unintended consequences, potentially for unmarried couples. While today couples can anticipate making financial provision for each other via pensions, if this measure comes into force, they will have to look at other options.

If one member of an unmarried couple in their 50s or 60s dies with a pension at peak value, the survivor could lose up to 40% of that fund. Our Ministers talking to pension scheme administrators to mitigate the risks for such couples and to provide clear guidance. Madam Chair these clauses increase taxes, they add complexity, they penalise saving, and they add stress for grieving families. Despite clause 67 were also advised, there's still a risk of double taxation of inheritance tax and income tax, which could see beneficiaries paying an effective rate of 67%.

So our amendments seek to mitigate its worst impacts, and the Chancellor should assess the real impact on saving behaviour and personal representatives. She should consult properly on these provisions and she must provide clear guidance backed by dedicated support. We should be incentivising, saving, encouraging people to do the right thing. Extending inheritance tax does the opposite and we will oppose these measures tonight.
16:09
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Spokesperson Daisy Cooper. >> Spokesperson Daisy Cooper. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a retrospective tax without transitional protection. It upends plans for those who have already made sacrifices to build up their pensions, undermines confidence in pensions planning, reduces long term investment and causes people to rush to withdraw money from their pensions to, as has been mentioned already, the Chartered Institute and ACC have raised concerns about these clauses, which are shoehorning pensions legislation into tax legislation. There are major worries about creating personal liability without control for personal representatives, whether executors or administrators.

Personal representatives have, we've heard, are legally obligated to gather all the assets, settle any liabilities, including inheritance tax, and distribute the remainder of the estate to the beneficiaries. They are personally liable if they do not set aside enough money to settle all financial liabilities, including IHT. Experts have warned that being personally liable for IHT on a pension fund that never comes into their hands leaves the door open to costly and protracted litigation and will understandably make personal representatives such as professionals or friends of the deceased much more cautious before they distribute all of the estate.

Even more concerning is the fact that if representatives discover a new pension fund after settling the initial IHT liability, this will have a knock on effect not only on the estate but on all other pension funds. It means that IHT will have to be recalculated for every part of the estate and every pension fund. It is far from uncommon for people to have had different jobs with separate pension plans, so the risk of miscalculation is obvious. If someone passes away before they've had the chance to consolidate their pension funds, tracking down these unused pots within six months of their death will be very difficult for executives, and will mean that the initial IHT calculations could be wrong.

The government must recognise and amend this if it doesn't administer. Simply ask future executives executors to sign some sort of disclaimer form. The government will soon find that nobody will want to take on that role. Our amendments in New clauses 18, 19 and 20 raise the clear need for significant reforms and are a means of pressing the government to protect individuals from being liable for private pensions they didn't know about and couldn't reasonably know about either. Finally, Madam Chair, there is widespread worry that family members might have to wait up to 15 months before they are able to access their inheritance during what is bound to be a hugely straining period of loss and grief.

Our proposed NC 20 urges the government to recognise that reality and take steps to address it.
16:12
Lucy Rigby Portrait Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Minister. their contributions to today's debate on these clauses, and I will respond to each of the specific points that have been raised. But I want to first reflect briefly again on what I set out at the outset as being the core purpose of this bill. This bill contains fair and necessary reforms to the tax system, which unfortunately have been ducked for far too long. They will help to strengthen our economy for the long term, ensuring that we can cut the cost of living and inflation, restore our public services to health and restore the public finances to health too, and the Tories and Reform, who indeed are increasingly indistinguishable.

It might be said, have already set out their choice a return to the chaos and indeed to the instability of the past as well. That approach fell before and were not going back. The clauses we've debated today restore pensions, as I said, to their core and intended purpose, which is funding retirement, not allowing them to function as a tax free vehicle for the transfer of wealth and generous tax relief for retirement saving is preserved. The clauses presented today ensure that pension wealth is treated fairly and consistently for inheritance tax purposes.

They protect ordinary families, with more than 90% of estates still paying no inheritance tax at all each year. After these changes, Madam Chair, I'll now turn to the non-government amendments tabled for this session. A new clause 18 would require the Treasury to review the effects of the changes to pension tax policy, including their impacts on individuals, administrators and behaviour. A report would need to be laid in Parliament no later than six months, from the date that the clauses come into force.

Madam chair, this amendment is not necessary. The government has published a tax information and impact note in the normal way on these changes, and this sets out the impact on individuals, households and families. And it also accounts for the impact on personal representatives to the government also. As hon. Members know, keep all tax and keep all tax policies under review through the monitoring of returns and communication with representative bodies and taxpayer groups. A review within six months of the policy taking effect on the 6th of April, 2027 is not practical, not least because the data relating to inheritance tax in 20 2728 will not be fully available until the summer of 2030.

This is the normal timescale and operates because tax liabilities data is only available with a long lag, including because the filing of the relevant inheritance tax accounts is due 12 months after a death. And for those reasons, Madam Chair, I therefore move that new clause 18 should be rejected. Madam chair, I'll now turn to new clause 19, which would require the government to report on the impact of the reforms on personal representatives. This would include the personal liability for tax on pension assets outside of the estate, and any practical difficulties of identifying and valuing multiple pension arrangements within existing time limits.

These changes that this bill brings about are consistent with the process which already exists for administering estates and paying any tax due. Personal representatives are already responsible for administering the rest of the estate, including non-discretionary pension schemes, which are already, as I said, within the scope of inheritance tax. The government has acknowledged that there are some some challenges for personal representatives and the changes at announced Budget mitigate the risks to personal representatives by providing them with the ability to direct pension scheme administrators to withhold taxable benefits for up to 15 months from the date of death, and indeed, to direct them to make payments of inheritance tax directly to HMRC.

This will, of course, not apply to pension benefits, which are exempt from inheritance tax, including those being left to a spouse or civil partner. Pension funds under £1,000, and continuing annuities. The government will also publish regulations this year to provide the right framework to allow personal representatives and pension schemes to exchange all of the necessary information for inheritance tax purposes. The changes, announced at Budget 25 also protect personal representatives from the risk that pension pots emerge later, and for these reasons, Madam Chair, new clause 19 is not necessary and should therefore be rejected.

Madam Chair new clause 20 would require the government to review the tax administration arrangements relating to inherited pension pots, with a focus on any delays in the payment of inherited pension pots caused by tax administration processes. HMRC would be required to publish the outcome of the review within 12 months of the passing of this act. The government does not want payments to pension beneficiaries to be delayed unnecessarily, and in the vast majority of cases, payments will be made as soon as pension schemes have completed their discretionary processes.

Pension benefits that are exempt from inheritance tax, such as payments to spouses and civil partners, or death in service payments, can still be paid as soon as the pension scheme is ready to pay. We do, of course, need to strike a fair balance between beneficiaries of the pension and of the wider estate. And that's exactly why we announced that personal representatives will be able to direct pension schemes to withhold 50% of the taxable benefits for up to 15 months if they reasonably expect inheritance tax to be due.

Pension beneficiaries will therefore still be able to access 50% of their taxable pension benefits as soon as their pension scheme is ready to pay, and the remainder wants. The inheritance tax on the pension has been paid, or indeed the notice to withhold has been withdrawn. And as I've set out to ensure that the process of calculating, reporting and paying inheritance tax does not take any longer than necessary, the government will introduce regulations setting out deadlines for the parties involved to exchange information.

New clause 20 Madam Chair should therefore be rejected. Moving to new clause 22. This would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the effects of the policy on pension saving levels, household saving decisions and personal representatives, and this statement would need to be made within six months of the act being passed. It's very important to emphasise that the intended purpose of pension savings, and indeed one that this government wholly supports, is to fund retirement. And that is why, to address the shadow Exchequer Exchequer Secretary point, we continue to incentivise pension savings with tax relief on both contributions to pensions and the growth of funds held within a pension scheme.

And those reliefs totalled £78.2 billion in 20 2324. The states will continue to benefit from the normal nil rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available. For example, the nil rate bands mean an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax liability, and the general rules mean any transfers, including the payments of death benefits to a spouse or civil partner, are fully exempt from inheritance tax. Madam chair, as I said, 90% of UK estates will continue to have no inheritance tax liability whatsoever following these changes, and the reforms will only affect a minority with inheritable pension wealth.

New clause 22 Madam Chair should therefore be rejected. Moving now to new clause 23, which would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake a consultation before the 6th of April, 2027 on the potential impacts of these changes. The consultation would consider the extent to which the changes to inheritance tax on pension interests deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. The government did indeed launch a technical consultation on the day of Autumn Budget 2024, following the announcement of the policy to draw on the expertise of tax, legal and pension industries.

That technical consultation was focussed on the processes required to implement the changes, and the government has made changes as a result of that consultation, as well as the technical consultation on these changes, there has been extensive and regular engagement with stakeholders from both the pensions industry and legal and tax representatives to and. I note the praise for HMRC officials from witnesses at the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee and the other place as to how they've engaged on these issues over the course of the last year.

Madam chair, the policy problem with the inheritance tax treatment of pensions is well understood, and we need to ensure that pensions continue to be used, as I said, for their core purpose, which is funding retirement, and that tax reliefs are directed to that effect. And as I've set out, Madam Chair pensions will continue to enjoy significant tax benefits for those reasons. New clause 23 should be rejected. Turning lastly, Madam Chair to Tinubu Paul Waugh 24, which would require HMRC to publish comprehensive guidance on the implementation of the policy within six months of the act being passed.

It also requires that HMRC establish a dedicated helpline for enquiries relating to inheritance tax on pension interests. As I've set out, Madam Chair comprehensive guidance will be published in advance of April 2027 and HMRC will publish. It will provide interactive tools to to support personal representatives. Publishing guidance when policies go live is, of course, established practice and ensures that guidance is fully up to date when made available. However, HMRC will continue to work with industry on shaping this guidance and ensuring that the reforms are fully understood.

People will be able to call the Inheritance Tax Helpline for enquiries related to these reforms and as you would expect, staff will be fully trained on each of these changes such that they can support customers. It's on this basis, Madam Chair, that new clause 24 should also be rejected and Madam Chair with these clauses. Generous tax relief for retirement saving is preserved. I therefore urge the House to reject new clauses 18 to 20 and new clauses 20 to 24, and I beg to move that clauses 63 to 68 Stafford part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill. The question is that clause 63

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause 63 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Division, clear contrary, no. no. Division, clear C3 stand part of the bill. C3 stand part of the bill. As C3 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no, the tell us, for the eyes are Mark Ferguson and Taiwo Owatemi the tellers for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, No, no No, no no No, no no no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no no no. No, no no no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no no no. No. No, no no no. No. The.
16:26
None Portrait
-

16:37
None Portrait Legislation: Finance (No. 2) Bill (Day Two): Division: Clause 63 Stand Part.
-

>> >> Order >> Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 348. The noes to the left 167.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 167. The ayes to the right were 348. The noes to the left 167. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. With the leave of the house, I shall put together the questions shall put together the questions that clauses 64 to 68 stand part of the bill. The question is that the bill. The question is that clauses 64 to 68 stand part of the clauses 64 to 68 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

New clause 24 has been selected for a separate decision. I call James Wild to move the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 24 formally. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. HMRC guidance on inheritance tax on pension interests. The question on pension interests. The question is that new clause 24 be read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that new clause 24 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say I. Contrary. No, No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The question is that new clause 24 be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no, the tell us, for the eyes are Lincoln Jopp and Alicia Kearns the tellers for the
16:41
None Portrait Legislation: Finance (No. 2) Bill (Day Two): Division: New Clause 24
-

>> >> Very. No, No, no. OK. OK. So. OK. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right 184 the Noes to the left 331.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The ayes to the right or 184.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right or 184. The noes to the left. 331. So the noes have it. The noes have it noes have it. The noes have it unlock. We will now move to gambling duties and we begin with clause 83, stand heart, with which it will be convenient to consider the clause. Stand part schedule and new clauses on the selection paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause 83 stand part of the bill. I call the Minister Lucy Rigby. Yes. Thank you very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you very. Much, Madam Chair. And I now turn to the fifth session of the House on the Finance Bill and the House on the Finance Bill and the clauses before us, clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 make changes to the gambling duties regime to better gambling duties regime to better reflect the gambling market, and raise over £1 billion a year to support the lifting of the two support the lifting of the two child benefit cap. Our first, speak briefly to the broader context for the package and then turn to each clause.

Gambling is a significant part of the UK economy, generating an annual cross gambling gross gambling yield of around £16.8 billion in 20 2425, according to figures from the Gambling Commission. The industry has changed markedly in recent years, while the duty system has not changed since 2019. Most notably, there has been a structural shift from in-person to online gambling and between 2015 to 2025, remote gambling grew by 80%, whilst land based gambling has declined by 10%, and at the same time, evidence of gambling related harms has become even more clear.

The estimated cost to government and society of gambling related harms in England alone is between 1.05 billion and £1.77 billion a year. NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers using online slots, bingo or casino games are considered at risk, compared to less than 15% of those betting in person on horse racing. And referrals for gambling addiction have risen sharply. NHS England has doubled the number of clinics for problem gambling, and I'm very grateful for the representations of so many MPs and campaigners on this matter, alongside those with constituencies where horse racing plays an important role in their communities and indeed in their local economies as well.

At Budget, the Chancellor made it clear that changes to gambling taxation are fair, proportionate and they are for a purpose. They will directly contribute to lifting an additional 450,000 children out of poverty, and this government is very proud of that. The opposition unfortunately showed little regard for child poverty when they were in government, and it's entirely in character, albeit no less shocking, that they oppose this government's changes and indeed would increase child poverty as a result. More child poverty as a result.

More brazen. No, Madam Chair, is reform. I will.
16:52
Lucy Rigby Portrait Legislation: Finance Bill (No. 2) Bill (Day Two) Clause 83 Stand Part Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Come on. Can I thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much for for giving way during an excellent speech, introducing what I think is an introducing what I think is an extremely positive change. As someone and I know there are many members across this House who have members across this House who have campaigned for some years to ensure that the most harmful and addictive that the most harmful and addictive forms of gambling attract the tax commensurate with those harms. I, I commensurate with those harms. I, I and I'm sure those other people have campaigned on this issue, welcome this measure.

As a member of the Treasury Select Committee, we wrote a report just before the Budget recommending this change. I'm very glad to see it. I wonder if the Minister can confirm, as she's already said, that some of the revenue raised will be used to help the government reach its objective of lifting half a million children out of poverty. How does that relationship work, though? Because the Treasury clearly doesn't want to see hypothecation of that sum. How does the connection between the money raised by this tax and lifting children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out of poverty work? Madam chair, my hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. And makes a very good point indeed. And the tax changes that we're making as part of this bill disincentivize as part of this bill disincentivize the most harmful forms of gambling. And indeed, we've also introduced as well, a statutory levy to pay as well, a statutory levy to pay for the prevention of some of these harms arising in the first place and of treatment, treatment as well. So as I said, Madam Chair, my friend makes an excellent point.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was I will. The Minister has said that this tax change will disincentivize the most harmful form of gambling. Is most harmful form of gambling. Is there any evidence that she can cite today that will demonstrate that? I have no problem with taxing profitable industry to pay for the wonderful policies that we announced at the sector, but the OBR report actually says that there'll be a drive towards the there'll be a drive towards the black market as a result of these taxation changes, which is the much more damaging, much less revenue raising and ultimately much more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

raising and ultimately much more damaging to our economy. Thank you. Madam Chair. My hon. Friend raises a good point, and as I said, NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers that use online slots, bingo and casino games are considered at risk compared, as I said, to the 15%, less than 15% of those betting in person on horse racing. So there is indeed an important contrast and the NHS figures bear that out. Now. Madam Chair, I was talking about the two child cap and I was just going to say that more brazen, in fact, is Reform's position on this.

Who actually went into the election promising to scrap the two child limits, but who have now abandoned that position and will be traipsing through the lobbies? We can only assume with their ideological bedfellows, the conservatives. Indeed, it's very hard to keep track of who is supposed to be sat on the opposition benches and who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indeed will be up there on any given day and autumn Budget 2024. I will. The honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable. Lady for giving way, the hon. Gentleman for Stoke-on-Trent South Gentleman for Stoke-on-Trent South raised me very central, raised very important point about the fact that the OBR was pointing out the fact the OBR was pointing out the fact that this would drive money towards the black market, potentially not the black market, potentially not benefiting the taxpayer and the Treasury. As much as she is at the. The Minister is saying in her speech, can she just actually explain as to what she's going to do the Minister is going to do in order to avoid the black market benefiting from these tax changes?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam chair, the hon. Member raises a good point, as indeed did my hon. Friend, about the illegal market. But we are reassured by the fact that the illegal market betting market in the UK is relatively small. Between 2 and 9% of legal online market stakes and the gambling, the Gambling the gambling, the Gambling Commission is already tackling this risk and seeking to protect consumers, and indeed the £26 consumers, and indeed the £26 million over the next three years that we're providing additional £2,026 million, I should say that we're providing to the Gambling Commission will go to better and further enforcement in this space against the illegal market, and I hope that that reassures him.

Madam chair, as I was saying at Autumn Budget 2024, the government announced a consultation on modernising the tax treatment of remote gambling, including a proposal for a single duty covering all remote betting and gaming, and that consultation ran from April to July 2025. Respondents strongly opposed a single duty, arguing that remote betting and gaming significantly differ in operating costs and in harms to. The government has listened to those concerns and is not proceeding with a single remote betting and gaming duty.

Instead, this bill implements a targeted package of rate changes that will raise over £1 billion a year. It focuses increases on remote gambling, which has grown significantly. It protects UK horse racing and it supports lower risk community based activities by abolishing bingo duty. Madam chair, I'll now turn to the individual clauses in this bill. The changes made by clause 83 will increase the rate of remote gaming duty, which applies to online games such as slots and roulette, from 21% to 40%.

On the 1st of April 2026. Remote gaming has relatively low operating costs and has grown rapidly in recent years, with gross gambling yield rising significantly above inflation from £2.5 billion in 2015 16 to £5.2 billion in 20 2425, based on Gambling Commission figures. And it's associated with higher rates of gambling related harm. As I said, higher rates relative to other products. NHS data shows that online slots and casino games have much higher proportions of problem gamblers, as we've been discussing, than, for example, betting on sports.

And it's by increasing the rate on remote gaming. More significantly, this measure intends to reduce the incentive for operators to push customers towards higher harm products. Clause 84 will increase the rate for remote betting, so general betting duty is currently charged at 15% for both remote and in-person betting. But the betting market, as I said, has changed very significantly in how it operates. And clause 84 will create a new, higher rate of general betting duty that will apply to bets placed remotely, such as online sports bets.

From the 1st of April 2027, the new remote rate will be set at 25%, while the existing 15% rate will continue to apply to bets placed in person in licensed betting premises. The new 25% rate will not apply to remote bets on UK horse racing. Those bets will remain taxed at 15%. In recognition of the fact that operators already pay the 10% statutory horse race betting levy on horse racing bets, creating, of course, a de facto 25% burden when the 15% levy is taken into account, and the new remote rate will also not apply to bets placed via self-service betting terminals.

In UK licensed betting premises, Poole bets and spread bets to. Finally, Madam Chair, clause 85 will abolish bingo duty. Bingo duty is currently charged on the gross gambling yield from bingo, including in dedicated bingo halls. Bingo is a much lower risk, community based form of gambling, often providing an important social outlet, and supports local venues, including for around 250 bingo halls right across this country. So clause 85 and the associated schedule 13 will abolish bingo duty with effect from the 1st of April 2026.

And the bill also makes consequential changes to ensure that bingo played in UK licensed bingo halls does not become liable to other taxes or duties. As a result of this abolition. This government knows the importance of bingo halls in our communities, and we're proud to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back them. With this tax change, I will give way. Thank you. Deputy Speaker, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the Minister on on the changes that the government has changes that the government has made and in tackling the online gambling harms and also excluding the bingo halls, which, as you say, the bingo halls, which, as you say, is a community often and it involves a lot of people. Does the involves a lot of people. Does the does the Minister kind of agree with me that it's not just online, it's also offline. And if we should consider and if the Minister would consider ensuring that we make our high streets a bit safer when it comes to gambling, and look at erasing the aim to permit from the Gambling Act 2005 as the next step.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam chair, I confess to my hon. Friend that I need to I, I think I need to write to her on think I need to write to her on that specific issue because I don't have notes in front of me to that end. But the principles that she end. But the principles that she raised, I think we are on the same page as to the values that you are seeking to put forward. And I welcome the sorry, the the welcome the sorry, the the congratulations, that or the welcoming of this, of this bill.

