Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]

John Glen Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Two questions in one intervention—that really will be the last time I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to his first question is that, as I have said already, this is time limited. It will end in March 2028. If he looks at clause 7 of the Finance Bill, he will see that set out.

On the question of hitting investment, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that none of the discussions I have had with banking and financial sector leaders before or subsequent to the Budget suggests they want to do anything other than raise their levels of investment into British firms. I understand the reaction to and view of the temporary 3% additional surcharge that I put on banks to help pay for household energy help this winter. I certainly would not describe it as welcomed by the banks. I do believe it is manageable. I do not believe, and I have seen no evidence, that it is going to hit the levels of investment or the commitment they make to this country. As I said earlier, I will miss no opportunity to talk up the importance of the financial services sector to the UK.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[John Healey]

Given that the right hon. Gentleman has served with such distinction in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, I will give way one last time.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful. Of course, one way of mitigating the anxieties of the banking sector is to ensure that the capital requirements directed by the PRA are significantly reformed. I understand from what the Chancellor has said that there is provision for that possibility, but what instinct does he have about the space that exists for the PRA to move decisively to signal to the banks that there is room for more capital to be lent by British banks in London, as a way of countering the concerns about the tax?

[John Healey]

I think I can do better than answer about my instinct on the scope for that. I would point the right hon. Gentleman to the measures in the Bill. I would also point him to my exchange of letters with the Governor of the Bank of England about capital requirements and the expectation to see material change, bearing in mind the importance of the internationally competitive position of UK banks. He will know that the Bank is undertaking its own review of this area at the moment, and I hope we will get the results and any consequent changes before too long.

Finally, I have spoken about the importance of maintaining the UK’s pre-eminent position as a global financial centre. That requires maintaining the very highest standards in tackling illicit finance. We have in the UK a strong set of anti-money laundering rules, but the supervision of compliance with those rules is currently fragmented and inconsistent. Last year, the Government announced that the Financial Conduct Authority will take on responsibility for the anti-money laundering supervision of legal and accounting service providers, as well as trust and company service providers.

The Bill enables the FCA to take on those new responsibilities, meaning that we can reduce the number of bodies that have a role in anti-money laundering supervision from 25 to three. Additionally, as financial crime increasingly involves cryptoassets held outside the UK, the Bill will enable the Government to update existing cryptoasset recovery powers through secondary legislation. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you are encouraging me to conclude, so I will, but I hope you appreciate that I have taken a large number of interventions.

I believe there is a shared determination in this House to ensure that the UK remains the global location of choice for financial services firms to invest, innovate and grow. This Bill is a necessary step to strengthen that leading UK position on financial services: streamlining regulation and reducing the burden on businesses, supporting financial resilience through our credit unions, reforming consumer protection so that it is fit for this digital age, and raising levels of investment in our high-growth firms, all while maintaining our high standards of regulation and oversight. It is a Bill to generate good growth in every postcode and provide fresh hope for the future. I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The UK financial services industry is vital to our economy. It enables us all to buy houses and cars, to save and invest safely and to insure against bad outcomes; it provides millions of jobs, not only in London but right across the UK; and it contributes hundreds of billions of pounds to GDP. It is one of the UK’s only world-leading industries. We have 160 foreign banks in the City and twice as many US dollars are traded on the UK foreign exchange in the UK than in the US. We have the largest source of pension funds in Europe—and if I mention Europe, as a Liberal Democrat I must also mention Brexit.

It is true that the UK financial services industry has remained strong after Brexit. Of course it has: it is a world-leading industry that has many advantages beyond its access to European markets. We have, for instance, the advantages of location, language and law, and there is enormous talent here in the capital. However, we should not mistake that resilience for evidence that Brexit did not harm financial services. Exports of financial services have declined by 5.9%, and, according to TheCityUK, that is at least partly due to Brexit frictions. The loss of passporting rights, for example, makes it harder to acquire clients across the continent. Compliance and administrative costs have risen, and we are now less attractive in relation to becoming a pan-European headquarters. Whatever the dispute may be when it comes to the precise numerical impact of Brexit on financial services, this negative track has to be acknowledged.

[John Glen]

I recognise the case that the hon. Gentleman is quite predictably making on Brexit, but given that we are where we are, what does he think would be the view of the financial services sector and the City of London on changes to where we are now?

[Bobby Dean]

Uncertainty is always unwelcome in the financial services industry, but Governments must make decisions for the very long run, and I think that in the very long run it would be in our best interests to be part of the single market again.

The industry has remained resilient, not only in the face of Brexit but in the face of other challenges, but that should not be taken for granted. It is due, at least in part, to hard work and the reforms that were introduced after the 2008 financial crash. Prior to that, a reckless, deregulatory and ignorantly optimistic environment led to a complete and utter disaster, and not only for the industry but for society as a whole. The debts that stacked up in response to that crash are still squeezing the present Government’s potential to deliver better public services or lower taxes to this day, and the reputation of the industry among the public still suffers because of that event.

However, it is worth stressing that the reforms made in the aftermath have broadly worked. The sector has remained financially stable. Repossessions are low, pension funds are healthy and stable, and bank failure is rarely speculated about—and if it were to happen, I trust that it would happen in an orderly way. This has remained the case despite some serious stress tests in recent years, not least the global pandemic and the global energy shocks, and it shows that measures such as the bank capital requirements, the liquidity rules and the ringfencing have created a system that can hold. I think that the Government should be mindful of that as they set out on a path to—in their own words—deregulate again. They should resist the Conservative party’s calls to abolish ringfencing entirely. I think that savers across the country will be shocked to hear that there is a party advocating for that money once again to become available to the investment banking industry. In a wider context, the Government should tread cautiously. They should not fall for the same old cycle of deregulation, crisis, and then regulation again. Instead, they should try to plot a more stable path through this moment.

Nevertheless, there of course remains a case for reform. We are decades on from the financial crisis, and there will be plenty to do to modernise, to move with the times, to learn lessons, to tidy, to simplify, to clarify and to adjust, to make our financial services system work for the 21st-century economy. There is much to be supported in the Bill. I support, for instance, the move to make the Payment Systems Regulator part of the Financial Conduct Authority, and I hope that will mean we can continue some of the good work on open finance. I broadly support what I think is the intention in relation to improvements in access to banking, although we have yet to see some of the detail because we are waiting for the review to be published. I support the move to expand credit unions, and of course I support the intention to table amendments on child trust funds, for which I credit my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey).

More broadly, the Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the Bill, but there are some key areas where we want to work with the Government to get this rare opportunity for reform right. In particular, on consumer protection I fear that the Bill is in danger of overcorrecting. It starts from a false premise, which is that consumer rights and economic growth are somehow in contention. They are not; they are two sides of the same coin. There can be no booming economy without consumer confidence, and poorer protection and more difficult redress are in the interests of neither consumers nor firms.

I am struck by the volume of lobbying material that I receive from industry, and by how little I receive from the voice of the consumer. It is because of that inequality of arms that we in this place should be so mindful of the decisions we make in respect of this legislation. Some of it looks like a shopping list of demands from industry, and that should give the Government pause for thought. We should remember that the same inequality of arms in the lobby industry is repeated when it comes to legal disputes, and indeed at the point of purchase of financial products. Information asymmetry is a known economics concept, and in the development of financial products there is a huge information asymmetry. Experts are developing complex products that are inherently difficult for consumers to understand, and we should legislate accordingly with that in mind.

I therefore ask the Government to listen carefully to the 15 organisations—including Martin Lewis’s MoneySavingExpert, Citizens Advice and Which?—that have got together and warned that the reforms of the Financial Ombudsman Service could lock consumers out of independent redress, removing that vital safety net of free dispute resolution. Indeed, the former Member of Parliament for Makerfield, Yvonne Fovargue, has concerns that these reforms do not meet the Prime Minister’s “Makerfield test”. That should be a strong warning to the Chancellor.