I should say, madam. Madam chair, should say, madam. Madam chair, taken together, clauses 83 to 85 modernise the gambling duties regime. They raise, as I said, over £1 billion a year to support public services and to lift children out of poverty. They focus tax increases on higher harm, fast growing online products whilst protecting UK horse racing and land based betting and supporting bingo halls too. So I therefore move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clauses 83, 84, 85 and schedule 13. I will. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Bet365 is one of the base of my friends constituency, base of my friends constituency, just for clarity, but it's one of the largest private sector employers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which wasn't in my hon. Friend's notes, and I wonder if the Minister will be able to touch on a little bit of the engagement with some of these companies to make sure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these companies to make sure that the impact on the workers, many of whom will live in my constituency and indeed vulnerable friends, won't be adversely impacted. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair, and my hon. Friend raises an important point, which is, of course, around point, which is, of course, around jobs in this industry. He'll be aware that employment in the gambling industry as a whole has gambling industry as a whole has declined by around 20% between 2015 and 2023, so it is in gradual decline than that trend, of course, predating this Finance Bill. Those jobs in his constituency are incredibly important, and that's why the measures in this bill deliberately focus on online gambling rather than on betting shops and casinos, which support more jobs and face higher operating costs, as I'm sure indeed do.

The institutions in his constituency. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks for giving way. But in Staffordshire and in Stoke on Trent Central, specifically, 5500 people are employed by bet365. This isn't just a significant employer, it is the most significant employer. I wonder what actions or interventions the Treasury is looking at taking to try and offset

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some of the potential job losses that these policies are going to cause? Yes. Madam Chair, as I said, the employment is indeed an important consideration and it is one that has been borne in mind for the purposes of this bill, that engagement, the engagement has been considerable engagement on all of these issues. And if the hon. Member seeks further engagement, then I'm more than happy to I'm more than happy to to do that, Madam chair, I was just concluding and moving that.

Clauses 83, 84, 85 Andrew George and 13 stand hot of this bill.
17:03
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
The Shadow Minister James Wild. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And these changes were presented as some sort of simplification and modernisation. But clauses 83 and modernisation. But clauses 83 and 84 of this bill nearly double remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% and increase general betting duty to 25%. We will have some of the highest rates of tax on gambling in the world. And the industry, as we've heard from some members already have warned that it could have severe consequences for an internationally competitive sector that supports tens of thousands of jobs, underpins horse racing and other sports, and contributes significantly already to the Treasury.

So it is questionable if these measures will actually lead to stable long term revenue gains for the Exchequer. And there is a very real risk. They result in job losses and greater use of unregulated operators in the black market. Are we speaking to new clause 25, which would require the Chancellor to come back and explain what the consequences have been for revenue for sports and horse racing, for high street betting shops, the black market, jobs and the public finances? Of course, the origin of these changes owe much to Gordon Brown, who encouraged the Chancellor to hike taxes in order to increase welfare spending, and proponents of higher taxes often suggest they will not have any consequences.

But it's the role of us in this House to scrutinise potential changes and then to assess what the impact has been after the event. But independent modelling from EY, shared by the Betting and Gaming Council, suggests the impact of doubling remote gaming duty could be the loss of 15,000 jobs. A further 1700 jobs could be lost from the increase in general betting duty. In total, that's 17,000 positions located in Stoke on Trent, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle-under-Lyme Norwich and other areas which could all be affected.

Of course, these are simply projections. They could be proved to be pessimistic and we certainly hope that to be the case when unemployment has risen consistently under this government due to the jobs, tax and other costs. The warning should not just be dismissed, which is why the Chancellor must account for the impact of her choices as required by the amendment. There's been some mention of horse racing. I was pleased to join with colleagues across the House who supported the axe, the racing tax campaign, another tax that the Chancellor wanted to introduce.

But she was forced into one of her all too regular U-turns. She happily give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

away to the hon. Gentleman. consultation. To harmonise gambling taxes, which the horse racing industry was most opposed, was first proposed by his government? And it's it's something that they were proposing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we have just inherited. Well, we were debating the measures in this bill which were measures in this bill which were brought forward by by this government. I wasn't involved in the changes that he was. He was proposing. I certainly wouldn't proposing. I certainly wouldn't have supported hitting the horse racing sector in the way it was proposed. And I don't remember it being in a previous Finance Bill in a previous government. So it's this government that sought to bring forward those measures, and they were roundly rejected because horse racing supports around 85,000 jobs and contributes £300 million in tax revenue every year.

But despite the climb down in exempting horse racing from the higher rates, the industry could still feel the consequences of this government's approach to gambling duties. Because when the online betting sector is squeezed, what happens? Sponsorship is likely to be reduced. And because racing's funding depends heavily on those partnerships and putting on the sponsorship, we could see an impact in racing. And in my own area of Norfolk, we're very fortunate to have Fakenham races where I went and supported the campaign by the British Horse Racing Association against the government's plans, and that's a venue that's synonymous with the area and the identity, and is a source of local employment, not just for people who are at the track itself, but to the farriers, to the pubs, the hotels and the whole ecosystem that supports racing.

And that's why these clauses in the bill continue to pose a risk to the sector and other sports, and that needs to be accounted for. Turning to one of the issues that's been raised, namely the black market, which the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent Central raised, as is my right hon. Friend for Stone, Great Wyrley and Kirkbridge, and the government has acknowledged there are risks associated. Have I got that right? Close. OK. The government has acknowledged the risk associated with with taking this approach, which is why they quietly set aside £26 million for the Gambling Commission to combat black market expansion.

But the same analysis suggests that over £6 billion in stakes could migrate to the black market, doubling its current size and undermining progress made through the existing regulatory framework. And the OBR itself has identified leakage potentially around £500 million in lost revenue as activity shifts away from properly regulated markets. So those projections, again, they could be wrong, but they could be right. Raise legitimate questions about the overall effectiveness of the government's approach. When taxes rise too far, behaviour can change and actually the yield can go down.

And that's what we'll see with a number of the tax raises rises that the government has got in this Finance Bill. And rather than reducing the mine activity, will move to regulated markets where the consumer protections are weaker, fraud risks are higher and tax revenue is not clear, is not collected. And I'm not sure we've heard a convincing response from the Minister about how that will be addressed and whether those risks have actually been taken properly into account. And let's look at what happened in the Netherlands when the Dutch government last January raised its remote slot's tax rate to 34%.

Within months, gross gaming revenue fell by a quarter and gambling tax receipts dropped to just 83% of the previous year, leaving a £200 million euro 2,000,200 million shortfall. In the projections, and somewhat predictably, the Dutch regulator then reported a huge growth in the number of people accessing unlicensed domains, rising from 200,000 to 1 million. So this should serve as an example as to why we should have caution for the Chancellor's plans, and experience suggests that changes have unintended consequences and those risks must be carefully assessed.

So I hope in winding up, the Minister will provide a bit more clarity about how that will be monitored and what steps the government will take if it proves to be the case. And those projections prove to be accurate. There's also some debate and confusion in in the sector and some of the professional bodies about the treatment of free bets and free plays, which are both the sector and those bodies, have raised concerns because the Budget costings document calculates gambling duty using the gross gambling yield, which is the revenue retained by operators after paying out winnings to customers.

However, current law uses a wider measure which also counts the value of free bets and free plays, which means there is a potential mismatch. So be grateful if the Minister could clarify that, and I'm sure she's had representations on it directly. Madam chair, we need to strike a balance in levels of taxation. Industry is warning these increases will lead to job losses, impact on sports and lead to more black market activity. Therefore, new clause 25 seeks transparency and an answer to those concerns.

It asks the Chancellor to assess the impact of these changes, these rises on jobs, horse racing, the black market, jobs and the public finances. That is the minimum that Parliament should expect and I hope hon. Members will support our new clause.
17:12
Lizzi Collinge Portrait Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
-
-
Lizzi Collinge. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak today on Chair. I want to speak today on clauses 83, 84, 85 and schedule 13, which respectively outline an increase in tax on online gaming, increase in tax on online gaming, for example, online slots or casino games. A new rate of general betting duties specifically for online betting, for example, placing a bet on a football match and removing bingo duty. Online gambling has evolved very quickly, and legislation has simply not kept up before.

You might pop down to your local high street betting shop, or organise a trip with your friends to the casino. It was confined to a specific place that you had to go to, and then at some point, leave. That doesn't mean there was no problem. Gamblers, of course there were. But it did impose necessary social and physical limits on gambling. And online gambling has changed this beyond all recognition. Now that casino fits into your pocket, online platforms know your habits. When you use your phone most, when you haven't gambled in a while, and they can tailor notifications to pull you back in.

The technology is designed to prey on human instinct, using algorithms that make betting time sensitive, compulsive, and constantly available. And in case the opportunity to gamble ever slips your mind, gambling companies will be sure to remind you in a commercial break for sports matches on the side of buses and emblazoned on the microphone at Premier League post-match interviews, you might see some of the seemingly generous offers they give you for your first £5. They will give you £100, even £2 credit to gamble with.

And that feels like a lot of money to most people, but it's pennies compared to what they are making on their current customers and what they might make from you. Once you're hooked, and someone as someone who, to be frank, doesn't really like gambling. I don't gamble, and I don't really understand why people enjoy hanging their money over to betting companies. I really detest the tactics used by gambling companies to pull people in, as online gambling has evolved exponentially, the online platforms have been able to get away with, in my opinion, dodging responsibility for problem gambling or in paying their fair share into the Treasury.

As my dad always says, you never meet a bookie. And that's why I support clause 84, which will introduce a new, higher rate of tax on remote betting so that online bets are more expensive compared to in-person betting. These taxes will be paid by the platform so we can catch up. Finally, with the reality of the gambling world, which has moved far beyond the traditional model of shops and casinos, the tax systems tax system was designed around. Now. Clause 83 raises the rate of remote gaming duty, the tax on online slots and casinos.

By doing so, it reduces the incentives for operators to push the most harmful forms of online gambling, making the system fairer and safer for everyone. I represent Morecambe. Madam Madam chair, a seaside town which has a host of gaming businesses on the front and a bingo hall and the evidence shows it's not the penny slots or weekly bingo games that drive the majority of problem gambling. So I'm very pleased that the new remote gaming and betting in duties recognises this. A focus on the evidence base is really clear from the government's responsiveness to feedback from the consultation undertaken on gambling, where it was shown that different forms of gambling carry different levels of harm and, of course, costs to operate.

So instead of imposing a flat rate across the sector, this government will be taking a more nuanced approach, imposing the highest rates on remote gaming, which carries the biggest risk of harm whilst protecting lower harm forms of gambling such as your local bingo hall. Part of the revenue raised will go to research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms, and this replaces a voluntary system that some operators exploited, contributing as little as £1 a year. These new levies will take into account differences in operating costs and the different levels of harm across gambling activities.

And under these new measures, it's estimated that £810 million will be generated in 2627, rising to £1 billion by 2031. This is money that, as well as tackling gambling harms, can go into our NHS, our social care, our schools and people will still be free to gamble if they choose. But these measures discourage the most harmful forms of online betting and gaming, whilst supporting low risk, community focussed activities. The abolition of bingo duty supports this approach, as well as protecting jobs and local social spaces.

This measure is informed by labour values. Madam chair, we have a long standing principle that the polluter pays. In this case, online gambling platforms are polluting people's lives, harming their health, draining their wealth and breaking up families. This must end and clauses 83, 84, 85 and schedule 13 will go some way to doing this. A spokesperson Daisy Cooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To double remote gaming duty and we are grateful to the government, which has finally listened and which has finally listened and taken that on board. This is a measure that will raise vital revenue in a fair way. Whilst addressing the eye watering profits of the big online gambling companies and standing up for the thousands affected by problem thousands affected by problem gambling. According to the latest figures from the Gambling Commission, the online gambling
17:17
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Commission, the online gambling giant saw revenues reach an eye watering £7.8 billion in 20 2425. Meanwhile, Public Health England has estimated that gambling costs the UK economy around 1.4 billion a year through a combination of financial harms and the impact on physical and mental health, employment, education and crime, and around 300,000 adults in Britain experience problem gambling, as well as roughly 40,000 children. These figures are stark, and this measure finally takes action that should have been taken a long time ago, and it will raise around 1.8 billion a year by 2020 2020 2930 to fairly fund our public services.

But, Madam Chair, buried in the fine print is a detail that makes it seem as if the government is giving the big online gambling firms a get out. So I would be grateful to the Minister for some clarification. The Budget policy costings document states that the tax base for this measure is the gross gambling yield. Gross gambling yield is the revenue retained by gambling operators after paying out winnings to customers. However, the tax base for remote gaming duty, as defined in the Finance Act 2014 is a larger tax base.

It is known as the gross Gambling Revenue. This includes the notional value of free bets and free plays. So, can the Minister explain why today's tax measure will apply? Will apply to a narrower tax base than the one currently targeted by remote gaming duty. How much tax revenue has been foregone by this narrowing of the tax base? Was it unintended or was it a result of influence from the sector? And can the Minister confirm whether these big online gaming duties met with any Ministers and discussed these measures whilst they were being considered new? Clause 21, tabled in my name, seeks to clarify this situation requires the Chancellor, within six months of the passing of this act, to undertake an assessment of the impact of the implementation of sections 83 and 84, in respect of the treatment of free bets and free plays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets, so we can see clearly what the impact of this difference will mean.
17:20
Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)
-
-
Alex Ballinger. to speak today in support of clauses 83 and 84 on gambling, taxation. And of course I. I strongly welcome these steps which strongly welcome these steps which relate to remote gaming duty, covering online slots, online casino games and other high risk casino games and other high risk remote gambling products. Ahead of the Budget. Last year, I was one of more than 100 Labour MPs that wrote to the Chancellor alongside Gordon Brown, calling for a different approach to gambling taxation, one that recognises the reality of the modern gaming industry.

We highlighted how taxing the social ills caused by online gambling could pay for the abolition of the two child benefit cap, and I strongly welcome the action the Chancellor has taken to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. On the back of these changes. For us, fairness was not just about asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more, it was about ensuring those whose business models generate the most harm make a proper contribution to the cost of that harm, which is why clause 83 is so important as it targets the most addictive and dangerous forms of gambling, online slots and casinos.

As a country, we are experiencing record levels of harm caused by gambling, and the Gambling Commission's own figures tell us that 2.5% of adults, which is more than a million people, are suffering from serious gambling harm. There are many types of gambling harm, debt, family break up crime and at the most severe end, suicide. And so it is extremely worrying that the Royal College of Psychiatrists have seen a three fold increase in those referred referred for gambling treatment since gambling moved online during the pandemic.

In my own area, the Dudley based Gordon Moody Charity, who provide gambling treatment centres all over the West Midlands, have seen a large increase in referrals, most worryingly amongst younger people involved in online gambling. This is not a coincidence, of course. Online slots and casinos are designed to be high speed, continuous, psychologically manipulative and for many, overwhelmingly addictive. So the Chancellor's decision to increase remote gaming duty targeted at these most harmful forms of gambling is absolutely the right thing to do.

It sends a clear message that the tax system must reflect the level of harm caused. But there is another reason this charge, as well as clause 84, which increases general betting duty, is the right thing to do. And that's because many online gambling operators, particularly these large global operators, have spent years offshoring their profits, booking revenues overseas, minimising their UK tax liabilities and contributing very little in terms of meaningful employment or investment in our communities. In one example, at the end of last year, the online operator Sky bet moved its headquarters to Malta specifically to avoid UK corporation tax cutting, its contribution to the Treasury by tens of millions of pounds.

And in another example, there was an unnamed online bookmaker being investigated by the Gambling Commission for illegally directing customers to offshore based platforms. Indeed, the black market itself, to avoid paying UK tax and to avoid UK regulations. Increasing these online duties means it will be harder for unscrupulous operators to avoid tax by moving operations offshore and online. Gambling in the UK will be taxed fairly in the UK, raising remote gambling duty to 40% and general betting duty to 25% for remote bets.

Also puts on a most puts us on a footing much closer to other European jurisdictions and many states in the United States. Under the Budget until the Budget, the UK was behind the curve in taxing these highly harmful online products. And for us, the Chancellor's move is not just a matter of revenue, it's also a matter of fairness, responsibility and aligning our tax system with the reality of modern online gambling. But, Madam Chair, taxation is only one element of harm reduction.

Raising duty alone, of course, will not prevent gambling addiction. It will not stop children being exposed to online gambling advertising. It will not ensure that families receive the support they need when a loved one falls into crisis. What we do need if we are to tackle these harms is a public health approach. That means proper funding for treatments, and I welcome the steps already taken under the statutory levy. But it also means serious investment in prevention, community education, early intervention and a modern regulatory framework that puts people, not profits first, fully independent of the gambling industry.

I want to highlight another pressing issue for the Minister the continued prevalence of the Be3 gaming machines on physical premises. These high intensity machines, so often located in areas with higher deprivation, continue to cause significant harm, yet they remain under-regulated and undertaxed relative to the risks that they pose. If we are to take harm seriously, be three machines should be included in the next phase of gambling tax reform. And finally, Madam Chair, in the last Gambling Act was introduced more than 20 years ago in a completely different era before the smartphone, before the expansion of data driven behavioural targeting, and before 24 seven online casinos in your pocket, a new act is clearly needed.

Our laws have not kept pace with technology. They have not kept pace with the scale or sophistication of online gambling operators, and they have not kept pace with the reality of the harm we now see every day in communities across the country. So while I welcome these measures in the Finance Bill, I urge the government to move quickly, to update advertising rules, to strengthen affordability checks, to protect children and vulnerable people, and to ensure that tax policy, regulation and public health strategy on gambling are all aligned.

Madam Madam Chair, these measures on remote gaming duty and general betting duty are excellent steps in the right direction. They acknowledge the reality of harm, they strengthen fairness in our tax system, and they take us closer to a modern framework that puts the well-being of the public first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Glen Caroline Dinenage. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to speak on in support of I'd like to speak on in support of new clause 25, which would require the government to assess the effects of an increase in gambling effects of an increase in gambling duty, because just as I believe that individuals have a right to that individuals have a right to spend their hard earned money as they like, I do believe that it's important they do so in a very
17:26
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
important they do so in a very sensible and regulated and safe environment. But whatever we might think about gambling companies, gambling is already a very heavily regulated sector. Since the Gambling Act 2023 passed by the last government, the industry has already absorbed over 62 policy changes. These changes include limit on slot stakes, financial risk checks on on transactions, tightened market rules and of course, the statutory levy. The sector is so well regulated that the culture, Media and Sport Select Committee warned the last government that the finance risk checks should be as minimally intrusive as possible.

And as chair of the committee, we concluded that the government must strike a careful balance, preventing harm for all, while allowing those who gamble safely the freedom to continue to do so. And I do have concerns that this vast increase in taxation on online betting and gaming doesn't strike that balance. The combination of the existing regime of regulation that is strong, and a sudden jump in the levels of remote gambling duty from 21 to 40%, is the kind of environment that I believe risks pushing people into the black market as a floor 40% is very high for remote gaming by international standards and its standards, and it's been suggested that such high taxes could double the size of the online black market.

I wondered if the Minister recognises, as the shadow Minister highlighted, research from the Netherlands that found that after steep tax rises were introduced on remote slots, there was a visit to black market domains increased fivefold over a three year period. And this is what we have to worry about. If we're concerned about the oversight of those making bets and playing slots. It's why I'm supportive of new clause 25, tabled by the opposition. It requires the Chancellor to assess and report back on the effects of the increase in gambling duties on things like the number of high street betting shops on the black market, on the employment rate, on the public finances and on sports and horse racing.