The Financial Ombudsman Service stands accused of being a quasi-regulator, making precedent-setting decisions that firms cannot anticipate. I admit that there has been dysfunction in the service in recent years and that there is a case for better co-ordination and clarity, but the reforms, as they stand, will tip the balance too far in favour of firms, and I think we are in danger of making the FCA a quasi-ombudsman. The rules set by the FCA are necessarily high-level, especially if they are principle-based, and they cannot account for every situation in detail. The ombudsman must retain the power to make a judgment on what is fair and reasonable in the round, or we will descend into a dispute over strict legal compliance that will always favour firms in the way that I have described.

The chief executive of the FCA has repeatedly expressed concerns to the Treasury Committee about the possibility that the referral mechanism may create a back-door appeals mechanism for firms, gum up the system, and lead to the regulator doing the job that the ombudsman should rightly be doing. We will go into all the details in Committee, but I urge the Government to find a way through this that suits consumers too.

There are further issues that we will want to pursue in Committee. The Consumer Credit Act protections that are being rolled into the FCA are important provisions that need to remain in primary legislation. I recognise the need for regulatory power to respond to developments dynamically, but we must also ensure that such important provisions are protected in law, and I do not think that the FCA’s strategies will afford sufficient protection. Other Members have mentioned access to affordable credit, and this is a huge opportunity for us to take meaningful action in that regard, looking at some of the provisions proposed for the fair banking Act, and ensuring that when the washing machine breaks down or the car fails, people can access the credit they need to get through those crisis moments.

I have some simple asks in relation to the Bill, involving transparency and the current status of the access to affordable credit that banks are providing, and their links with credit unions and other community organisations to improve that access. I note that we now have a Co-operative Prime Minister. The Co-operative party backs such amendments, so I look forward to seeing whether they make it into the Bill. We would also like to see tougher action on the big tech companies in relation to fraud and scams. At present, the UK financial industry is on the hook for scams that nearly always originate on big tech platforms. Just last week I heard in the Chamber that Ofcom’s regulations would probably be sufficient, but we now have an opportunity to write into legislation liability for those tech firms, and I do not think we should miss it.

There is more that I could talk about, but in the interests of time I will move on. I support the Conservatives’ point about the digital asset strategy, and I think it would be a missed opportunity not to include something about that in the Bill. I would also like to speak up on the injustice facing mortgage prisoners, and I will say more about that in Committee.

Let me end by saying that we welcome the thrust of the Bill. It reinforces the position of the financial services sector as a great contributor to the UK economy, and its status as a global leader and a beacon of stability. However, there is a real danger of overcorrection and damage to consumer rights, as well as the potential to miss some big opportunities for long-running problems to be solved. I look forward to working with the Government in Committee to further the Bill’s progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my ministerial experience as the Economic Secretary between January 2018 and July 2022. Listening to the opening speeches gave me pause to reflect on some of my decisions. I hope that I am the sort of politician who is ready to concede where I did not go far enough or where mistakes were made, but after I have gone through some of the measures in this Bill, I want to offer some broader observations about the interaction between the Treasury, this place and our regulators, because it goes to the heart of how we move forward effectively as a country.

as the shadow Economic Secretary said, the Bill contains some very welcome measures. Although the detail will be worked through in Committee, I think we can be positive about the reforms to credit unions. I made some changes to expand the common bond, and I wish the Government well with their extension of it. I ask the Economic Secretary to examine the issue of the interaction of credit unions and Help to Save. For many of the people who use credit unions, the opportunity, on an automated basis, to sign up to Help to Save—it gives everyone on universal credit the opportunity to save up to £600 a year, and after two years receive a 50% bonus from the Government—in these times would be very welcome. I am not sure exactly how that would be achieved, and I realise it is complicated, but it just stands to reason that it should be more readily accessible.

I also welcome the reform of consumer credit. These matters were discussed in my office four or five years ago, and I welcome the Government bringing it forward. I certainly did not seek to slow it down, but it is an incredibly complicated piece of work to update our consumer credit framework and how we protect consumers in a world where financial products and the interactions of consumers when taking out products have transformed considerably over the last 52 years. However, as we look at the changes—I note the comments of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), on the Financial Ombudsman Service changes—we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess in this country.

In the Treasury Committee, I found myself talking about motor finance, and reflecting on being told that harms have been done to me when, from my perspective, I had made a decision about the amount of the deposit and the monthly payment in a financial agreement. However, I fully accept that the consumer credit legislation as it is at the moment means there was an obligation of proactive disclosure on behalf of whoever provided me with that product, rather than some reasonable test of what I should reasonably ask of the person providing the product. To me, that goes to the heart of the dilemma we face in financial services: to what extent can we in this place legislate against risk or put some reasonable responsibility on an individual consumer to take ownership of the decisions they make?

[Bobby Dean]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Glen]

I am very happy to give way to hon. Gentleman, as he did to me.

[Bobby Dean]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was anticipating my intervention, as we have had this conversation in the Select Committee. I made a point earlier about information asymmetry. Does he not accept that when financial products can be so complex, if providers are not utterly up front about the conditions, it is quite impossible for the consumer to take the responsibility he implies they should take?

[John Glen]

I absolutely take on the challenge, but I think we need to level with the British public about this and have a better conversation about it, rather than say there is an ultimate backstop provision apparently for absolutely everything. We have to reset that dynamic.

I have mixed feelings about the proposed reforms of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I feel it has become an unreliable pathway to resolution, but I am also concerned that by wrapping it into the FCA, as with the decision to apparently streamline regulations by putting the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA, we will just create a bigger FCA, with different functions under one banner.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

It is worth noting that, in the end, there were two redundancies as a result of the merger, all the backroom costs were the same and the only thing that will change, when the legislation finally goes through, is that the board will go, which is a saving of about £100,000.

[John Glen]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s characteristic grasp of the detail of this subject, and she absolutely makes the point. Just removing a banner from a front office does not streamline, so I urge the Economic Secretary to retain a forensic view, as I know she will, of what processes faced by businesses and consumers are actually streamlined.

I note the streamlining of the senior managers and certification regime by abolishing mandatory annual employee certification below senior manager level. I note the comment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, on that regime, which was, “Abolish everything.” I understand the frustration that leads to many people saying that, but I think we have some new challenges, which have not been properly addressed, when it comes to AI in financial services.

The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned this in passing, but AI, in automating the evaluation of which products would suit individuals, is transforming most consumers’ interactions with financial services. Following the Mills review, there does seem to be a bit of a gap in what will happen with appropriate regulation. It seems that the essence of the position of the FCA is that it does not want to slow down the pace of innovation and growth in financial services, so it will be very reticent to put in any regulation. That is not an unreasonable sentiment, but we must discuss where we as a society feel responsibility should lie. If a financial services firm essentially allows an AI regime to produce offers of products that are sold, somebody has to be responsible for the terms and the basis for such a product going to market.

I welcome the changes to the PRA to streamline the bank rules on ringfencing, but I was the Minister who commissioned the Keith Skeoch review, which essentially came to the conclusion that it was not really necessary, but because of the legacy of the global financial crisis, we had better keep it in place. I urge the Economic Secretary to ask this question: what does that ringfencing actually give us? Many senior people at the PRA told me that we do not really need it, and we have a resolution regime that would actually satisfy all our requirements. However, it has a totemic significance, because it is associated with that season of under-regulation that led to the global financial crisis. We must have an honest conversation, not one based on received wisdom about what happened 18 years ago. We should not be reckless, but we do not need to carry unnecessary burdens when they do not really add anything.

Time goes quickly in this place, and I respect the need for everyone to speak, but I would like to make two or three broader points. One is about the imbalance of power and expertise. When I became the Economic Secretary, I hardly slept for the first few weeks because it was just so complicated, after I had been the arts, heritage and tourism Minister. From museums to MiFID in one step was a big move, but I did my best to master it. Every six weeks or so, I met the head of the FCA and the head of the PRA. These are some of the most brilliant people in public service, who have at their disposal some of the most intelligent, numerate individuals who are aware of all the nuances of different conditions, the capital requirements of banks of different sizes and the different mitigations for them. I was trying to mediate all the representations I had had from TheCityUK, UK Finance, the Association of British Insurers, the London Market Group and all the consumer organisations, essentially to try to challenge them on the right way of liberalising the regime or having a strong and simple regime to, for example, make it easier for smaller banks.