When it comes to sports and horse racing, I was glad to see a carve out for UK horse racing from general betting duty. I was among the many members calling for this, in recognition of the unique place that horse racing occupies in British cultural life, as well as the 85 000 jobs and £4 billion contribution to the economy that horse racing offers. But the government has slightly dressed up its raid on gambling companies as being driven by concerns around gambling harms.

In November 2024, I spoke at the convention about the then recently announced statutory levy and my concerns with how it would be distributed to organisations that conduct this harms research. The committee has recommended the year before that the government ensure that service providers that were operating via the voluntary funding system were adequately supported to make the transition to the statutory levy. However, we've now received very concerning reports that especially voluntary organisations are facing a funding cliff edge with delays and a lack of information about the transition to levy payments from the NHS.

I'm not entirely sure the Minister is listening to what I'm saying, but I'm hoping she'll be able to address this because she hasn't looked at me once while I've spoken, but hopefully she'll be able to. Hopefully she's writing furious notes about what I'm talking about, so hopefully she'll be able to address these concerns. When she tells me that she will discuss with colleagues and act to ensure that no charitable organisation currently operating within the Gambling Harm prevention sector will have to fold due to delays within levy funding.

Madam chair, I know the Chancellor is looking around for money and believes that she can raise it from gambling companies. But as with many of her other measures, such as National Insurance rises, she will be the victim of the law of unintended consequences. If she's not careful on this occasion, it is that more people will be dragged into the black market where they will, quite simply, find better offers than those offered by gambling companies. And the black market is completely unregulated. There is no maximum stake limit there.

There is no financial vulnerability checks, there are no deposit limits or prompts or transparent spending summaries. And having taken the opportunity to speak with many of those who have been impacted by problem gambling and in some cases, the families of those who have been impacted in the most substantial way people have taken their own lives. Madam chair, the black market is a wild West that any vulnerable person could very easily be drawn into, and these measures could represent a one way ticket to that town.

The government recognises this, I think already in their own statistics, as the as the Minister said, they're earmarking an additional 26 million for the Gambling Commission to investigate this. So clearly they recognise it's a problem that needs to be kept an eye on. But you know it's not it. This is really, really important. And so while the Chancellor believes that she's potentially pocketing a cool £1.1 billion from this increase, there's a risk that in reality she will lose out on the tax receipts from up to 6 billion diverted back to the black market.

So whilst she might think she's the winner in actual fact under her watch, once again they'll all be losers.
17:31
17:32
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-
Giving way at the point I was trying to make. Not not at all, trying to make. Not not at all, that people that work in the gambling industry are not involved in meaningful employment, but the online sector, they represent less online sector, they represent less than 10% of jobs, and yet they make enormous profits. So, in fact, by taxing online companies, more gambling companies are incentivised to put more people in the land based gambling sector, which indeed could increase employment and would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be good for people in his constituency. Madam Deputy Speaker that is nonsense. The there are, there are there are 7500 people who work in my constituency. That is 1 in 10 people. If they were living in my constituency, my constituents who constituency, my constituents who get paid a salary that is greater than the average for the region, it is. It is that company, whether you like gambling or not. Madam Deputy Speaker, that that company of people employees are driving economic regeneration of North Staffordshire because those jobs Staffordshire because those jobs are the ones that have the money to spend in our services, to spend in our shops, to spend in our, in our, on our social activities.

And whether you want to make this a debate about the moral rights and wrongs of gambling, which I'm sure we don't because of the nature of the debate that we're having today, I do think we need to countenance the reality of the circumstances that are faced by some of the communities that host these companies as a result of these tax changes, and I and I congratulate the gentleman for being successful in his campaign to get to where we are today. But the consequences will be felt in my constituency with job losses.

It is going to be felt with the fact that there are people who will not have a job this time next year as a result of the fact that the company that they work for will have to either reduce the number of people that they work for, or worst of all, some of them will move overseas. And there has been lots of comments about moving profits overseas and the prospect of bad actors. Actually, the one that's in my constituency is probably the exemplar of how to do it in terms of keeping the money in the UK, they the owners of them, and they are paid incredibly well, still pay, pay.

They make a contribution to the state that is equal to about the size of my entire local government Budget. The idea that these are not meaningful organisations is slightly disrespectful to the people that are there. Actually the economic damage that would be happening in my city if they were to disappear overnight, which they could do, would be devastating and frankly, would cost the government considerably more in a bailout that we would need than they would raise through this tax. And also and the hon.

Gentleman from Dartford Dartford, I think it was Dartford made the point about we don't do hypothecation in this country. We don't do hypothecated taxes. Now, I support every measure that the government has brought forward in terms of spending in, in the Budget, the the two child benefit cap being lifted in Stoke-on-Trent Central will benefit 4500 people. And I my city has one of the highest rates of child poverty anywhere in the country, so the benefit that is derived by those families will be enormous and immediate.

But I do think we ought to be very careful. Everything goes into one big pot and then everything goes out the other pot. So. So to make it as if this is some sort of moral argument for that, specifically tackling taxing gambling is the only possible way that we could fund and deal with child poverty in the country. I think it is a slight misnomer that we should be careful about, and I, I also, I mean, having visited bet365 and having seen the work that they do, they are worried about the impact that that the changes will have on the black market.

They spend an awful as do the entire sector, spend an awful lot of their time and energy doing R&D to try and work out how to keep people working, keep people playing and betting in the regulated sector where you have support for people that are at risk of gambling, where you can do the lockout mechanism for problem gamblers, and where the tax receipts from those people. That goes back into the UK, £6 billion going into the unregulated sector is a huge potential loss to the Treasury, and we are all 1 or 2 clicks away from being in an unregulated gambling app where the the the safer, Safer Gambling Week.

The Betting and Gaming Council brought in a series of computers where and asked people to look at two comparable gaming sites. And I will not. I will give away. Let me finish my sentence. You without realising you could easily be on one site that is not regulated, where the tax is, where the where the revenue stream is almost certainly going into completely dark activity, probably funding some sort of organised criminal activity versus a regulated sector product. That is, with all the support and safety that comes.

And because of the fact that you can proliferate these things on phones now, you the access to it for everybody at all age is now much, much easier. So so there is a genuine concern that we need to think about, which is if that is 6 billion, that is going into the into the unregulated sector. If as a result of these tax changes, as the OBR recognises, there will be an increase in unregulated activity and problem gaming, is the £26 million for the Gaming Commission.

Enough is the 1.1 billion raised by the statutory levy going to be sufficient? And as the hon. Lady from Gosport has just said, there is genuine concern for some of the charitable organisations that are on the ground that they have not yet had their funding for this. They have not had a confirmation of how they will be able to spend it. Does it just get sucked into the NHS pot? And we spent through a medical solution to this, which might be the solution, but that does mean that some of those very carefully crafted mechanisms to deal with gambling and problem gambling will simply lose out as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

result of big And if you want to giv will allow. I'm starting to agree with him. I'm also concerned about the black market in online gambling, and I. I welcome the extra money that the Chancellor has introduced for the Gambling Commission, which has Gambling Commission, which has powers including blocking ISPs and blocking payments and doing other things to crack down on, on, on unregulated gambling. But one unregulated gambling. But one concern I wonder if he shares with me is, is the advertising of unregulated online gambling unregulated online gambling companies in the UK, including in the Premier League? And does he agree with me that the government should be doing something about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that so we can support better the regulated sector? Absolutely, absolutely. I am you know, I am an old fashioned state regulator. I like the idea that the state can regulate things. I like the idea of tax and spend as well. the idea of tax and spend as well. You know, that is what we are doing in this Budget. It is good thing it's fun. Yeah, I was so close to it's fun. Yeah, I was so close to the South West Norfolk. I raised his hopes and I dashed them there and then.

But the but but we do and then. But the but but we do need that. But if you think about some of the if you think about some of the changes that came through the white paper, the whistle to whistle ban on certain products being promoted, the the voluntary opt out that gambling companies do with the Premier League, the soon to be banning of gambling companies and football shirts, which uniquely again impacts on Stoke on Trent because bet365 sponsor Stoke City. So should we ever make it to the Premiership, there would have to be a complete change of our of our kit and we came so very close to the beginning of the season, but we're not quite there now, so there is more we can do around the unregulated sector, but that should be a collective effort and we should also not kid ourselves that what we're doing today is to try and get on top of the unregulated sector to what we're doing today is talking about the taxation of the regulated sector.

And the consequence of that is that we are inadvertently pushing more people, potentially to go into unregulated sector, and the consequence of that will be bad for society, be bad for the people that are problem gamblers. And it will also be a challenge for the for the Gambling Commission to then regulate that. And we need to be upfront about that. The other point I want to pick up was we we will have a perverse incentive where and I recognise that the those very addictive games that people can get hooked on and spent an absolute fortune on, because it does, as the ombudsman said, have those psychological impacts of trying to draw you in and spend money and make it worthwhile.

The the, the machine gaming duty rate for that as a land based product will be 20%. The remote gaming duty, the remote betting duty for a if you want to put a bet on as a football match using one of the apps at home, be 21%. So there is. We recognise that the gaming side of this is much more damaging than the betting side of this. So we're actually going to have a lower rate for land based gaming than we are for remote betting.

When we recognise that betting as a product is a, is a is a safer, more cost intensive situation. I do wonder whether that was by design, by the Treasury, or whether that's a consequence that that hasn't been considered. If the Minister could potentially address that. I also wonder whether the Minister. Because the Minister has said that this is a fair levy, we will be taking gaming rate to 40%, that that's that will make us an outlier with our European neighbours. The next house will be sort of checking in with 35%, Netherlands with 34%, Denmark with 28%.

There is obviously a point at which the taxation of a of a product becomes so diminishing in its return that it ceases to have an effect. I've never believed in the Laffer curve, but but I can see where we're getting to a point. I'm sorry to disappoint you again, gentlemen. Again, that that we get to a point where where we are trying to squeeze an increasing large amount of money out of a shrinking tax base because more people are taking their, their spend elsewhere, that would be damaging for everybody, would be damaging for my constituents, because if the demand for the service and the products that are made by the companies in my constituency dry up, then those jobs also dry up.

But also be bad for the Treasury, because the amount of money they can raise from the regulated sector will decrease. And and that is not something that that we we want to see. But I would also ask the Minister whether, whether she's looked at the evidence that came from the Netherlands because the when the Netherlands increased their rate and they raised it for good reason, they raised it to try and raise money to pay for parts of their social programmes. They did that as a as a decision around the tax and spend.

What they saw was a huge increase into the unregulated sector. They saw a spike in their in the use of unregulated products by something like fivefold over three years. And they also saw a huge decrease in the expected rate of return for their revenue. And there are examples in other European countries where this is the case. And I do wonder whether we've looked at those well before making some of the decisions that we are making today and whether or not we have a contingency.

I mean, not again, not that we are hypothecating taxation in this country, but we have said this is to fund the quite right reduction of child poverty through removing the two child benefit cap. If the revenue rates from these changes decreases, where is that additional money going to come from? And then finally, and I do wonder whether the Minister is able to touch on the impact that this has on Gibraltar, because. With the decisions that we make today around the tax rates on gambling will have an effect on Gibraltar.

Nigel Feetham, who is the Minister for Finance in Gibraltar, has has pointed out repeatedly that in Gibraltar, 3500 people derive their job from the gambling sector. It makes up 30% of their GDP. One third of their tax receipts comes from the gambling sector. Here said only this week that it will remove hundreds, tens of millions of pounds from Gibraltar government's Budget. There's absolutely no way that they can replace that from domestic sources in any reasonable time, given that Gibraltar is one of our important overseas territories, can the Minister set out and explain when she responds what conversations she's had or the Treasury has had with counterparts in Gibraltar? What the contingency is, if we find ourselves inadvertently creating a massive black hole in the Gibraltar government's Budget, and again, if we have to in some way bail them out, where is that money going to come from? Because if that money is taken out of the revenue that is expected to be raised from this particular rate, that then undermines the figures for other parts of the Budget, which in its entirety are support.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sureena Brackenridge you, Madam Chair, my constituents know all too well that there are some gambling companies that thrive on making vast profits from addiction, distress and despair, often delivered straight into people's homes through online platforms and homes through online platforms and their mobile phones, quietly but devastatingly tearing families apart. And that's why I speak today
17:43
Sureena Brackenridge Portrait Sureena Brackenridge MP (Wolverhampton North East, Labour)
-
-
apart. And that's why I speak today on the government's clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 remote gaming, including online slots and casino games, is the most addictive and fastest growing part of the gambling industry. These products are deliberately engineered to keep people playing, spending and losing long after the fun has gone and the harm has begun in Wolverhampton North East through my constituents casework, I see the real world consequences of parents trapped in spiralling debt, children going without the basics and relationships breaking under unbearable strain.

Now this bill addresses that harm head on. From the 1st of April this year at 2026, the rate of remote gaming duty will rise from 21% to 40%, targeting the most harmful and addictive parts of the market for remote betting. And new rate of 25% will be introduced from 1st April 2027, while bets on UK horse racing are protected and remain at current rates now. This reflects the lower harm of these products and recognises the contribution of operators to the statutory horse Race betting levy.

These targeted increases are not just about raising revenue, they are about disincentivizing harmful practices and holding companies to account. Now, just as important is what this bill does not tax. And for my bingo loving constituents, by abolishing bingo duty from the 1st of April 2026, this government is recognising that not all gambling is the same. Bingo halls like that in Renfield are community spaces, places of friendship and connections, especially for some of our older residents.

So supporting lower risk activities while cracking down on the most harmful ones is exactly the balanced approach that our communities expect. These changes will raise over £1 billion a year to support the public finances, including Labour's mission to lift half a million children out of poverty. And that impacts more than 4200 children in my constituency of Wolverhampton North East. This is protecting families from harm, supporting communities and making sure that those who profit from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to today's debate, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, Member for Wolverhampton North East, the members for Morecambe and Lunesdale and hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen as well, and Member for Halesowen as well, and for their heartfelt speeches in favour of these measures. And I note to the comments of the right hon. Member for Gosport, which I can assure her I did listen to in full.

And indeed, my hon. Friend sat just here. The Member for Stoke on Trent Central, both of whom have of course, tremendous expertise in this area. As I set out, Madam chair, we do believe the measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling because they reflect the reality of how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist, and the need for the tax system to keep pace as these changes continue. The government's objective is to strike a balance by raising revenue fairly while avoiding further pressures on land based operators.

New clauses 21 and 25. Ask the Chancellor to review impacts and make a statement on the effects of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the increase in gambling duties, and both new I will. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. She will know that Northern Ireland has some of the highest rates of gambling, with 3% of rates of gambling, with 3% of adults classified as problem gamblers and 5% are at moderate gamblers and 5% are at moderate risk. She will also know, and I welcome her efforts in this regard, and the money that this will raise, and the money that this will raise, which you give a commitment to this House, that you will enter into conversations with the communities Minister in Northern Ireland about the about Northern Ireland's fair share of this levy to ensure that organisations helping those with gambling addictions are able to avail of this funding to help people in that situation.

I spoke recently to a constituent and he started gambling at age six and it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really struck a chord. Those people need help and I would just ask her to do that. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Madam chair, the hon. Member raises an important point. I'd like to check and before I commit to her to check and before I commit to her to take that forward, what discussions have already taken place, which I hope she will accept is necessary? From my point of view, both of the new clauses that are being proposed focus on the impacts of the changes to gambling duty, of the changes to gambling duty, and ask for a commitment to update Parliament within six months of the bill being passed.

Can I first say that this government did not announce, and is not proposing to make any changes to the treatment of free plays or free bets through this bill? And furthermore, the bill does not make any changes to the duty charged on bets placed on horse racing and indeed in high street betting shops. Second, Madam Chair, in relation to the illegal market, which has been raised a number of times, the Gambling Commission is already tackling this risk and is protecting consumers. But we do recognise that modern technology makes it easier for illegal websites to target consumers.

So to strengthen enforcement and protect consumers from dangerous illegal sites, we are providing, as has been referred to this additional £26 million over the next three years to the Gambling Commission. And my hon. Friend, the Member for Stoke on Trent Central. I hope I can assure him that the £100 million a year in the form of the statutory levy is ringfenced to address prevention and treatment and research in, in in this area. Madam chair, the government has published a tax information and impact note for this measure at Budget and as set out in that note, consideration will be given to monitoring and evaluating the expected exchequer impacts of the policy.

After at least two years of monitoring, data has been analysed and collected, and more broadly, the government continually monitors the operation of all taxes and keeps them under review to ensure that they deliver on their intended outcomes and indeed are fit for purpose. So for these reasons, the proposed statement and the impact assessment are not necessary. So, Madam Chair, that the measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver, as I said, fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation. They do reflect how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as these changes continue.

Now, the shadow Exchequer Secretary raised levels of employment. He'll know that right across the piece. The OBR expects that employment levels will rise in every year of the forecast. Costings were also raised. Madam chair, as part of this debate, including by my hon. My hon. Friend, the Member for Stoke on Trent Central, the OBR, has taken account of behavioural impacts within within its costing and of course those costings are certified and scrutinised in in the usual way. Now.

The Liberal Democrats spokesperson asked about engagement with industry and I can confirm to her that the government, as I hope she would expect, we've engaged with a number of stakeholders, including from the gambling industry, as part of the consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central also raised Gibraltar, and of course, we recognise that Gibraltar has a gambling industry that that very much faces the UK. I can assure him that there has been engagement, not by me, but my by some of my colleagues in the Treasury with Gibraltar.

To that end, Madam Chair, I therefore urge the House to reject new clauses 21 and 25. And yes.
17:51
17:52
17:53
17:53
17:54
18:07
18:07
Lucy Rigby Portrait Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm pleased to open this session on clause 86, the sixth and final clause 86, the sixth and final session of this Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill includes 86, of course, concerns alcohol duty. Madam chair, the approach of this government to approach of this government to alcohol duty is one of proportionality. And indeed, across the piece, we're taking a fair and coherent approach to alcohol taxation as a whole. The measures in this bill take account of the important contribution of alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector.

The government's commitments to back British businesses, and the need to maintain the health of the public finances as well. Clause 86 makes changes to alcohol duty rates from the 1st of February 2026, and specifically, this clause changes the rates of alcohol duty for all alcoholic products in schedule seven of the Finance Act number two 2023 to reflect RPI. It also amends I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's a considered carefully. The fairness of the changes within this clause. Has she considered at all the compound effect of this and all the compound effect of this and all the other taxes that are currently killing hospitality businesses?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Minister Rugby. Madam Chair, I'm grateful for that intervention. We we take that intervention. We we take obviously all impacts on hospitality sector and indeed the pub sector extremely seriously. And pub sector extremely seriously. And this government is proud to be backing British pubs across the across right across the piece. Madam chair, the changes that we're making help to ensure that as a country, we live within our means that we balance the books and indeed that we properly fund public services that we all rely on.

And in the last debate of the Finance Bill, concerns were raised about the impact of alcohol duty on hospitality sector and on British pubs. And we have made it clear as indeed I just have, that we are steadfast supporters of British pubs and the wider hospitality sector, including because we introduced a new pro growth licensing policy framework that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I thank you. For giving way, she just said I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way, she just said I believe that she was pro pubs and the government was pro pubs. Any pubs you speak to? In my constituency in Maidenhead the constituency in Maidenhead the government is not pro pubs as the message that they will tell them the amount of profit left at the end of a pint for a pub is minuscule. It's just so far from reality that this government is pro pubs. How does the Minister respond

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to all of these pubs across the change? Madam chair, I was talking about the our new Pro growth licensing policy framework that was announced at Budget. And if the hon. Member is referring to to business rates specifically as indeed I think he might be, we've made it clear that we're continuing to talk to the sector on any support beyond the existing £4.3 billion of support package that the Chancellor announced at the Budget to now continuing to freeze alcohol duty.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will I thank the. Minister for giving way, and I thank her for stating about an imminent decision on business rates. And it's not just about business And it's not just about business rates. The Victorian Inn in Mumbles in my constituency actually says they haven't banned me as a Labour they haven't banned me as a Labour MP and they haven't banned any Labour MP, but they would like to extend the invitation to the front extend the invitation to the front bench to visit mumbles and to come to the pub and have that conversation, because it's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

positive conversation about how the government is listening and moving forward. Madam chair, I'm grateful to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam chair, I'm grateful to my friend for that invitation. It's one indeed that I will be taking her up. I would love to join her in her up. I would love to join her in that public house in her constituency. Importantly, Madam Chair, continuing to freeze, I'm Chair, continuing to freeze, I'm going to make a little bit of progress. Continuing to freeze alcohol duty would primarily support cheaper alcohol in the off support cheaper alcohol in the off trade. For instance, alcohol sold in shops and supermarkets, and have only a small indirect impact on the hospitality sector.

This is because alcohol duty is, as hon. Members will know, paid by producers, not by pubs, and 73% of alcohol consumed in the UK is purchased from shops rather than in pubs, restaurants and bars. I'm going to continue to make a little bit of progress. The government's decision to uprate alcohol duty in line with inflation is therefore not only a prudent decision for the public finances, but balancing balances. The important considerations the contribution of alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector with the need to support public services such as the NHS.

So,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as hon. Members will know, I'll give, I'll give way to the hon. Member. I Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Jim Shannon. Giving way and I appreciate that very much. Minister and my constituency. What I've noticed is that there are more people here that there are more people here taking non-alcoholic beer. There's also a reduction in some people and the numbers who actually take alcohol and drink as well. So it does the Minister. That means that sometimes pubs are under special sometimes pubs are under special pressure. They can still go and socialise, they can still go and have a meal, they can have a non-alcoholic drink if they go.

But does the Minister have any possibilities within the legislation and the finance through the night to promote that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular issue? Because I believe it's a growing market that we should be looking at. Minister Rugby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Rugby. Madam Chair, I'm grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, as indeed I always am to to him for his interventions. And actually, I his interventions. And actually, I was just about to go on to talk about the strength based duty system that exists. It was system that exists. It was introduced on the 1st of August, 2023 by the last government, and it followed the alcohol duty review followed the alcohol duty review and of course, the new alcohol duty system that we have now taxes all alcoholic products according to their strength.

So duty increases with alcohol content, and that represents a progressive shift. The reforms introduced two new reliefs, a draught relief to reduce the duty burden on draught products sold on trade venues, and a small producer relief that replaced the previous Small Brewers Relief and aims to will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I thank the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I thank the Minister for giving way. She rightly refers the draught beer and cider relief. She said earlier that her concern about freezing alcohol duties was that most of the benefit would be going most of the benefit would be going to supermarkets and others that sell beer cheaply. Surely she recognises that what the Chancellor should have done is remove is reduced the draught rate, as happened last year, where the whole the full benefit would have gone to licensed premises because they're only they're the only venues that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can sell the draught drinks that are covered by that rate. Well. Mr. Rigby. Madam Chair, I'm grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chair, I'm grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. My point was that if you say if you take the decision that you're not going to uprate alcohol duty, the going to uprate alcohol duty, the benefit of that is felt mostly in the off trade, which I'm sure is a point that he appears to to understand. I was talking, Madam Chair, about the small producer relief that replaced the previous small Brewers relief, and aims to support SMEs and new entrants by permitting smaller producers to pay reduced duty rates.

So this clause today that we're debating maintains the generosity of small producers relief compared to main duty rates. So the changes, Madam Chair, and this clause maintain the real terms value of alcohol duty balance, the need to support alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector with the need to support the public finances. And further to this, as I said, Madam Chair, the changes also support smaller producers by maintaining the generosity of small producers relief and I therefore move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this clause stands part of the bill. I call the Shadow Minister James Wild. Hear, hear!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear! Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And it feels like we're getting warmed up for scrutinising the 536 warmed up for scrutinising the 536 pages of this bill upstairs in committee shortly. And it's good to see the popularity of the topics we see the popularity of the topics we are debating has increased as we move on to to alcohol duties and move on to to alcohol duties and clause 86, which increases it in line with RPI from the 1st of February, and certainly on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition, we're proud to confirm that we are big supporters of the beer, wine, spirits and hospitality businesses.

And as such, we oppose these tax rises. This £26 billion tax raising Budget piles, pressure on households and businesses already struggling due to the decisions of the Chancellor. Prices are high, growth is sluggish and now the Chancellor has chosen to impose another duty hike. And our new clause 26 therefore requires the Chancellor to publish a statement on the impact of increasing alcohol duty on the hospitality sector, on pubs, on wine, spirits and beer producers, on jobs and on the public finances.

These are sectors that are already being hammered by this government's economic choices, and a government that says the cost of living is its priority is raising alcohol duty, putting more costs onto people and to businesses that keep our rural communities and our high streets alive. Surely.
18:16
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
For giving way. And I want to >> For giving way. And I want to start by wishing everybody who has taken part in Dry January good luck. I am not one of them, I have to admit, but I think it is fantastic that the opposition front bench is talking about what the impact of talking about what the impact of these changes might be, but was surprised to hear that that did not include alcohol harm. Many charities and campaign groups are quite pleased that the government is trying to move people away from drinking at home to drinking in the hospitality sector.

Surely we must accept that this is a good thing, and perhaps it should be evaluated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in terms of benefits. James Wild indeed, and one of the things we did when we brought the things we did when we brought in the the new GT system was to focus on the strength of alcohol in terms of the tax. But yeah, we want to encourage more people into hospitality sector. The government seems to have a policy of driving people away from going into pubs people away from going into pubs and not just Labour MPs and in government. That gives me the opportunity just to say that we recognise the importance of these sectors to jobs, to our communities and to growth.

And that simplified GT system, including the two new reliefs, Draught Duty and Small Producer Relief, were warmly welcomed and my hon. Friend made the point about the government is choosing not to do the similar things that we did on draught relief, and at the Autumn statement in 2023, we actually froze alcohol duty rates, a freeze we extended again in the spring Budget of 2024, and I'm proud to support that record where we had a government working with the sector, not against it.

And it gives me no pleasure to say that this government has chosen a very different path. And the hospital happily, both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend and myself represent very large rural constituencies. I just wonder whether we could think a bit whether we could think a bit creatively across the two sides of the house. How are we going to save the great British rural pub in terms of giving special credence to terms of giving special credence to people who sell draught beer rather than selling supermarkets? National Insurance all this sort of thing. Otherwise, a great institution which most people have to drive to is really in danger of extinction.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's part of our history, isn't it? It absolutely is. And I'd be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It absolutely is. And I'd be happy to come to my constituency to discuss this over, over a pint in one of those small rural pubs which one of those small rural pubs which are literally the hub in our villages and hamlets. And once they are gone, it's very difficult to are gone, it's very difficult to replace them. And the government clearly has the hospitality sector in its crosshairs. And clause 86 is in its crosshairs. And clause 86 is just the latest salvo.

And this is no small corner of the economy. 3.5 million people are employed directly in the sector, which invests £7 billion a year. Yet this industry has been published, punished by the Chancellor's decisions and this clause UK hospitality is taxed out campaign is highlighted. The nearly 90,000 jobs that have been lost in the sector and with unemployment now above 5%, it is young people in particular who are paying the price. And that is the consequence of the Chancellor's damaging tax rises, supported by hon.

Members, opposite higher alcohol duties to jobs, tax, energy bills and soaring business rates are layering cost upon costs. Little wonder UK hospitality has called the government's approach a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hammer blow. Yes. Thank you to the shadow Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the shadow Minister. Does he agree with me that as a result of this policy, lots of local pubs, including lots more in local pubs, including lots more in the hospitality industry, will go out of business as a result?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out of business as a result? That's very clearly the the risk. And the British Beer and Pub Association have said the proposed Association have said the proposed increases will be damaging to the sector, and we may well see more closures as a result. So new clause 26 will shine a light on the real impact that these decisions would have on rural pubs, on jobs and businesses. I hope the Minister won't simply dismiss this amendment by referring to the Tax and Information impact notice.

She did an earlier group. That is a prediction of what's going to happen. It's not a review of what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the actuality is, so I hope that she will actually consider the amendment. Hopefully this. Amendment is even more important,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given the fact that. The government and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister themselves understand the impact it's going to have on pubs, because they said they're going to bring forward measures for helping and supporting pubs. Yet we haven't supporting pubs. Yet we haven't seen those measures because they're not in this bill. So therefore we need to have some form of accountability to be able to accountability to be able to understand the impact not only of the measures that are in front of us that we can vote on, but the proposed ones that are coming to support the measures that the government is already looking to put in this bill that's going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have the impact. Does that make sense? And does he agree? I think it does make sense, and I certainly agree with him. I think I certainly agree with him. I think the government is having to try and put in place solutions to deal with problems which they themselves have created. And if Labour MPs were welcome in pubs across the country, they would hear quite how difficult. I'm sure the hon. Member is. Some I'm sure the hon. Member is. Some aren't. So let's be clear and if you go into a pub, I don't think you'll find many publicans who you'll find many publicans who think this government is pro pub.

We've got a Chancellor who said that she didn't understand the impact that her Budget and the revaluation, and removing the discount on business rates would have. That is staggering and frankly, once again shows she doesn't understand business and she wasn't listening when the sector and many others were warning that's precisely the impact of her policy would have. And now she's reportedly about to do a U-turn on a business rates raid. Well, she hasn't come to the House yet to inform us or to inform the sector, but what's being briefed is likely to be wholly inadequate.

We hear Ministers on the radio this morning saying it's going to be limited just to pubs, but the impact is not just on pubs, it's across the whole hospitality sector, leisure businesses and retail. They are all facing huge increases in their business rates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. Would he agree with me that it's not just enough if this Labour climb down is happening to be a smaller increase than was planned, but it needs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than was planned, but it needs to be no increase in business rates. Well, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to my next paragraph, which is me to my next paragraph, which is that instead of tinkering, the Chancellor should adopt our Conservative Party policies and Conservative Party policies and abolish business rates for pubs, hospitality businesses, retail and leisure businesses, and also slash the average pubs energy bill by £1,000. That's real help. And she can have those ideas for free. The duty increases will also impact the UK's world class wine and spirits producers, which together generate £76 billion in economic activity.

And across our wine sector there are now more than 1000 vineyards, including some excellent ones in north west Norfolk, which I recommend. And yet, despite this success, we're seeing the government putting yet more costs onto the sector. 60% of the price of a bottle of wine already goes in tax, and instead of listening to calls from the sector to freeze duty, the Chancellor has decided to increase it and has failed to fix the small producer relief. So it works for winemakers and distillers, and the picture is no rosier in the spirit section.

And the Scotch Whisky Association has said that the increase piles additional pressure on a sector already suffering job losses, stalled investment and business closures. It estimates the previous rise in duty had reduced spirits revenue, amounting to about £150 million. Loss to the Treasury and UK Spirits Alliance has called the Budget a sad day for the nation's distillers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector. Wine GB joins their ranks in pointing out that higher prices will likely lead to lower sales and reducing the Treasury revenue, so the sector couldn't be clearer.

The only people still pretending this is good economics are those on the government benches, and when the government should be backing businesses, it's choosing to add to their costs. And increased taxes have consequences, depressing demand and revenue. In October, YouGov found that 1 in 4 regular drinkers was likely to reduce their alcohol spend this year due to price increases, and the Wine and Spirits Trade Association has called for the obr's forecasting assumptions to be reviewed. And the government is putting itself and the UK on the wrong side of the Laffer curve here, which the hon.

Gentleman should read up more and he'll be persuaded. Ministers should take fresh advice on the impact of these changes. So, Madam Chair, to bring my comments to a conclusion, the UK's brewers, producers and hospitality businesses are resilient and they need to be, frankly, in the face of this government's onslaught. They are heart of our communities, creating jobs, driving local growth and giving many young people their first opportunity in work. Now is time to support the sector, not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tax it more. That's why we'll be voting against these measures this evening. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Laurence Turner. Deputy. Speaker and I draw attention to my chair of the GMB parliamentary my chair of the GMB parliamentary group, a union that represents workers in the distillery and retail trades. Madam Deputy Speaker, retail trades. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will keep my comments limited to the uprating of excise duty, but I would like to welcome this Budget more generally, which represents the right choice in investment and renewal over austerity and decline.
18:25
Laurence Turner Portrait Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
-
A clause 86 of the Finance Bill represents a simple uprating of alcohol duty in accordance with the alcohol duty in accordance with the Retail Prices Index, and in this sense, the clause represents continuity with a policy of successive governments over many successive governments over many years, going back to the early 1970s. And and of course, the principle of excise duty predates that by many years more. And I think it is telling that none of the amendments before us today the amendments before us today actively seek to reverse the increase.

Noting the shadow Minister's comments. The effects of the escalator are also, to an extent softened by the reduction for draught products, which combine with pre-existing changes to the tax system, amount to a somewhat more favourable regime for drinks, most sold in pubs, and this direction of policy is welcome, given everything we know about the attendant health and social harm that can be a result of solo drinking. It is worth noting that the increase is in line with international best. Practice is timely that just today the World Health Organisation published a new report titled Global Report on Use of Alcohol Taxes, and it said that specific excise taxes need to be regularly adjusted for inflation or their real value risks erosion over time.

The W.H.O. report also establishes that the UK's effective tax take is firmly in line with many other European countries, including Belgium and much of Central and Eastern Europe. And of course, it is significantly lower than in Scandinavia. So uprating the duty strikes the right balance between the different objectives of encouraging social activity, supporting the hospitality and manufacturing industries and not encouraging excessive consumption. It is true that there have been changes in alcohol consumption rates amongst the general public, and that has been a change particularly marked since Covid, as the 2024 Living Costs and Food Survey found.

There has been a notable fall in real terms alcohol consumption both in and out of the home. And that is why specific measures are needed to support the pub trade. Now, if I may, I would like to say a few words about the revaluation 2026 process. I've raised questions about this before, and the Minister has indicated that as the phrase goes, discussions are ongoing. So in the interests of time, I will not repeat them today. But I would like to note two things.

First, the Valuation Office Agency has been genuinely independent since the days of the incremental value duty and second valuation. 2026 has been coming for a long time. It was the last government that changed the law to make for three year valuation exercises. And as successive annual reports of the VOA make clear, the risk of valuations which do not meet the sufficient level of quality in individual sectors was a foreseen risk and a delivery plan was developed before the 2024 general election to mitigate those risks, as the VOA saw it.

So presumably the government of the day did not have concerns over the VOA approach, because if they did, then they would have raised some on the record. I would like to make two further brief points. The first is that in terms of the treatment of different types of alcohol sales by the tax system, I do think something that does need to be done about the sale of particular high strength drinks on our high streets, in proximity to betting shops. If you were to go Madam Deputy Speaker to Northfield High Street, you would see a succession of small betting shops immediately next to off licences where very low cost but very high strength beers and ciders are sold.

There is a revolving door between these premises, and it is a major contribution to some of the anti-social problems that we have on our high streets, and I hope that future exercises will look at different treatments, whether it's powers to local authorities or in th and try to remedy this problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second, it has been I will give way. Grateful to the hon. Member for giving way on that very important point. I recognise, or rather, I remember precisely the dynamic that he sets out in his local high he sets out in his local high street, and we used to have that in Scotland too, until we introduced minimum unit pricing, which took minimum unit pricing, which took away the very large volume, high strength alcohol products off the shelf in Scotland, certainly put shelf in Scotland, certainly put them way up in price.

You can check with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, who I'm sure will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

endorse that SNP policy. On the same Select Committee as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the same Select Committee as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, and I know better than to West, and I know better than to speak for him. I have a degree of personal sympathy with the case for the hon. Member sets out. I also think there is something to be said think there is something to be said for giving more powers to our councils, because those decisions are about areas which are are about areas which are particularly at risk of complex interactions between homelessness, lack of mental health provision and the sales of these dangerous products are best made locally.

In addition to national policy setting. And the further comment, and the final one that I wanted to come on to, is that there have been calls outside this place for uprating to be moved to a different inflation index, principally the CPI or the CPI. I think this is an important matter and it's one that has not been raised in this debate. So I wanted to touch on it in a short time. It should be said. I think that although the CPI and the CPI are both of use as macroeconomic indicators, the RPI remains the only measure which is in general circulation and is updated regularly that actively seeks to measure the cost of living as it is experienced by working people.

Now, criticisms can be made of the RPI, but I do think it is important to place on record. But it was in the early 20 tens that regular changes to the methodology for RPI were discontinued, and that is behind the formula gap, which has led to the widening of the headline rates between the RPI and the CPI. So I'm not convinced that moving to a different rate at this time is appropriate, given some of the limitations, which on another occasion we could go on to in the CPI and its and its twin, the CPI rate, the ONS has been developing the Alternative Household cost Indices measure, which I think is particularly useful because it does capture the different rates of inflation that are experienced by households of different income levels.

I hope that in future we can look at the Hci's as an alternative means of uprating the various charges, levies and escalators that government does apply. We are not in that place yet, and it's important that the ONS does make progress in this area. But on the whole, I welcome the Minister's statement compared to some of the other debates we have had in this Parliament, particularly in relation to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, when it was suggested that there was some secretive and sinister plots to change sales of the pint to some metric measure.

This has been, by contrast, a sober debate, and I look forward to voting for the Finance Bill tonight.
18:33
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. Daisy Cooper. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 86 increases the rate of alcohol 86 increases the rate of alcohol duty in line with RPI inflation. And on paper, this measure might And on paper, this measure might just look like a normal simple uprating policy. But it must be seen. It has to be seen for what it really is. In the broader context, it is just yet another tax on struggling hospitality businesses. And finally, financially stretched customers.

Hospitality is being hammered over and over and over again, with sky high rents and soaring energy bills. The government's unfair jobs tax. And now this business rates bombshell buried in the fine print of the Budget. And it matters. Hospitality really matters. It is the only element of pre-pandemic spending that has not recovered. It is a sector that employs huge numbers of young people and part time workers, often giving people their very first job and their way into longer term employment.

And it's one of the sectors that actually makes life worth living. We all remember the place we went, where we fell in love or had our first date. I remember the music venue I went to where I found my favourite band. I remember the pub where I sat with my girlfriends, and one told me that she was not going to survive her stage four cancer, and I remember the day we had when she did. Hospitality is part of who we are as human beings.

It is unique in what it contributes to our economy, and we must do everything to support it. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my hon. Friend for giving way. If this debate was before Christmas, I would have had to declare an interest. But my father declare an interest. But my father has now sold his majority share in our local pub in our home town, and I think that actually goes to the I think that actually goes to the core of the debate that we're having today. Publicans are leaving the sector. But you talk about the the sector. But you talk about the importance of hospitality, but also that importance.

Would you agree with me of building that sense of community? My father's pub used to host bingo nights on a Thursday and a Saturday and a Sunday afternoon, and you would see people attend the pub there who would never attend during the week. So that sense of community that they build is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crucial and under threat from this Labour government. My hon. Friend, for that. He's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, for that. He's absolutely right. Pubs are irreplaceable and when a pub goes, a community falls apart. Pubs are a community falls apart. Pubs are vital as part of the social fabric and the glue that holds our communities together. And we must, communities together. And we must, we absolutely must protect them. And this is why we have tabled a new clause at nine, because we want the government to look at and report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of these alcohol duty measures, alongside all of the other wider fiscal changes, including the higher National Insurance contributions and the business rates changes as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. It's really, really matters now. I will. I'm very grateful to you for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to you for giving. Way back in November, the Chancellor promised to support the Great British Pub by introducing Great British Pub by introducing permanently lower tax rates on over 750,000 retail and hospitality 750,000 retail and hospitality properties. Given that in my constituency, pubs like the Half constituency, pubs like the Half Moon are going to experience a 157% rise in business rates, the in at West End 87% and the frog in Deepcut 128%. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that this feels less

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like support and more like last orders? Exactly. Yeah, absolutely. I agree 100% with my hon. Friend,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend, and one of the things, one of the points I've made repeatedly to other Ministers is that businesses heard that promise, businesses heard the promise that it would be permanently lower business rates. permanently lower business rates. And they made decisions based on the fact that they heard the word lower. The government gave itself powers to introduce a lower multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure of of 20 or less. And if the government had used those powers, it was understood by the hospitality industry that that would effectively cancel out the RH relief that was going to be lost.