I probably got that right sometimes and on other occasions did not press hard enough, while at times there was a reasonable expectation that I would be moved on. Indeed, since July 2022 there have been eight Economic Secretaries—I am glad the sixth one is now back again as the eighth one. I just do not feel that that is a grown-up way to deal with our financial services Minister—the person responsible for this industry that we have all said is so important in terms of the jobs it creates and the GDP it accounts for. There is well-meaning intent, when we come to this place, to mediate consumer groups’ concerns and the concerns of our constituents, but we need to think about how we can do this better. Perhaps there should be a joint committee of the Commons and the Lords, properly staffed with the sort of expertise and advice that would really allow us to take on our friends at the PRA and the FCA, but it is something that does need scrutiny.

The legacy of the global financial crisis is important. It obviously had an enormous impact on our country and our public finances. “Too big to fail” must never happen again, but we must recognise that financial services in this country compete on an international basis. Too often, when legislation is passed in this place, there is another “have regard to”. I have been in Select Committees where colleagues have asked about some piece of legislation—some provision or “have regard to” that I probably allowed to pass through the House of Lords because I wanted to be collegiate—that led the regulator to make assessments that were not going to go anywhere, but added significant compliance costs to our financial services industry with no material outcome. I urge the Minister to really think about what is a necessary legacy of the global financial crisis and what is a sort of received wisdom of defensiveness that does not serve us well any more.

My final point, which I alluded to earlier, is about the consumer reset. The Chair of the Select Committee rightly pointed to Nikhil Rathi’s challenge to us at the Select Committee that we, as politicians, need to be clear about what level of risk we are prepared to tolerate. That is a difficult question for us as Members of Parliament. We are never going to want to say to our constituents, “We are happy to allow lots of risk,” but we have to put it in context. The measures we put in place on risk mitigation, the mandate and responsibilities we give the FCA and the PRA, make quite a big difference to the way the industry functions and how competitive it is.

I welcome what the Government have done on financial education. The Economic Secretary and I were at the launch of a report by UK Finance this morning. I welcome the progress that has been made and needs to be made in that area, but we must get to a better place in terms of enabling people, when so much more information is available, to own the choices that they make. Of course the responsibility to look after consumer interest exists, but let us calibrate that appropriately for the age we live in.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an eight-minute time limit, I call Lauren Edwards.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)]

I am glad that our business rates changes will benefit businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as part of our measures to take 70,000 small retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England out of paying business rates altogether, as well as a 20% cut for pubs and the real-terms freeze for all RHL businesses across the country.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

This morning at the Treasury Committee, I was taken aback by how ferocious Helen Miller from the Institute for Fiscal Studies was in decrying the Government’s founders’ relief. She suggested that it could lead to cliff-edges and contrived business redefinitions. Could one of the Ministers explain how founders’ relief will encourage investment and innovation, because there is enormous scepticism out there among the community of entrepreneurs that it will have a positive effect?

[James Murray]

I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman because entrepreneurs who I have spoken to welcome the founders’ relief that we introduced at the Budget last year to back some of the founders—some of those behind our fastest-growing businesses, creating wealth, jobs and opportunity in our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his area. As he said, the Prime Minister has been engaging with Cornwall—including, importantly, with its six MPs, including my hon. Friend—on a devolution agreement. This will support the Cornish economy through stronger statutory powers on transport and housing, and the ability to introduce an overnight visitor levy, which can be invested in projects that drive growth in the region. As he will know, the Government are already investing in Cornwall’s high potential sectors with the £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Chief Secretary to her new position, but what words of comfort could she give the residents of Salisbury in Wiltshire, a unitary authority? We are not part of a combined authority and we do not have a metro mayor. Since this Government came in, we have seen the lowest settlement or one of the lowest three settlements on police funding and local government funding, and we have seen the withdrawal of funding for our road network in the south of Wiltshire. There is a concern that, with the focus elsewhere in big urban metropolitan areas, rural England will be forgotten. Is that not likely to be the case?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, in whose footsteps I am again following by taking on another job that he did in government. As a former Environment Secretary, living in a rural area of Buckinghamshire myself and representing a semi-rural seat, I reassure him that this Government of course care about driving growth in rural areas. There is great potential there, which is why we are supporting our farmers through a £2.7 billion a year sustainable farming budget, and we are also improving connectivity in rural areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work on the Treasury Committee. On pensions reform, through the Mansion House accord and Sterling 20, we have got pension funds to commit to investing more in British businesses, both through British venture schemes and in British infrastructure. Those changes were secured by the Pension Schemes Act 2026 taken through Parliament by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell). That, for the first time ever, requires investment in UK businesses and in infrastructure. We are also making reforms to how our ISA system works so that for people under the age of 65, after investing £12,000 in cash, any additional money has to be invested in stocks and shares, helping start-up and scale-up businesses grow and stay in Britain.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The Chancellor has obviously had to make some tough decisions since 2024, but the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants her to go further by aligning the capital gains tax rate to the higher rates of income tax. Did she examine the behavioural effects of such a policy before she made a much more modest increase in her first Budget?