So businesses made investment decisions, they made hiring decisions, they made all sorts of decisions based on what they thought was going to happen. But the government hasn't used those powers, which it gave itself, instead only using the -£0.05 rather than the full maximum -£0.20. And as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a result, I will give. I will give way. Thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I recently met with Richard, a way. I recently met with Richard, a publican in my constituency of Horsham, and he told me that the trade has never been so tough and trade has never been so tough and I'll quote you exactly what he said. The truth of the matter is that the first time I'm thinking, I shouldn't have bothered taking the shouldn't have bothered taking the risk of going into business.

I should have stayed with the big brewer, taken my salary, relied on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brewer, taken my salary, relied on a pension. He's right, isn't he? I hope so, so much that he's not. But I understand why he is saying that. And I hear it from many hospitality owners and pub landlords in my patch as well. And because we Liberal Democrats care so deeply for hospitality and recognise the vital role that it plays in every community up and down the land, that is why we were campaigning ahead of the Budget for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality, accommodations and attractions until April 2027, a measure which would have brought growth into every corner of our country, would have saved jobs and our high streets and given a real boost to consumer confidence.

And it's why, since the Budget, we have been fighting tirelessly against the government's devastating business rate hikes and pressing Ministers to implement the full £0.20 discount for which they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislated last year, I will. Give way. She rightly points to the cumulative effect, but I'm just interested in looking at her interested in looking at her amendment new clause nine. It doesn't mention the employment rights. It doesn't mention the impact of the national living wage impact of the national living wage increase. Is that by design that the Liberal Democrats haven't put that in because they don't agree they have an impact on hospitality? they have an impact on hospitality? Or was it an oversight? And it's another cumulative effect that needs to be considered when looking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and holding the government to account. I'm grateful for that question. If you read it closely, it does say alongside wider fiscal changes, government could, of course, choose to widen that to other legislative changes as well, if they so chose, if they chose to do so. But I hope on that basis that the hon. Member and his colleagues will be supporting this amendment when we push it to a vote later today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam chair, I am, I will. Important point of clarity on the living wage. Which of our constituents on low pay does she think does not, do not, do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think does not, do not, do not deserve that uplift in living wage? Is she saying they do not deserve it? Absolutely not. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. During the course, during the course of the employment rights bill, we Liberal Democrats said bill, we Liberal Democrats said repeatedly on the record in both houses that we supported, that we supported having that higher minimum wage. The problem that we're hearing from business, particularly small businesses, is that they're getting lots of changes from the government all at once. It's business rates changes, it's higher contributions. It's the wages, it's the new regulation. It's and now it's alcohol duty as well.

It's the cumulative impact of all of the employment changes and the fiscal changes, which means that business owners and landlords just cannot cope. So it's the cumulative impact. If these were safe, we've made it very clear which measures we support and which ones we don't. But the cumulative impact is something that is is felt by small businesses. And that's why during the course of the Employment Rights Bill, we tabled a number of amendments asking the government to report on the impact on small businesses in particular.

But I hope he I hope that has clarified

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the matter. For the hon. Member on that point. So, so, so a wide range of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, so, so a wide range of concerns have been developed, and I get that the point that's been made is that these are costing the hospitality sector money, and I hospitality sector money, and I absolutely get that. But all your all that has been promised is a review. What I do not hear is what review. What I do not hear is what the Lib Dems would actually do to resolve this and how much it would cost. Apart from this broad cost. Apart from this broad assertion that you are going to cut via that, that is going to be cut in some undefined way.

And what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what where does the what is this going to cost? And where's the money coming from? Through you?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Through you? Madam Chair, I have explained all of these measures in this chamber before, but I'm happy to spell them out again, including the remarks I made just a few minutes ago. Very first thing that we have called for was for the government called for was for the government to use the powers that it gave itself in the Budget last year. I would love to know the costings for would love to know the costings for that measure, and I tabled written parliamentary questions to ask the government if they would give me those numbers and if the if the government won't answer those written questions, how on earth are we, as opposition parties, supposed to then come up with modern proposals? You know, we have tabled a number of written questions time and time again, and we have not received answers to that measure.

On the second point, on VAT, we have costed it. We said it would cost £7 billion over 17 months, and we would fund it with a windfall tax on the big banks, which is a proposal backed by the APR and independent economists. So we have answered all of these points. We've explained where the money would come from. They're fully costed. They're they're fully funded. And we made those points in this House on several occasions. I'm sure he has a look at Hansard. He will see that.

But my point is, if we're going to put questions to the government asking them for data so we can make informed policy suggestions, I would hope very much that the government would now start to answer them. And related to that matter, Madam chair, it has been reported in various newspapers on the BBC and other places that the Chancellor and the Ministers didn't, and those sources have quoted the Chancellor and Ministers as saying they didn't understand the impact that revaluation would have on business rates bills, especially for pubs.

Now, Madam Chair, I find that impossible to believe and understand how that can be the case. Now we know for a fact that at the very least the VOA, the Valuation Office, gave the aggregate data to the Treasury. And we know that because on page 81 of the Red book, it says it right here in black and white, slightly red, but black and red. It says that the VOA gave that data to the Treasury. I tabled a number of written questions to the government to ask them whether they'd received that information, broken down by sector.

And I didn't receive any answers. I wrote a letter to the Leader of the House. I did a point of order. And again, that information was not forthcoming. And then we had a bombshell revelation today. The VOA was giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, and they confirmed upon questioning that the VOA had given data drops on the sectoral impact starting a year ago. They also confirmed to the Treasury Select Committee today that 5100 pubs had seen their rateable values at least double.

This is what the VOA told the select committee today. So based on that information, it seems as if if the VOA, VOA did provide that information to the Treasury, then the Treasury should have had that information. And it is not clear to me why I didn't receive data rich answers to my written questions asking for that breakdown by sector. And it is also not clear to me how the Chancellor and Ministers can say that they didn't know or didn't understand the impact that the revaluation would have on bills, if indeed they had had that data over the course of the last year.

So I would urge Ministers, when they come to this House, as they are indicating they will, to provide some kind of a U-turn. But we don't know what that looks like to bring some clarity to all of those questions. In the meantime, Madam Chair, I hope the government does support new clause nine, because we do need to see the cumulative impact not just of alcohol duty changes, but the impact of that alongside National Insurance and business rates. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. She's giving a very good speech and I hope as the Liberal Democrat and I hope as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, she'll say just a tiny bit more about rural pubs. I think a lot of urban members don't understand the context here. To put it, put it in context, where I live locally, here in Westminster, it locally, here in Westminster, it takes me one minute to walk to my local one minute where I live in Lincolnshire, in the Lincolnshire Lincolnshire, in the Lincolnshire Wolds.

It takes me one hour to walk to the pub. One hour. Everybody who accesses these pubs in rural England has to go there by car. We don't ride horses anymore. It's too dangerous to walk on the road or take a bicycle. So the government has to understand that the rural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pub is in real danger from these alcohol limits and other measures. I'm incredibly grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm incredibly grateful to the Member for making that point. I am the MP for St Albans, which is a small city, but I'm also a Suffolk small city, but I'm also a Suffolk girl, born and bred, and so I know how valuable pubs are in a rural area for providing all sorts of services for looking after older and single people. They are a fantastic community hub. They provide employment for young people. provide employment for young people. I had one of my first jobs, aside from Apple picking, was working in a pub.

So I do understand the absolutely vital importance of pubs in every single village, town, parish and hamlet right up and down the United Kingdom. I'm grateful to him for making that point. But, Madam Chair, in closing, I hope that when the government responds this evening that they provide some answers to some of these questions, what did the Ministers know and when? If the VOA sent that sector information on valuations, when was it sent? When did they send the information on pubs specifically? If the VOA did tell Ministers that the rateable values had at least doubled for more than 5000 pubs, how is it possible that Ministers didn't know? Why have we still not had a statement from the government on what they are trying to do? Will their announcement extend to the rest of the hospitality industry or just to pubs? Will the government now use the full powers that they gave themselves? And I can't cross it because I haven't been given the numbers, despite repeated attempts to get it.

And will the government consider a VAT cut? And Madam Chair, my final point, the only rumour that we've heard about what the government may be considering is changing changes to licensing laws. And let me close on this point. If your pub is empty, you do not want to keep it open for longer. Paying more money to keep the lights on, the radiators heated and the staff behind the bar. That is not an answer to this problem. Thank you.
18:48
Jacob Collier Portrait Jacob Collier MP (Burton and Uttoxeter, Labour)
-
-
Jacob Collier Madam Chair. And as the MP representing the home of British Brewing in Burton upon British Brewing in Burton upon Trent, it will come as no surprise to you that I am speaking on this to you that I am speaking on this clause 86 tonight and will focus my contribution on pubs and hospitality, because for me, this hospitality, because for me, this is not just political, it is personal. As a burtonian, I grew up with the smell of hops permeating the air, Burton's famous water flowing from the taps.

And my very first job was in a pub. This industry is who we are and pubs are woven into the very fabric of our country. They are the heart heart of our high streets and villages, and among the last shared spaces that we have when we talk about growth, supporting wellbeing, employment, pubs and hospitality sit at the heart of that conversation. Yet this is an industry that has faced years of challenge navigating the pandemic, absorbing high energy costs and managing rising prices, which has left many venues operating on very low margins, if any at all.

That's why the decisions that we take under this clause matter so much. Madam chair, we must look carefully at the overall effect of alcohol duty and how it interacts with consumer behaviour. There is a case to strengthen differential rates of duty between supermarkets and pubs, known as draught relief. Drinking in a pub is not the same as drinking at home. Pubs are supervised, regulated spaces. Landlords ensure responsible drinking, with pubs providing that social connection and supporting mental health in our communities.

Pubs give character to our high streets and town centres, but yet the tax system makes it cheaper to buy alcohol in bulk from a supermarket than it does to go down the local pub. If we are serious about encouraging people back into our town centres, into these shared protected spaces, then alcohol duty must work in favour of pubs. I would encourage the Treasury front bench to look at the letter from those of us on the all party Parliamentary Beer group, calling for the multiplier to be increased to 20% from around 13% at the moment, and this is supported by Camra, Ciba and the British Institute of Innkeeping.

This is not about encouraging more drinking, but encouraging better drinking in places that strengthen our local communities and our local economies. I recognise the permanently lower multiplier on business rates that the government have put in place for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, but any wins in this space have been wiped out, in many cases through the new rateable values published by the VOA. In my constituency, the rateable value of the Devonshire Arms, the divvy, my favourite pub, is set to increase by over 60%.

Down the road at the Roebuck. It's 70% and at this rate I'm not going to have much of a pub crawl. We must stay true to that manifesto commitment that we made to level the playing field between online retailers and the high street, and on average, 76% increase for pubs, but just 14% for online retailers means that we must think again on this. It's no good having transitional relief in place when a bill at the end of the three years is just simply unaffordable.

Industry voices are clear that further support is needed in the short term, while longer term changes and reforms are worked through operators such as Punch Pubs, which is headquartered in my constituency, have called for a higher business rates discount up to the maximum permitted to help offset these valuations and the cumulative tax burden that pubs face. UK hospitality has similarly warned that even after reduced multipliers and transitional relief that the government has put in place, the average pub faces a significant increase in its business rates bill, alongside cumulative other impacts that hon.

Members have talked about earlier in the debate. The government is right to listen to those of us on this side of the House who've been raising the voices of pubs, brewers, restaurants and small business owners. And I want to thank those publicans and those business owners, those representative bodies that have engaged positively with me, as it's only through that constructively working together that we can bring about change. Businesses that I speak to want to invest, they want to grow, but they need the space and the certainty to do so.

I really welcome the recent hospitality investment that we've seen in my constituency from lows on Carter Street. Nathan Dawes, expansion of Isobel's and Bespoke Inns, redevelopment of the heart and now taking on Tutbury Castle. We need these businesses to be supported by government so that we can meet their ambition, create more well-paid jobs and revive our high streets and town centres. That means a fairer approach to alcohol duty under clause 86, a recognition of the difference between pubs and supermarkets, and targeted support on business rates.

While deeper changes are delivered. If we get this right, then the reward is clear thriving pubs, stronger high streets, more resilient local economies and communities that are not just better off, but happier and more connected. That's why pubs and hospitality must continue to be listened to, supported and championed in this House and by this Labour government. And I shall continue to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. And it's it's a genuine pleasure to follow on from the hon. to follow on from the hon. Gentleman who made some excellent points. But before I begin, if I points. But before I begin, if I may join, if I may just disclose that although I don't have any that although I don't have any interest in the register that are relevant to this debate, I have received hospitality below the received hospitality below the threshold from the UK hospitality British Beer and Pub Association, camera and the British Institute of Innkeeping, and there may be other, may be others, but people up and down this this country may, may be justified in asking themselves what this government has against pubs, because although so many of the things that are causing so many pubs to struggle, and to actually question whether they can survive beyond the very short term, things like those enormous increases in business rates, obviously the increases in employers, national insurance, the particularly hit those who employ part time workers, things like the ever growing burden of regulation summed up by the
18:55
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Employment Rights Act and the additional burden that that will put on many pubs and hospitality put on many pubs and hospitality venues. But I think this this venues. But I think this this clause in the in the Finance Bill really sums it up, because the really sums it up, because the government did have have a choice. It could have done what, in fairness to the Chancellor, she fairness to the Chancellor, she actually did last year in building on a success of the previous conservative government, she could have reduced that draft rate of duty so that beer and cider sold on draft in in pubs was paying a lower rate at the same time as perhaps extending that differential with supermarkets and off sales that might be sold at or below cost price.

But the Chancellor chose not to do that. She chose to increase the duty on top of all of those extra burdens that are threatening the survival of our community. Pubs and bars around the around the country, other hospitality venues for. By by increasing by RPI, rather than even the lower rate of CPI. This Chancellor is threatening to to return to the bad old days of the previous Labour government's hated beer duty escalator. With that duty rate continues year after year.

Now the hon. Gentleman for Birmingham Northfield, I think, suggested that this was somehow in keeping with a trend with a policy of successive governments, and nothing could be further from the truth, because in just 19 months this government will have increased beer duty by more than it went up in the 12 years running up to the last general election. This is a massive increase in duty in the short period. Indeed, the price, the duty paid on a pint in a pub was actually lower in July 2024 than it had been 12 years earlier, because of the policy decisions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made by conservative Chancellors. Of course, I give the. Thank my friend for giving way and I'm sure like he I'm sure like me, he has been to quite a few pubs in his constituency. And what many in his constituency. And what many of my publicans are saying is that they have a choice because of the decisions that this government is decisions that this government is making, which is to try and get more customers or lay off staff. But this is affecting pubs who are busy.

This is affecting pubs who busy. This is affecting pubs who are at their capacity, and yet they are now really worried that they will be able to survive another

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year. I wonder if my hon. Friend has had that experience from his local publicans. Hon. Friend is of course right,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Friend is of course right, although it's not really a choice that many pubs are able to make that many pubs are able to make because the choice is taken for them. And it is the same as we saw when the previous Labour when the previous Labour government's beer duty escalator was enforced. We know that increases in alcohol duties have minimal impact on overall alcohol consumption, but what they do have an impact is the way that people drink and what they drink.

Higher alcohol duties lead to a shift in people consuming alcohol in well regulated, licensed premises like a community hub, where they will typically drink medium strength beer and cider. That will go down and more people will drink more stronger alcohol at home. Without that protective framework of a of a licensed pub. So this makes no sense on a social or health basis or on an economic and community basis. It is the wrong thing to do.

Yet again. It is yet another burden that our overstretched pubs and hospitality venues simply cannot afford. It is the wrong thing to do and that is why, as well as our own amendment, I'll certainly be supporting the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats as well as opposing this clause. There is a better alternative. Of course. We need to sort out the genuinely lower business rate bills for hospitality venues. The thing that the Chancellor promised she was doing, the thing that the business secretary apparently thought that they were doing, despite the Treasury publishing all the data on the day of the Budget, that made it clear that that the medium rateable value of pubs was going up by a full third, that more than offset the reduction in in the business rate multiplier.

The government certainly needs to address that, but it can make a start tonight by dropping these plans to increase alcohol duty and in particular to increase alcohol duty on draught

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beer in our high street and community pubs. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow my colleague from South Staffordshire, but also my other Staffordshire, but also my other county colleague from Burton and Uttoxeter, Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent. As a county that rich in on Trent. As a county that rich in the heritage of brewing and Burton is a prime example of that, but
19:01
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-
is a prime example of that, but also in Stoke on Trent we've got some wonderful small brewers in such as Titanic, who sadly have shared with me the business rate increases that they face. It's a 450% increase. It's a it's a challenge they have to face, and it's something I hope that the government will will seriously look at finding a realistic and workable solution to. Because the value of pubs in our communities isn't just by the pints that they sell, but it's about the people that they look after.

It's the old gent nursing a pint for a couple of hours and being looked after by the bar staff there, that we lose and we lose an Aperol. I wish to maintain my comments to the specificity around the differential between cider rates and beer rates, because one of the things that that the Treasury has done for many, many years, including under the conservative government, is they they've kept an unfair differential between the rate of duty applied to cider and the right of the rate of duty applied to beer.

Now, that came in during the coalition government, and I can only presume it has something to do with the number of Lib Dem seats in the South-West. But, but but the point still remains that if you are a if you are a small beer producer, small brewery in the UK, you will pay more in duty on the pints that you produce than a global cider manufacturer will because of the differential points that where the Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We also have under this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We also have under this government that champagne in France is taxed 40% less than sparkling wine is in this country. So if wine is in this country. So if we're levelling the playing field, do you believe that this government should also level the playing field

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for English sparkling wine to be able to compete with champagne? I mean, on the danger of getting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, on the danger of getting into the inevitable jokes about champagne socialism. I can understand the point that is making, but he's right. Actually, there needs to be a fair play in this. Because actually, if you if you even out the taxation across the sector, then it does mean you can do targeted support in in other areas where we know that there should be an unfair advantage for certain things, like the gentleman from South Staffordshire and Kingswinford is actually making a greater use of the draught release for those that are using that are selling alcohol in a pub is something we should be encouraging and supporting.

But currently, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, 61% of cider producers produce less than five hectolitres of of alcohol, meaning that they get 100% reduction in the duty that they pay. Which is why you could increase or level out the rate of alcohol duty on cider and beer producers, without actually impacting the small cider producers in this country. It would only impact the global manufacturers who, frankly, are taking a profit and making, I would argue, a substandard product or trying to hide a mass produced product behind a local label, which often is the is the case currently.

Under the government's proposal, it will be £10.39 per litre for cider and £22.5 for beer. And that differential grows every year because it is uprated by inflation percentage. Actually, over the last few years, the rate between the two in cash terms has just got bigger and bigger. And it is, it is it is a disadvantage to those small brewers who are producing good quality beer, that they are paying a rate of alcohol duty equivalent to the global cider manufacturers. Ciba have given me some numbers.

They estimate that a levelling of that figure could generate £360 million per year. Now that money could either go towards reducing the rate overall for all levels of duty, or actually what it could be done. It could be put into reducing the draught relief further, so that there is a clear and meaningful differential between those that are selling alcohol in a pub and those that are selling alcohol in a supermarket. And frankly, there are some brilliant pubs in my own constituency, the The Greyhound in Hartshill, being one that I frequent the most.

And you go in there and it's a community venue and if they have to pay greater levels of duty on alcohol as this Budget, I'm sure they will find a way of doing that. But if there was a way of encouraging more people to go to that pub because the rate of duty on that pint was lower and it was subsidised by those big cider producers selling to the supermarkets. And that to me seems like a fair thing to do. The other thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, Madam Chair, if I can indulge your for one moment, there is a non-tax thing that actually would cost the government nothing that they could do to support those small brewers across the country.

There is currently sitting on the desk in the Department of Business and Trade, the Market access review. That would guarantee that small brewers could have access to pubs in their locality to guarantee guest ales. It's a mechanism that I believe they have in Scotland already that is working well. I understand until someone tells me otherwise. If we could replicate that in England and Wales, it would mean those small independent brewers would have an opportunity to sell more beer in pubs where they would have a lower rate of duty applied to that product.

It would help them with their business. It would give publicans an opportunity to increase the range of beers they sell. That would then help attract more people into those pubs. And frankly, it would mean that we have more small independent brewers in this country selling more pints of beer, which supports them as employers and as good companies like Titanic in my own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

city. John Lamont. Thank you. Madam Chairman. It's a privilege

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Chairman. It's a privilege to speak in this debate. I want to speak both about the pub and hospitality sector in my hospitality sector in my constituency in the Scottish border, but more broadly about a very but more broadly about a very important industry in Scotland and a key part, a life blood of the Scottish economy and how those Scottish economy and how those changes are going to impact that. Now, obviously debating the hike in in alcohol duty, which the Treasury describes as mere uprating.

But for Scotland, this technical change is going to have a real impact on our iconic industry. A hammer blow to the Scottish whisky industry as well as the pub and hospitality sector. Now the Treasury, you know, hiking up these taxes to to fill the black hole in their balance sheet. But the Scottish whisky industry is is a global brand which not only supports the Scottish economy but is very, very important to the UK economy as well. It's really important the Treasury, the government, understands how this is
19:07
19:07
19:07
John Lamont Portrait John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)
-
-
contributes £7.1 billion to the UK economy. It supports 41,000 jobs in Scotland, some of them in our most fragile and vulnerable communities, whether that be in Highlands, in Moray, in the borders and all over Scotland. The whisky industry has some sort of footprint and and impact, whether it's the distilleries or the farmers who are growing the crops that go to be distilled. The whisky industry is a key part of the Scottish economy, but it also is a key part of many local economies in that they are providing local jobs in these remote communities.

They're supporting local events and very often they are supporting the local services, whether it's the local school or the village shop and all the other key parts of that of that community. Now, the government claims the Minister and the Chancellor claimed that the rise in alcohol duty is going to boost revenue. But history says something very, very different indeed. The Treasury's own data says something very, very different because when duty was hiked by 10.1% in 2023, spirits revenue didn't go up but actually plummeted.

Now in 2023, before colleagues make interventions, I appreciate that was a conservative Chancellor made that change. But Scottish Conservative MPs argued very, very strongly for that not to happen because we accepted the representations that the Scottish whisky industry, Scottish Whisky Association and many of our constituents were making against this tax rise and the evidence has, has backed up what the industry was saying. You put up taxes, but the revenue that that generates actually falls. Now, according to the Scottish Whisky Association, that tax hike actually cost the Treasury £150 million.

As as consumers pull back, they stop spending as much as they did. And by doubling down on this, I believe the government, the Labour government, are going to make the situation as it can compound the situation even even more. I believe that the Chancellor and his government is trapped in a doom loop where higher taxes lead to lower sales, which lead to lower tax receipts, which lead to, you guessed it, even higher taxes from elsewhere as they scramble around to try and fill.

Fill the gap, Madam Chair. Madam. Madam chairman, you cannot tax a sector into prosperity. Another bit of this, which I want to touch on briefly, is the impact this is going to have on our our high streets, on pubs. But it's not just the distilleries that are going to be affected and suffering as a consequence of this, of this tax hike from the Highlands to the borders, our hospitality is screaming out for, and I quote, breathing room, because all they're getting from this government is a tightening of the of the Lewes and of the noose.

And I'm afraid the Scottish Government are compound and compounding things in Scotland, even even more with their policies that are anti-jobs policies and that taken by the UK government's policies is making things even

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worse now. We're absolutely. Grateful to the hon. Member. He references his belief that the Scottish Government are practising engaging the practice of anti-jobs policies. Could he explain, therefore, why unemployment in Scotland is substantially lower than it is in England?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than it is in England? By any measure, I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. But by any measure, the Scottish economy is not doing well. Scotland is by any definition, the highest taxed part of the of the United Kingdom, and whilst paying all this extra tax, none of my constituents, I am sure his constituents would agree, do not feel they're getting any extra benefit from those extra taxes. Our NHS is not performing well, our education system is not performing well.

There's potholes on all our roads. Are local authorities underfunded taxes going up in Scotland but public services are going down. But of course we have an opportunity in a few weeks in Scotland to replace a failing Scottish Government by electing a pro-uk Scottish Conservative government to replace a failing nationalist government. Now the hospitality sector, the pub sector in Scotland are not just having to deal with these higher rates of alcohol duty, they're also dealing with a higher National Insurance hikes of jobs, tax and national living wage hike, as well as all the other red tape which is being imposed on finding more and more difficult to do business, which is why the number of pubs is falling as a consequence, as a direct consequence of decisions that this government has taken.

In 2025, we saw a record number of licensed premises handing back their keys because they could no longer make their balance sheet work. Now, the other point I want to make, Madam Chairman, is just a number of other colleagues have mentioned this already. Is is is more than just where you go to have a drink. It's more than just the, the value of of of of the of of the drink. It's the social value that it provides to the local community as well. I know in my constituency the pubs are a real focal point for the.

I represent what, 9100 different communities. Not all of them have a pub, but those that do still have a pub. The the pub has become the focal point for those communities. It's where people go not just to have a drink, but to meet friends, to chat to neighbours. It might be the only conversation that they are having with people during the course of that day, over a pint or over a social, you know, can of cola or something, but it's the only contact they are having with many other people.

And I just want to mention just a couple of some of the excellent pubs that I have in my constituency. It's Black Bull in Duns, the cobbles in Kelso, the Ship in Melrose, the Plough Hotel in the Office Bar and Hoy and one pub which I must mention which has bucked this trend is the Blackadder in Greenlaw, which I said earlier. All these pubs have been closing. This is actually just reopened and it's going from strength to strength and but they but they highlight the huge challenges which, which, which the government are imposing on despite the fact that they have made this effort to open and to get the get people back into the bar, they are very clear about the challenges largely, I have to say, by the UK government that it is being imposed on them and they are finding it so difficult to do business and to provide that service that they are providing, and to run the business that they are fast approaching a point where people in Scotland and across the UK are no longer going to be able to go down to the local to enjoy a drink.

And the only people who can afford Scotland's national drink, a glass of whisky, are going to be those people living outside of Scotland as opposed to those living in Scotland. So I just wish the Chancellor and the Minister and the government would reflect on all the voices who are who are highlighting these issues, crying out for help, recognise the service that these these important local businesses are providing to their community, and to listen to all the Republicans who have decided to ban Labour MPs from their premises because they feel so strongly about this issue, that they have decided to make a stand and ban customers from coming in because they do not agree with the policies that they are imposing.

And I would encourage the government to think again, if they cannot think again tonight, at least recognise by having a cumulative assessment of all these changes, they come back to this chamber better informed and justify the choices that they are making in this Budget.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Yeah. I call Paul Kohler followed by Steve Darling Paul Kohler.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Steve Darling Paul Kohler. 86. The line about alcohol. Duty may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The line about alcohol. Duty may look technical, even innocuous. That's how the chamber like my constituency in Wimbledon. It lands constituency in Wimbledon. It lands with a thud. Before I go further, I should declare an interest. I'm the should declare an interest. I'm the chair of the Appg for the night time economy. I'm also the owner of a speakeasy Cellar Door in Covent Garden, which I've owned for nearly two decades. The financial crisis through Brexit, through Covid. Yet nothing compares to the crisis hospitality is now facing.

One one constituent wrote to me, this camera supporter asking why pubs have been hit yet again through changes to business rates. Another told me the real value of his small unit of Haydons Road in Wimbledon has risen from just over £15,000 to more than £22,000. Now the constituent, who runs venues in London and Birmingham, thought the Budget would bring relief. Instead, he's facing sharp increases in operating costs in the years ahead. Admittedly, the Chancellor's belatedly indicated she's going to offer some form of business rate relief to pubs.

But what about the rest of hospitality? The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restaurants, the cafes, the bars, the music venues. My hon. Friend give way. I will indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank my hon. Friend for giving away Gower. Once a cow, an apple in Yeovil has told me he feels that the assessments me he feels that the assessments and consultations on how the proposals in the Finance Bill will impact the viability of rural hospitality sector were not good enough. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this is why we need to pass Liberal Democrats new clause pass Liberal Democrats new clause nine, which calls for a review of the impact of hospitality sector for these alcohol measures and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

broader Budget policies within six months. Indeed, I thank I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, indeed Member for his intervention, indeed I do. It's death by a thousand cuts. Those who run hospitality businesses have been hit by cost businesses have been hit by cost after cost after cost. The government must listen. Although government must listen. Although our duties brought in about around 12.5 billion in pounds in 2425, hospitality, by contrast, contributed over 60 billion to the economy in 2023 and supported over 2.5 million jobs over 7% of the workforce.

Yet Ukhospitality estimates that 89,000 jobs, nearly 100,000 were lost in the nine months after October 24th Budget. Official figures show that 366 pubs closed in the year to December 2025. That's one pub every single day. The root of this crisis lie in years of conservative mismanagement, Brexit, labour shortages, broken business rates, system energy price shocks, commodity price increases and a cost of living crisis. Many
19:18
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
in the sector hope the change of government will bring a change of direction. Yet things have only got direction. Yet things have only got worse with the rise in employers National insurance contributions. The cumulative effect is undeniable. Rising costs for shorter opening hours and fewer staff, and offering hours and fewer staff, and offering us easier opening hours or longer opening hours doesn't help. We haven't got customers coming haven't got customers coming through the door. Investment is deferred, and too often doors close for good.

When that happens, high streets lose more than businesses. Those employment, thoughtful and social infrastructure on which communities depend. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for an emergency cut and VAT hospitality to 50% until April 2027. Real reform of business rates and a proper review of the unworkable wine duty system. Measures like these will protect jobs, support high streets and in time, strengthen the public finances rather than weaken them. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West. He's gone now, but he asked who where the money will come from.

But we keep telling you, get rid of your red lines. Join a customs union, negotiate a customs union with the EU, which would raise 25 billion a year for the Exchequer. This is in Wimbledon and across the country. We're not asking for your pity. They're asking for tax system that reflects the pressures that we face. If Ministers are serious about protecting jobs, strengthening high streets and growing economy, they should reverse this tax increase, introduce an emergency back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reduction for hospitality. Thank you. Yeah. Steve Darling. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And for this debate, I will be looking at my speech, will be looking at my speech, will be looking at the proposals before us through any six where as Liberal Democrats will, asking for that cumulative impact assessment to see what the impact of all these what the impact of all these proposals are going to make on our hospitality industry. And one needs to bear in mind how our hospitality industry is in fear.

They are in fear of the future, they're in crisis mode, and that means that they are not prepared to invest, to look, to take a chance and make sure that they're improving their offer. Because after a medley of challenges for them, they fear the future. So clearly they hunker down and hope for the best. And one reflects on the international pandemic. That was a massive hit, and I know that our tourism and hospitality economy in Torbay has still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

Again, the outrageous in third second invasion of Ukraine three years ago, almost four, where there was the where we've had a shock to the cost of our energy and then some self-inflicted wound wounds, I'm afraid to say. Madam Deputy Speaker, the National Insurance hike that we've seen occurring and then the challenges that we see around employment. And when I speak to those from the hospitality industry, particularly David from Rock Garden in Torquay, he shares with me how his utility
19:21
Emily Darlington Portrait Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)
-
-
bill has gone massively high. It's £3,000 a month that that dwarfs his £3,000 a month that that dwarfs his rental massively, and Ofgem are asleep at the wheel and they need asleep at the wheel and they need to be backing local businesses and driving those changes that we need driving those changes that we need to see. I know that our hospitality industry are in horror at a lot of the proposals that are coming as far as business rates, and they, the government, need to apply the full 20% rate of relief to make sure that there are those protections.

And I'm afraid to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a lot of those in the hospitality industry scoff at the proposals of deregulating around the edges, because if you haven't got the people in the premises to actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay the money over, you're setting yourself up to fail. Yeah. I'd be very happy to give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd be very happy to give way to my colleague from Devon. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He may be aware, being giving way. He may be aware, being my in the neighbouring constituency to me, that last week three restaurants in the town, three restaurants in the town, three venues in the town of Kingsbridge closed Wild Artichoke, the old warehouse and the Old Bakery, all warehouse and the Old Bakery, all much loved venues. One of the owners of one of those venues told us that part of the problem was the cumulation of challenges that the hospitality industry is facing, not least the lack of people coming through the door and spending money.

As my hon. Friend has just said, because of the cost of living crisis, but also business rates and the employers national Insurance contribution rises have just made it impossible to continue. Would my hon. Friend agree with me that it is a tragedy that these places are closing and we're seeing places closing every day, and something has to change before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hospitality industry is devastated. Yeah. Thank you. And I'd like to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I'd like to thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. And she's she's spot on. We need the government to wake up and smell the government to wake up and smell the coffee and realise the challenges that our hospitality challenges that our hospitality industry does truly face, and we see some national chains, like spoons, who are able to use their buying power to drive down the cost of a pint that many people will reflect on when they, across the threshold of a venue.

And the reality is for lots of independents, because it's independence that really important. A £6 a pint is the minimum that they can possibly achieve with all the costs that they've got involved in their world. And when you play that against the cost in a supermarket, it's really scary. And the Minister quite rightly highlighted, you know, the difference that we see of that, more than 70% of our alcohol is consumed from purchasing at a supermarket. And I personally feel we need to have a national debate around whether we've got the balance right there and making sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we're driving greater footfall towards our hospitality industry. But my friend and friend give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. colleague. I very much appreciate that. And it's to reiterate the point how it's to reiterate the point how important that is in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. It's too little, too late for many. There's the has late for many. There's the has closed in Berkhamsted, the Elephant and Castle in Wheathampstead, but we need to have support from the government to make sure that more government to make sure that more don't close. Would my hon. Friend agree with me that actions such as the Lib Dem call to reduce VAT to 15%, at least till April 2027, is a step to start protecting hospitality before it's too late for others.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you. And whilst I don't know those venues, I suspect some know those venues, I suspect some of those may well be on the high street. And we as Liberal Democrats know that our community, our high streets, is the beating heart of our communities. And by backing our hospitality industry, we're actually backing our high streets. And Anthony from Otto in Torquay, And Anthony from Otto in Torquay, he shared with me how he sees independent, you know, independents are actually powered by families.

They put people first. The reality is that an independent isn't going to get an, you know, a regional champion. He's going to take on the chippy to do some work for him, who he plays football with on a Sunday morning. He's going to have some skin in the game of actually knowing that he knows the the kids, because they might be going to school with his kids in the local sixth form. You know, there is a level of skin in the game that they have as independents.

And so that's why we need to be making sure that we're setting up an economy that supports independence. Because what I found extremely scary this weekend when I had a conversation with a number of these people, they were saying, why are we doing this? We could actually be a manager of a local supermarket and sleep at night. And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope the Minister will listen to these pleas and make sure that we do this cumulative impact assessment. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
19:26
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-
Robbie Moore. I rise to speak to clause 86, a new clause 26 that has been put down in the name of the official opposition, a clause which, of course, requires a clause which, of course, requires the government to carry out a review of the increased level of review of the increased level of alcohol duty will have on our pubs and hospitality sector. The compounded interest, the cumulative impact that all of these measures will have on our hospitality and pub sector because this comes on the back of a huge amount of tax revenue that's going to be raised.

Raised from the last Budget, £26 billion worth, madam Chairman, £64 billion worth if you take into account the last two budgets. And of course, if you look specifically at alcohol duty alone, this brings in an additional £400 million a year a raid on our pints, a raid on our spirits and those drinking glasses of wine. Alcohol duty is, of course, set to rise by an inflation busting 3.66% at the start of this February, equating Madam Chairman to A2P increase on the pint of of the price of a pint of in a pub.

And Madam Chairman, when I was out in my constituency, speaking to the landlord of the Dog and gun in the Worth Valley, or at the Craven Heifer in Addingham, or the Airedale Heifer in Keighley, or the Black Hat, as I do in Ilkley. All of these pubs are saying that the cumulative impact not only of UGC increase alone, but of course employers, National insurance, rising, the soaring energy costs, minimum wages, increasing the business rate, relief reduction not taking place at the reduction that was initially indicated.

And of course, the tourism tax, which is going to come down the line as well, a tax which will impact those areas like Haworth in the Worth Valley in my constituency or Ilkley, where a tax is going to be collected, go into a generalised pot to be redistributed by the Mayor of West Yorkshire. I suspect not back in places like Ilkley or Haworth, but to where are effectively being used as a cash cow for the rest of West Yorkshire. So these are all detrimental impacts over and above the alcohol duty.

And of course at a local level in Ilkley, we've got parking charges running out now from the end of this month on on street parking, all of which making it much more difficult for places like the Flying Duck and the Black Hat in Ilkley, where people like to go and enjoy a drink. And of course, disposable income is getting less. In my constituency we've got Labour run Bradford Council increasing council tax by 14.99% in the last two years. People are having less money in their pockets than then.

You have a Labour government then hitting our pubs and our hospitality sector and boy do they feel it. I would like to specifically understand from the Minister why there is still this linkage to increasing alcohol duty linked to RPI, when the government specifically referenced and acknowledged that the RPI reference has flaws in itself, and why is the government not referencing this against CPI, which is of course, the official measure of inflation? And the Minister didn't quite reference that in her contribution to date.

And that is exactly why new clause 26 is so important that this government acknowledges that must be voted through this evening, because that allows a proper assessment of all of those impacts of cost overheads on our pub and hospitality sector that I've referenced. Because, Madam Chairman, drinkers in Britain already pay around £0.54 of duty per pint, pulled in the pub, and the British Beer and Pub Association says that Britain and England is the third highest level of tax in Europe, after Finland and Ireland when it comes to drinking a pint in a pub.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, that is just outrageous when we know all of those positive impacts that are had on those communities, those rural communities and people that like to go to the pub to enjoy it. So I say to the government, they should be working with our hospitality sector, working with our pubs across all of our constituencies, not against them as we have seen. So I'd like to specifically understand from the Minister, in addition to the questions that I've asked around RPI and not using CPI is what assessment has this government undertaken on the cumulative impact on our pubs to date and our wider hospitality sector to date? And if the Minister, as a Treasury Minister, could enlighten me, given the number of U-turns that have happened in this place, and we've seen Madam Deputy Speaker just today, the government, the Prime Minister rolling back on digital ID when we've had changes, fiscal changes made outside of a budgetary cycle, outside of the Budget being made, like the changes on APR and BPR.

How has the recalibration of tax revenue been made coming into the Treasury? How much will it cost, and how is that then going to take impact the spending plans of this government, we suspect, although it has not been announced formally, but it's been trailed in the press, the changes around business rates, which would be welcome, of course, all of us on this side of the House, indeed on the conservative benches, want to see business rates scrapped in full. And I can't for the life of me understand why the Labour government won't follow the Conservative Party in that call, but if that change then does take place outside again of a fiscal event, where on earth is the government getting the money from to meet its spending plans? So I say on behalf of the many pubs, the many hospitality sector that I represent across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, the Worth Valley that have been kind enough to come to me with their concerns, get a grip.

Because if they do not do so quickly, I fear for many of those pubs and hospitality sector that are going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to go out of business very, very government. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Madam chair, with clause 86, the Treasury in Westminster continues to treat Scotland's vital Scotch to treat Scotland's vital Scotch whisky sector as a cash cow. With duty rising again in line with inflation in the Budget, as the inflation in the Budget, as the Scotch Whisky Association has warned, the previous 3.65% increase warned, the previous 3.65% increase to spirits duty actually reduced revenue by 7%, costing the Treasury £150 million. It seems like an opportune moment to remind the Minister that her ambition, and
19:33
Dave Doogan Portrait Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)
-
-
that of her colleagues, should be to increase tax receipts, not to to increase tax receipts, not to erode them. In my constituency of Angus and Perthshire Glens, just some of our distilleries include Dewar's, Blair Atholl, Edradour and Dewar's, Blair Atholl, Edradour and Glencadam. Four of the many distilleries striving to deliver global excellence, but all while global excellence, but all while being gouged year after year by the Treasury in London. Hiking duty in Treasury in London. Hiking duty in the November Budget for the third time in two years places substantial additional headwinds in a sector already mitigating for job losses, stalled investment and business closures.

If the Labour government genuinely values industry in Scotland beyond the grasping hand of the Treasury, then they should work with us to amend or remove clause 86 in the bill. That would have been a lot easier if the SNP's amendment 30 had been selected for debate, but nevertheless, I can but appeal to the Minister's better judgement on this matter. A Scottish coalition of drinks, tourism and farming representatives warned in October that duty increases had already contributed to around 1000 job losses, and claimed duty can make up around 70% of the cost of a bottle of scotch.

That same coalition emphasised that spirits outside outsized role in hospitality margins, where they represent a smaller share of sales but a larger slice of profits, meaning duty uprating can squeeze already extremely fragile margins within venues, especially in Scotland's towns and rural areas with thinner footfall. And this tax rise could be the final nail in the coffin for many hospitality businesses already on the margins of solvency. I cannot emphasise that enough to the Minister, especially those in rural settings such as in my and many other hon.

Member's constituencies. I do not hold with banning Labour MPs from pubs because pubs are about being in the company of all walks of life. And if people wish to select a company that they keep well, they can do that in their own house. In a public house, we convene with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whole community and visitors alike. That's the magic of it, I give way. I'm very grateful to you for giving way. He's making a strong case for the whisky industry. Would he also recognise that cider industry in my part of the world in industry in my part of the world in Somerset, is deserving of good treatment because of its support for agriculture? It used to benefit for agriculture? It used to benefit from a duty of 40%, that of the wider beer and drinks industry that wider beer and drinks industry that has crept up, so the average is now about 75%.

And in some classes of cider, it's actually more than the duty on beer. So does he accept that for supporting to support agriculture, that differential

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be restored? Yeah. Well, I've heard a range of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I've heard a range of cases from honourable and right hon. Members about that differential, and I certainly would like to see nothing happen that like to see nothing happen that would jeopardise either the drinks, the hospitality or the agricultural sector in the West Country. But I sector in the West Country. But I will leave that to be defined by others with a more material interest. If he does not mind. Our interest. If he does not mind. Our pubs are revered institutions and they are under threat as never before across these islands.

So let me put it in really simple terms. Before the election, hospitality was already struggling with the post-Covid recovery and the highest taxes since the war. Let us not forget, with a punitive and unrelenting business rates regime, with disastrous misadventure of Brexit and labour shortages, with 16 years of the UK without any meaningful economic growth. And on top of all of that, number five, the highest energy costs in the developed world. And since the election, Labour have added to that.

And I did express my concern at the outset. The Minister was kind enough to let me in about the effect of compound effect, and many other members have mentioned that since the start of this debate, and she she's really take cognisance of it because since the election, Labour have added to the hospitality sectors pain with a massive rise in employers, National insurance contributions, even higher energy bills, even greater economic despondency pervading across society and entrenched cost of living crisis, keeping people at home and increase to the minimum wage with no increase in revenue to support the payment of that wage.

No respite nor consideration for the VAT millstone around hospitality, NIC and and the Labour really should listen. Because on top of all of that, there is now a 25% increase in unemployment since they came to power, with 352,000 people now unemployed that were not before Labour came to power. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. As the hon. Member will know, the Scottish Government today were announcing their Budget. I am sure announcing their Budget. I am sure he is aware of the comments from UK Hospitality Scotland's Executive Executive Director, who said the Scottish Government Budget, which took place today and I quote it, has not sufficiently addressed the challenges that hospitality challenges that hospitality businesses in Scotland face and the majority, the majority will still majority, the majority will still be paying higher business rates in April.

How does he reflect on those comments in light of what he was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just saying? Good point. Yes, I reflect on the fact that following the Cabinet Secretary for finance for finances Budget today in Scotland, 93% of hospitality, retail and leisure businesses will retail and leisure businesses will be paying no or reduced rates in Scotland and that is because the Scotland and that is because the SNP are responsive and closer to people in Scotland. And further to people in Scotland. And further to that, not wishing to shoot the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Fox again, he says about the taxation rates for people in work in Scotland.

I am sure his constituents will be grateful to know that 55% of taxpayers in Scotland are paying less tax than they would if they were part of the fiscal regime within the rest of the United Kingdom. So, and the Madam Chair, the problem with that figure for unemployment, which is a scandal, 352,000 people unemployed that weren't before Labour came to power, is unemployed. People cannot afford to go to the pub or go out for a meal. And it is against this backdrop that the Minister seeks to defend this latest hike in alcohol duty.

It's totally unforgivable. I do not think the Minister believes a word I am saying. Of course, she certainly will not reference anything I say in her winding up, which I actually take as a kind of contrarian compliment, but I do not know clearly if she has a local that she goes to, but if she does, she can take my list of 12 life threatening headwinds for pubs, all caused by the UK government, mostly Labour. And see if the landlord and landlady in her pub disagrees with my analysis before she introduces the 13th headwind.

Unlucky for pubs with clause 86 of this bill, it's I'll be back in and so will the SNP. New clause nine today, Madam Chair, because we really do need to review, as many members have said, the way that alcohol is purchased and consumed in the United Kingdom and the fiscal burden that follows that because of sales are getting far too easy. A run of this and all sales are going to disappear before our eyes. So I support new clause nine and new clause 26.

It's too late today, Madam Chair. We have not been able to stop Labour coming to assault our pubs, but I look forward to standing up for Scotland's hospitality sector again at the Report stage, where I hope the Minister will have had a change of heart, or at the very least, be in possession of a revised cost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefit analysis that stacks up for hospitality. Luke Evans. Yeah. Yeah, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, and. I've come here. To talk about duty. But not duty in the conventional

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sense, because I feel I owe a duty. To the cafes. The restaurants and. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Pubs in my constituency to tell the government just how poor the impact is and to hold them accountable. Which is why I will be accountable. Which is why I will be supporting new clause nine and new clause 26. So if I start with new clause nine, the review of the cumulative impact, I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that it is a cumulative impact. I actually I would go further and I have done calling it a toxic concoction because it is true the conservative government did raise taxes, and I can.
19:41
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Imagine in the future that >> Imagine in the future that another conservative government may need to do so as well. But it's the toxic concoction that this toxic concoction that this government has set out upon about the Employment Rights Bill, the raising of the minimum wage, the reduction in support on hospitality exemption all at the same time is compounding the problem. So why I'm here, to use my voice and raise my duty is to ask the government to be accountable and be able to show its workings.

And these two amendments and our attempt to do that, especially when we know we've seen the government come forward in its first Budget, saying that it didn't need to raise any further taxes. Yet the subsequent Budget we had in 2025 that we are debating now brought taxes further forward by £26 billion when, by her own admission, the Chancellor said the slate was wiped clean and it seems to be the Chancellor has hospitality in her sights and it's not clear why. What does she have against cafes? What does she have against hotels? What does she have against restaurants? Now she seems to be softening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because she's heard from her backbenches. The impact it's having on pubs. My honourable. Friend, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, I will give way. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend and to come to the rescue of the Chancellor. It turns out she simply Chancellor. It turns out she simply didn't understand the impact. According to the Business Secretary, perhaps the Minister in her winding perhaps the Minister in her winding up will be able to confirm that she literally didn't know what the impact of her own policies would be impact of her own policies would be on these hospitality businesses. And she'll be able to tell us whether the business secretary was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right to identify this failing of honourable. Friend is very charitable, because the Chancellor has said she doesn't know. However, we've also known the documentation released in known the documentation released in the Budget says that the Treasury did. So what's gone wrong there? Because as we've heard today in the Because as we've heard today in the committee, we heard that 5100 pubs are going to have a rateable value. That's going to double. But That's going to double. But actually the Lib Dem spokesman missed the other point, which is 1 in 8 pubs will see an over 100% increase in their rateable value.

So the government does have a question to ask. Do they wilfully ignore that and choose to impact hospitality, or were they mistaken and actually not competent in seeing that there's a problem? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. Thank you for giving way. There's another. Thing that new clause nine would actually be helpful to government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually be helpful to government backbenchers, given how frequently number ten is U-turning? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Then including yet another U-turn on digital ID just today, then actually having an assessment then actually having an assessment on the cumulative impacts will actually help them when they come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to their potential next U-turn in this area. Speak up. In government. And he understands why it is important to have that fixed point that we all in this House can reference. But most importantly, his constituents who own a pub, who own a cafe, who own a hotel that are going to be impacted. So that's why I want to see these measure put in place, because I think it will go a long way to try to understand the impact that they are facing, because if it is rumoured that the government will do something for pubs, I simply borrowed the question why pubs not cafes? Yeah.

Why pubs? Not restaurants? Why pubs? Not hotels? And so when I turn to the next amendment that we have here, new clause 26, if my memory serves me right. What was the biggest cheer in the 2024 Budget from the other side? The one P reduction in the pint. But what have we seen this time round? We've seen A2P increase in the Budget now that didn't get cheered now either. Again, maybe the members didn't see it or maybe it was hidden inside the detail, which is where we are today.

And this seems to be the problem when it comes to whether we're debating thresholds last night or dealing with pubs today and rateable values on duty, either the government doesn't know what it's doing, or it's wilfully pulling the the blinds over the eyes of the constituents. But fortunately this side are here to point out the wrong that is happening, to hold them to account, to do our duty as opposition and call them to be accountable by placing amendments like new clause 26.

So that's why I will be supporting new clause nine. That's why I'll be supporting new clause 26. And until we see some support for pubs, this is the only way we in this House can hold the government accountable and bring transparency to what is actually going on in the Treasury, in number ten and in the country.
19:46
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. Madam chair, I would like >> Yeah. Madam chair, I would like to place clause 86. >> In the wider context of the budget's impact on the hospitality budget's impact on the hospitality sector and in particular on the village pub. I was very grateful to the small Business Minister for agreeing to meet in December with agreeing to meet in December with two Landladies from my constituency. The Minister heard from Becky, who runs the Red lion and the White Hart in Ensham, and from Donna, who runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland.

These village pubs are at the heart of their communities, as other members have highlighted, but Becky and Donna described how hard it is to make the books balance. Donna gave the example of the work that she does in her community. She has a number of regulars. When one of them doesn't come in on a given day, she will give them a call. Check. He's all right. Suggest he comes in. Not because he's a big drinker, but because it's the place where he finds somewhere warm and sociable to be, and she knows that he has mental health challenges in other ways.

These two publicans are contributing to the lives of their community. Becky put in front of the Minister some of the costs that she has faced and the increases she has faced. I feel it cost her £2. 30 in June 2023, when she saw the Minister in December 2025, the latest cost was £4.90, as well as a more than doubling of these food prices. Energy prices have rocketed, but the greatest anxiety for these two publicans came from tax and regulation. Labour costs have increased with employ and NICs.

Becky gave the example of her employer NICs contributions, which in gross have increased over three years, more than four times. Both have had to release staff. Donna is now working more than 80 hours a week, serving both as the chef and the general manager of her pub. She places orders on a Monday and Tuesday when covers are lower and she is in the kitchen Wednesday through Sunday. Meanwhile, business rates represent a bombshell Becky faces a near 120% increase in business rates at the red line.

But she is outdone in my constituency by the 223% increase at the Lion in Wendlebury, Becky finally highlighted the impact of VAT on the hot food sold in her pub before the Budget. Liberal Democrats called for a 5% cut in VAT to offer some relief to the hospitality sector. Take that fillet of fish has gone up over 100% over two and a half years. Over the same period, the Treasury's VAT take on that food has gone up by the same amount, 100% over two and a half years, an incredible increase in revenue with no relief to the publicans.

The Minister asserted earlier that the government was backing British pubs, despite the many hits to their bottom line. She also said that the structure of duty increases and reliefs is intended to support pubs by raising the relative price of alcohol consumed at home, compared to that consumed in a pub. Other members of all sides have made proposals to go further, but many pubs have sought to diversify and increase the share of income and profit from foods. Those that have tried are now being hobbled by the VAT impact, which is another multiplier of costs.

Becky and Donna are but two examples of the many publicans across my constituency who are holding on by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their fingertips. I sure did. He share my concern that often the publicans, the only way they can get around this is to either reduce their hours, reduce their staffing or take on more themselves staffing or take on more themselves when they are already working 24 over seven to try and deal with the costs. But with this kind of change,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

costs. But with this kind of change, the impact is going to be inconsolable for them. The honourable. Member for that point, and I wholeheartedly agree, both of the wholeheartedly agree, both of the publicans I'm talking about are working in excess of 70 hours a week. They have laid off staff that is fewer jobs for those who might be able to engage in entry level occupations, and it is hitting employment as well as other aspects of the economy. So too many local pubs in my constituency, as in so many others, have shut and other publicans are considering leaving the sector and when they go, communities lose a key institution that brings people together at the heart of their villages.

Madam chair, that is why I strongly support Liberal Democrat New clause nine, which would ensure an assessment of the cumulative effect of this government's careless

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assault on the hospitality sector. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions to today's debate, almost all of whom have spoken very passionately indeed spoken very passionately indeed about their local pubs. And I will specifically acknowledge the contributions of the hon. Member contributions of the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens just to deny him the pleasure of me not to deny him the pleasure of me not doing so. So, Madam Chair, we're taking a prudent and responsible decision to uprate alcohol duty in line with RPI.

This is fully assumed in the obr's baseline forecast, and so failing to uprate would come at real cost. And based on HMRC, I'm going to make some progress based on HMRC's ready Reckoner. Freezing alcohol duty would cost the Exchequer around £400 million a year, money that would, despite the party opposite's best efforts to pretend otherwise, have to be found elsewhere. This is one of the measures, Madam Chair, that assists in ensuring that our economy is strengthened and our future prosperity more secure.

And indeed, it does that without taking the axe to public services and to investment policies from the party opposite, which had catastrophic consequences for all of our constituents. I'm going to make some a bit more progress, Madam chair. Amendments 8 to 9. A new clause 26, would require the
19:52
19:52
19:52
Lucy Rigby Portrait Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
and impact note, and indeed, I will take him up on that invitation. And as is usual practice, our note was published at the Budget outlining published at the Budget outlining the anticipated impacts of this measure to alcohol producers and to the hospitality sector. Because the hospitality sector. Because this uprating maintains the current real terms value of the duty, the government does not expect it to have significant macroeconomic impacts, including to the employment rate, nought hospitality businesses costs where duty on drinks will have comparable relative bearing as now.

Regarding impacts to public finances, I'm going to make some progress. HMRC published data on alcohol duty receipts quarterly. This data is reviewed alongside other evidence by the OBR when it produces its forecasts of alcohol duty receipts, as indeed it did most recently alongside the November Budget. So the government's view, as is evident from OBR certified policy costings in recent years, remains that freezing or cutting alcohol duty rates reduces duty receipts. Now the hon. Member raised the importance of producers of Scottish whisky, and I would agree with him as to that importance.

This government is supporting key Scottish industries, including whisky, including with our free trade agreement with India, which will boost exports of whisky and will add £190 million worth a year to the to the Scottish economy. Now on the. I'm going to make indeed more and more progress. So the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, a wonderful place in the world where in fact I was between Christmas and New Year, referred to the difference between CPI and and RPI alcohol duty.

As he knows, we uprating by RPI like many other taxes which are expressed in in cash terms copies. Obviously he will know widely used and moving away from RPI is is fraught with with with difficulty. Now I want to I want to address, Madam Chair, the important point on business rates and on National Insurance contributions. We've discussed some of this already in this debate, and as hon. Members know, the Finance Bill does not contain measures on either business rates nor employer NI contributions.

And I will not accept an amendment relating to them. However, I will reiterate, as I have said already, that pubs are at the heart of our communities and we want them to thrive. We, as I said, we've heard some really heartfelt contributions and mentions of particular pubs in this debate today and the role that they have played in each of our lives. I could tell my own stories in that regard, but none of us would get home in time. What I will say, Madam Chair, is that the Budget, as hon.

Members know, the Chancellor introduced a £4.3 billion support package to give relief to to those seeing increases to their business rates bills. We have made clear as indeed I've said earlier, Madam Chair, that we're continuing to work with and talk to the sector on that support and what further support and action we can take. Now, the shadow, I will come to this point. The shadow Liberal Democrat spokes person raised several several questions. We will come forward with that support package when we are able to do so.

Any further support that we're going to make available. She also raised a point around VAT. Now, I know that there has been an answer to the PQ for one of her colleagues on on this exactly this point. But I would gently say to her, as indeed I'd say to other hon. Members in this debate, that if you want to cut taxes, the money has to come from somewhere. And this is not a point that has been acknowledged at all. So, Madam Chair, I therefore move that amendments eight nine and new clause 26 be rejected, and that clause 86 stands as part of this bill.

Very good motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the question is that clause 86 stands part of the bill. As many 86 stands part of the bill. As many as have that opinion say I of the as have that opinion say I of the contrary, no. No division. Clear The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, no. No tell us for the eis Stephen Morgan Taiwo Owatemi tellers for the noes Alicia Kearns
19:58
20:10
20:23
None Portrait Legislation: Finance (No. 2) Bill (Day Two): Division: New Clause 26.
-

The The question. The question. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no. No Tellers for the ayes Alicia Kearns Lincoln Jopp Tellers for the noes Stephen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Tom Collins Tom Collins OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Collins OK. Tom Collins OK. And Tom Collins OK. And OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Collins OK. And OK. Tom Collins OK. And OK. Jessica

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Collins OK. And OK. Jessica

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order? Order? Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order? Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 172. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 334. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. The ayes to the right were 172. The noes to the left 334. So the noes have it, the noes have it unlock. The question is that I do report the bill clauses 1 to 8 and schedules one and two. Clauses nine, ten and 69, clause 62 and schedule 12, clauses 63 to 68, clauses 83 to 85, and schedule 13 and clause 86 to the House. As many as of that opinion say aye.

Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the Order! Order! Whipped Order! Whipped report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bill so far as committed to it, and so far as committed to it, and directed me to report that with the same amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

same amendment. Clauses and schedules reported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to lie upon the table. I beg to move this House to order. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. David Smith here. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a great pleasure to be able to lead this debate on government support for freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria, and I hope that we have some good debate here this evening. Recent events have thrown the spotlight on Nigeria in general and on freedom of religion or belief in particular, and I hope that this debate can strengthen that
20:35
20:36
David Smith Portrait David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
-
Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief or FoRB. As I will say from now on in the debate, I am committed to that strategy and to seeing Nigeria's FoRB improve in the coming years. 15 years ago. You the coming years. 15 years ago. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent some time in Nigeria and it was clear even then that persecution clear even then that persecution was a serious problem. I remember sitting in a hotel room in Abuja, a very nice hotel actually, as it was, very nice hotel actually, as it was, and hearing directly from a man whose wife had been brutally murdered.

In fact, it's sad to say. Burned to death by a mob in northern Nigeria purely because in that context, she was a Christian. Let me reiterate, that was 15 years ago. And the FoRB crisis in Nigeria is persistent and entrenched, with violence in the North and the Middle Belt, a way of life for Christians and Muslims, those of traditional belief systems, humanists and others. Meanwhile, some federal state legal systems have been manipulated by some politicians and other public officials in order to impose so-called blasphemy and apostasy offences.

Despite section 38 of the Nigerian Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. So Nigeria's FoRB crisis is partly about violence, but it is also about legal suppression of freedoms at the state level, and it is a multi-faith crisis. While the majority of those affected are Christian, all FoRB advocates know that persecution of one group invites persecution of others moderate Muslims, atheists, humanists, practitioners of traditional religions are all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suffering in Nigeria for what they believe. I would be happy to give way. Madam Deputy Speaker can I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker can I commend the hon. Gentleman for North Northumberland for bringing this forward? I have to say as well, I think government have made an I think government have made an excellent choice of the hon. Gentleman as their envoy as well. And I also say as well. God has chosen him to be the position that he has, and that is more important he has, and that is more important than anything. But this is the hon. Member aware of the findings of the Global Christian Relief Red list 2026, which identifies the top five persecutors of Christians worldwide.

One of them is Nigeria. And those who remember agree that the UK government. I say this to the Minister because he's an honourable man and I know he answers our issues. Government must use his diplomatic engagement, assistance and security cooperation to press for improved civilian protection, accountability for perpetrators and the defence of freedom of religion or belief for all Nigerians, whatever that faith may be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Smith. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford. I know that this is a Strangford. I know that this is a matter that an issue that he is really concerned about and spend a lot of his time in this place on, lot of his time in this place on, and I am aware of that list and I'd be pleased tomorrow to be speaking at the Open Doors World Watch List launch. And they also understand launch. And they also understand Nigeria is high on that list.

So, you know, what does this have to do with us in this place? Madam Deputy Speaker well, firstly, the government is committed to a values based foreign policy. Our conscience will not let us ignore the suffering of anyone denied dignity, agency and freedom. When people ask why do you care about something like this in Nigeria? Our response is how could we not? So I am pleased to support a government that has moved to address suffering as far and as wide as possible. But secondly, Nigeria's business is becoming everyone's business.

The old adage is that when Nigeria sneezes, Africa catches a cold. Nigeria is booming with a population of 240 million people, which will keep growing for years to come. In the UK, we have 270,000 Nigerian born residents who make a dynamic contribution to our economy, society and country. So flourishing. Nigeria built on the common good, pluralism and universal freedoms will be a blessing to the world, to Africa and to the UK. I would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful. And I also think it's a very good thing that he's taken the role good thing that he's taken the role he has. He mentions the impact of this issue around the world. Does he recognise that what is going on in Nigeria is absolutely right, in Nigeria is absolutely right, that it's in a sense the worst example of it, but it represents a example of it, but it represents a pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians. It's not just a it's not just a series of individual atrocities that are committed.

atrocities that are committed. There is a global pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians. And I think it's right that we in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House acknowledge that. Does he agree? David Smith. Well, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I would certainly say that there are patterns around the world that we have to look at and be honest about have to look at and be honest about and address. I think it is also true to say that, as I've been saying in Nigeria, that freedom of religion or belief in persecution religion or belief in persecution on that basis affects everyone, but we have to be honest and straightforward when a particular community is affected more than community is affected more than others.

And I will go on to say a little bit more about that in my speech. So, you know, in the UK, I've mentioned about our Nigerian connections and and a flourishing Nigeria built on the common good is good for us all. But sadly in Nigeria this is some way off. Many of us here will have a rough idea of the situation. I look around the chamber and see many colleagues who I know passionately care about freedom of religion or belief all around the world, including in Nigeria.

But in the last six weeks alone in Nigeria, just two examples, 13 people were kidnapped from a church in Kogi State and what the BBC called the second such attack in as many weeks. A bomb was set off in a mosque in Borno State, sadly killing at least five worshippers. These are just the latest in a long line of attacks, violence and atrocities, which is why on Christmas Day last year, the American government launched strikes on terrorists. The militants in the far north west of Nigeria, who are affiliated with Islamic State Sahel province, were the target of that strike.

And they these strikes, they raised the profile of the uncertainty, fear and insecurity that many Nigerians live with on a daily basis. At least 45,000 Christians have been killed for faith related reasons between 2011 and 2025. In Nigeria.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am happy to. Jeremy Hunt to thank. The hon. Gentleman for his excellent work as FoRB envoy and the extreme, extraordinary effort that he's putting into it. Does he agree that in a world in which agree that in a world in which geopolitics is becoming increasingly transactional, when African governments are African governments are increasingly focusing on economic growth rather than civil and political rights, and when political rights, and when intolerance and bigotry is more widespread than ever, it is more vital than it's ever been for British foreign policy to make space for creating a voice for people who don't have them, like Christians in Nigeria.

And however hard that is, we should redouble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our efforts to do so. David Smith thank the hon. Member for hon. Member for his Member for hon. Member for his contribution, and I especially as well for the role that he played in the Truro Report, which actually led in the end, to the role that I'm playing and ultimately played a huge role in bringing freedom of religion or belief to the centre of religion or belief to the centre of our foreign policy. And certainly that's something that I'm advocating for in my role.

And I know that the government takes very, know that the government takes very, very seriously and we should not have a false dichotomy, in my opinion, between whether we are advancing freedoms for people or seeking to build economic relationships with them. We should have a holistic relationship with all partner countries that we can around the world. But back to Nigeria, and moderate Muslims are also targeted by these extremists. And we need to call out who these extremists are. Religion is clearly key, but to to an earlier point, persecution is not necessarily evenly spread in every situation, in every country.

And that's true in Nigeria. For example, in Kaduna State, after controlling for population, Christians were 15.8 times more likely to be abducted than Muslims. So there is a particular issue there. The situation continues to deteriorate, and I think it's reasonable, therefore, that we ask serious questions of the Nigerian military about the response from a security perspective. In June last year, 258 people were killed in Yalata in Benue State. The nearest military base was just 20 miles away, but it took four hours for anyone to respond.

And the face of all this is perhaps unsurprising that the United States again announced in late October and social media that it would designate Nigeria a country of particular concern. And as the middle belt in Nigeria put, the message is unmistakeable. Nigeria's government is capable of fighting terrorism. When sufficiently motivated, the capacity exists, the resources are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available. What has been missing is political will. Yes, it. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Chair, and thank you for giving way. Given that reliable sources way. Given that reliable sources estimate that tens of thousands of Christians have been killed in Nigeria since 2009, largely in the Nigeria since 2009, largely in the North and the Middle Belt of Nigeria, placing the country at the epicentre of global persecution of epicentre of global persecution of the Christian church. Does he agree that every diplomatic and political lever available to His Majesty's Government must now be used to help end this violence, and to secure freedom of religion or belief for all? Here again, I thank him for his intervention, and I do do agree that, as I was just saying in my previous answer, that it's very, very important for us not to have segmented silos, relationships with other countries.

We need to treat our relationships holistically. And I'll be looking forward to the minister's response, because I know that the government is doing a lot regularly raises cases of freedom of religion or belief with counterparts from foreign governments. But certainly my view is that we need to have a holistic relationship with other countries, and that includes freedom of religion or belief. Let me just quickly move to the issue of legal suppression of freedoms. Freedom House reports that how state and local governments in Nigeria have been known to endorse de facto official religions in their territory, placing limits on other religious activity, apostasy and blasphemy laws, so-called have spread into Nigeria's social and legal landscape, often led by regional or local governments.

12 northern states have enacted Sharia penal codes with Christian solidarity. Worldwide reporting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effectively creating a state religion in violation of Nigeria's constitution. I'd be happy to. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank him for bringing attention to the bringing attention to the persecution of people of different faiths and beliefs, and particularly the heinous murders of particularly the heinous murders of thousands of people. My hon. Friend knows about the case of Mubarak Bala, who was jailed for a Facebook post that was deemed to be blasphemous. After he left Islam, he was sent to a psychiatric hospital, forced to leave his home and state and arrested.

He calls on the UK and Western governments to repeal their own blasphemy laws and explain that when he was arrested, he was told that, quote, even the British have blasphemy laws because today we have blasphemy and blasphemous libel. In Northern Ireland it is a criminal offence under common law. Now it is not used. In Northern Ireland it is a dead letter law. However, other countries that do use their blasphemy laws in very extreme ways often point to these dead letter laws in other countries as justifying their own behaviour.

So does my hon. Friend agree with me that no country should have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

blasphemy laws, whether directly or by the back door? hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend for that intervention, and I've been very pleased to meet Mubarak Bala twice now, the most recent time in person in Warsaw, and it was a great in Warsaw, and it was a great credit to himself. And he suffered very unjustly as a result of being very unjustly as a result of being a humanist. And yes, you know, it is. I'm sure we'll hear from the Minister, but the government seems Minister, but the government seems very clear that blasphemy is not something we should be supporting blasphemy laws.

And, you know, we do see people suffering as a result of them. And then we will move on a little bit and maybe not take any interventions just for a moment. Why does this matter to us? You know, we're 3000 miles away from Nigeria, but we are linked by history, by culture, by language, and we're linked by friendship. You know, Nigeria and the United Kingdom, a very strong relationship. It would be easy to dismiss Nigeria's problem as something over there, you know, persecution of religion or belief abroad.

It's not our problem. But that position would be irresponsible. It would be immoral, and it would ultimately be untenable. It is immoral because when we see other humans in need, we want to respond as humans. How could we turn away from the suffering we see in Nigeria when we see families ripped apart, innocent people killed, and powerbrokers restricting agency, liberty and conscience? We have in the UK have a rich history of experiencing and rejecting religious intolerance that we can share in humility, hopefully with others.

We had civil wars, we had riots. Those rights became debates, debates became freedoms, and those freedoms led to flourishing. And the hallmark of freedom is wanting freedom for others. That brings me to irresponsibility. It would be irresponsible to assume that Nigeria's problems are also not our own. Nigeria is playing an increasingly influential role globally, its young, resource rich and growing. The UN has projected that Nigeria will become the third most populous country on earth by 2050, and the UK is home.

As I've said to a substantial and growing community of Nigerian born residents, they're hard working, law abiding, enterprising part of our nation and we are privileged to have them with us. So working well with Nigeria is in the interest for the sake of all. Nigeria also represents a genuine democracy and a region where military governments are common, where civil society is precarious as climate change disrupts the Sahel and Central Africa. Further, the promise of a resilient Nigeria is with a strong sense of its future.

As a pluralist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pluralist democracy cannot be understated. Wrexham. Yeah. Al Pinkerton I'm hugely grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Al Pinkerton I'm hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the excellent speech. He's giving a very powerful He's giving a very powerful evocation of the significant crisis that exists within within Nigeria that exists within within Nigeria in terms of intolerance and and faith related death. But can he faith related death. But can he also maybe give some indication? And this is a genuine question of inquiry, to what extent are there intersections with other sources of conflict, such as terrorism, resource competition that he just mentioned, and potentially even climate change? To what extent are they drivers of the kind of religious intolerance that we see playing out in his speech?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that question. And he's right to to draw other factors he's right to to draw other factors into this equation, whether it be competition over land in the Middle Belt and Nigeria, whether it be Belt and Nigeria, whether it be climate change that leads to that sometimes, whether it be other forms of identitarian conflict, competition over resources, these competition over resources, these things are true without question. It is also true, in my estimation, that there is a specifically that there is a specifically religious dimension and a political dimension at times to the persecution that we have.

So it can be both at the same time. It's what I would say. But one thing that I'm concerned about is that, you know, we can lead to a slippery slope if you compare the situation, like in China, for example, where Tibetan Buddhists have been persecuted for years, and that was later followed by a crackdown on Falun Gong and Christians, and then where religious prisoners ultimately ended up being joined by journalists, activists, trade unionists and other rabble rousers. You know, the state would prefer not to deal with.

So we need to robustly defend freedom of religion or belief to avoid that slippery slope. The government is doing some great things that I get to see. I'll just make a little bit of progress. I want to make sure the Minister has time to respond. The government is making a great deal of progress and we will hear from the Minister. But you know, it's true to say that the in my estimation, the government is supporting security work in Nigeria, working closely with the Nigerian government, the spring programme that I hope we hear more about and building that sense of inter-communal interfaith relationship building, peace building, something that I myself did in the past in a different context.

This is really, really important. I'd love to hear more from the Minister about what that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could actually look like. If we grow that more, I will give away. I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I suppose I would just remind the house of Matthew five verse ten, blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. And I think we all must bear that in our minds tonight. I suppose the question that that I would ask is how many that that I would ask is how many more burned churches murdered worshippers are we going to have to see before actual concrete action is taken? I suppose I would just ask the hon.

Member. He's doing an amazing job in this area. Well done in that regard. But we do need more concrete action. UK aid should be conditional on Demonstratable action to protect religious freedom. Surely that's a question of the Minister tonight. David Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Lady for her question and intervention. And again, I agree that we should have holistic relationships with with holistic relationships with with all of our partners should not be a hierarchy of importance when it hierarchy of importance when it comes to an economic trade deal versus, you know, us pursuing our versus, you know, us pursuing our values as a country when it comes to things like freedoms. And I am sure we will hear more from the Minister on that. Just a couple of Minister on that.

Just a couple of things. As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I mentioned a law and politics and what is happening there. I think this is almost the more worrying issue in a way, because it creates a context in which it becomes acceptable to persecute. And as long as ethno religious fiefdoms are maintained, contrary to the promises of of the Nigerian Constitution, widespread reconciliation may be out of reach. And I have said, you know, the government just one moment. The government is clear in its opposition to the spread of blasphemy.

And Apostolos and I support that. And there are complex and committed relationships with Nigeria. Britain has a range of tools at our disposal to support change in the direction of FoRB. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the excellent work that the government is doing, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remain committed to it myself. I will take one last order. It might be helpful to explain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It might be helpful to explain the interventions are not allowed from the opposition front bench, so Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for clarifying that and I apologise to the hon. Member opposite. So just in conclusion, Nigeria is a rich is rich with potential possibility, but violent and legal suppression of FoRB is undermining, in my view, the country's future, a plural Nigeria rooted in the common good and with 250 million people, where they have genuine freedom to reason, question and believe is a blessing to Nigeria itself, to Africa and to the world. A flourishing Nigeria is also good for Britain and a challenge to the autocrats of West Africa and declaring that freedom is, in the end, worth it.

Conversely, every Christian kidnapped, mosque, bombed, atheist imprisoned risked the continuation of the cycle of ethno religious conflict and a diminishing of all that Nigeria can be. No one wants that. And I'm pleased that the UK government is serious about freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria. I am also committed to working with the government in every way possible to support a better way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward. This is an issue that needed attention years ago, and I attention. Minister. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm very grateful to the hon. Member for North Northumberland for Member for North Northumberland for calling this debate and for his tireless work as special envoy. And I want to thank the colleagues who've intervened from across the who've intervened from across the House for their thoughtful contributions. And I'll try and time to respond to as many points as I can. And I declare an interest
20:55
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
as I can. And I declare an interest in this debate. As a Christian myself, who has also worked with Open Doors and others to draw attention to these cases in the past, where people are persecuted for their beliefs. And I genuinely welcome the chance to keep this important matter in the spotlight. And it's an issue I've engaged with on many years, including when I was Shadow Africa Minister. On the other side, I've also had the pleasure. I'm glad to hear the the hon. Member speak about Nigerian communities in the UK.

I've had the pleasure of meeting with Nigerian Christian communities in my own constituency in Cardiff South and Penarth, and the amazing contribution that they make and as well with Nigerian communities across the the UK. And he's right that this is an issue that should interest and concern and deeply shock us all in terms of some of the horrific things that we've seen, because the brutality of the attacks against religious communities in Nigeria is truly appalling, and the cold blooded massacre of over 200 Christians in Benue State last October was particularly shocking.

We've heard indeed many terrible statistics today, but last year's Open Doors watchlist, as we've heard, reported that armed groups murdered 3100 Christians for their faith in Nigeria in 2025 and abducted a further 3000. And it is shocking to hear that extremists have stormed villages, killed worshippers, kidnapped families and burned homes. And we've heard some truly horrific examples today. Of course, Nigeria's constitution promises freedom of religion or belief for all, and every person in that country deserves the right to practice their faith or belief safely without fear or persecution.

And when we defend freedom of religion or belief, we help build trust between communities, strengthen Nigeria's social fabric, and create conditions for lasting peace and prosperity for everyone. And that is why Nigeria is one of the ten countries prioritised for targeted action in the government's strategy on freedom of religion or belief, launched last July. And we welcome the president's commitment to religious freedoms and his pledge to safeguard freedom of belief for all Nigerians. And we are working closely and I'm glad that the hon.

Member recognised this with the Nigerian authorities, along with communities directly and faith leaders, to uphold and protect these freedoms. Indeed, my colleague, the Minister for Africa in the Other place, Baroness Chapman, continues to be engaged closely on this topic and she is extremely concerned about the violence against many communities, including religious communities in Nigeria. We raised these issues. The hon. Member wants to know and reference with the work we are doing at the highest levels. Indeed, she spoke directly with Nigeria's Foreign Minister about freedom of religion or belief.

In November, our High Commissioner and team engaged with local authorities, communities and faith leaders in affected areas and this includes groups such as the Governors Forum, National Peace Committee and National Human Rights Commission. And we know that criminality, inter-communal violence and insecurity make things worse for religious communities and that is why we focus on tackling the root causes of instability to protect people's rights, and whether that's they come from Christian communities, Muslim communities, indeed humanists or others with beliefs that are different or indeed non-beliefs, we need to create a society where everybody is able to live and practice in the way that they wish to.

And I'm glad he mentioned the case of Mubarak Bala, which I remember raising on many occasions in the past too. And we highlight, of course, violations of freedom of religion or belief on the international stage and point for joint action, push for joint action, including at the UN, the G7 and as part of the article 18 Alliance, and of course, in bodies like the Human Rights Council. Now, he's rightly pointed to the violent extremist groups and indeed a number of members referred to like Boko Haram, Islamic State, West Africa, who continue to shockingly attack people in the northeast of Nigeria.

And they target anyone who rejects their ideology. And I think he made an important point that it's not just Christians, it's also the North East, mainly Muslim population who also suffer terribly as a result. But the Christian minority faces extreme persecution through mass kidnappings and murders that are utterly unacceptable. I think have shocked the world. And of course, inter-communal violence and criminal banditry are linked and fuel deaths and tensions and criminal smuggle weapons into Nigeria, affecting both Muslims and Christians. These motorbikes to evade the authorities and all sorts of other techniques.

And of course, conflict over land and resources in Nigeria often also take on a religious aspect. As tensions rise and violence escalates and those ideologies can sometimes be used as psychological warfare, with attacks on churches and mosques seen as acts of revenge. But peaceful dialogue can resolve disputes before they escalate. And since our last debate on this in 2024, we've rolled out the UK Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria programme across Kaduna, Katsina and Plateau states and I was glad to see that referenced.

It's doing very, very important work reducing violence by strengthening local peace and justice systems and supporting practical, community led solutions and want early success, madam Deputy Speaker, is that 5000 internally displaced people have returned and resettled after a peace agreement between the Bassa and Agbara communities in Nasarawa State. If we don't tackle the root causes of insecurity, religious communities will remain at risk of these terrible atrocities. And that's why, and he mentioned our cooperation with Nigeria more broadly on security issues, which are very pleased to play a role in alongside my colleague, Minister for Africa.

But last July, we hosted the third Security and Defence Partnership Dialogue with Nigeria. I will be generous and position.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mike Wood I thank the Minister for giving way the tragic case of for giving way the tragic case of Deborah Samuel Yakubu is a reminder of the culture of impunity that has of the culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop in too many parts of Nigeria. So will the Minister assure the House that the UK government does everything and UK government does everything and takes every opportunity to stress the need for improved security in the need for improved security in those vulnerable, particularly vulnerable parts of Nigeria? To make sure that people are safe to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exercise their religious belief. I absolutely can, and I mentioned a range of the different levels in which we do that. And indeed, my colleague Mr. Africa raised at the highest level a number of these issues. But we continue to engage. And the High Commissioner, the team do an excellent job there in engaging at all levels to raise these cases. all levels to raise these cases. And that's why we have this dialogue. We have the spring programme, and we have the investment that we're making across a range of areas with the Nigerian authorities, who are close partners in many, many respects and many issues, not just in Nigeria but more broadly.

And we agreed to strengthen our cooperation and provide practical support to defend against these threats. And that actually includes very practical steps, such as sharing operational lessons to counter new tactics being used by terrorists, including the use of drones and improvised explosive devices, which are tragically, of course, being used against civilians in too many locations. And the UK is also, of course, trying to address wider issues around poverty and humanitarian concerns. And we support hundreds of thousands of people through our Humanitarian and resilience programme.

But I want to assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker and the envoy, that we will keep working with Nigerian authorities and faith leaders to address the shocking violence against people who are simply trying to follow their faith or belief and and particularly welcome. The concerns have been raised about Christian communities, but it's of course affecting many, and we will work at every level to ensure that this violence is brought to an end. And we'll also work globally for these issues and really want to praise the special envoy for the work he does on these important issues.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as of that opinion say I.
11:00
None Portrait Speaker's statement Mr Speaker
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page