[Rachel Reeves]

In my two Budgets, I have raised an additional £30 billion through taxes for more wealthy people, whether that is through the changes to the non-dom rules, VAT and business rates on private schools, taxes on private jets, the high-value council tax surcharge or, indeed, the increases in capital gains tax. Combined, that is an extra £30 billion secured for our public services, to stabilise our public finances and get debt down as a share of our economy by asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more.

Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to contribute to this debate under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse? I am reminded of my youth in Bath, where I first attended pubs such as the Assembly Inn—but, since the subject of today’s debate is rural pubs, I shall move quickly to discussing my constituency. I want to refer in my contribution to Chickpea Group, which was founded just seven years ago by a brother and sister team, local people, with one of their school friends. They have gone from selling a few pizzas in the back of a pub in Wilton in my constituency to having now more than a dozen establishments across Hampshire, Dorset and south Wiltshire. I spoke to Jordan Davids this morning to get to the heart of what she feels about the challenges that exist in that thriving business, and she said to me that essentially it has grown and prospered because of the support of locals and despite some of the changes made in recent times.

As a former Treasury Minister, I empathise with the significant challenges involved in balancing the books. I sat in that position in years past, when lots of easy solutions were offered, with sincerity, but I recognise that sometimes there is a gap relating to the complexity in delivering and the reality on the ground. Chickpea Group has grown two to three new venues every year, and it has told me that the issue is the combination of a number of factors.

In my experience, it is very difficult for Treasury officials to evaluate the combined impact of increases in the national living wage made in one domain and one set of decision making, the threshold changes and rate increases for national insurance, then the behavioural effects of employment rights and then the ongoing challenges of energy costs, before we get into the incredibly complicated issue of business rates. However, that is the reality for the person on the ground, running one of the establishments in my constituency—the Grosvenor Arms, the Pembroke Arms, the Queen’s Head, the Silver Plough and the establishments in the market square in Salisbury; they have to deal with all those things together.

The Minister will, no doubt very professionally and skilfully, explain the end of the reliefs and what the Government have put in, with a new lower multiplier, but he must also come to terms with the fact that it is in the fusion of all those factors that the individual business owner is finding great difficulty at the moment. I stand here to applaud the success of Ethan and Jordan Davids and their original business partner Tommy Tullis in moving forward through difficult times. I acknowledge that it was not all great under the previous Government, either; but we have got to the point at which we need a rational analysis of all the factors that are making life difficult for rural businesses. Colleagues have mentioned all the other factors particular to a rural location. It needs a thoughtful intervention from the Government to look at the behavioural effects and honestly deal with a problem that is not going away and is, my constituents tell me, very severe for the future prospects of their business and others like it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I have not managed to have that conversation, but the hon. Member is very welcome to write to me, and I am happy to consider those representations. Of course, I have heard calls from Members to cut VAT for hospitality, and I am aware that there is a campaign on that matter. I just say that cutting VAT for hospitality from 20% to 10% would cost £11 billion. A range of policy ideas have been raised, all of which involve cutting tax. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was right to acknowledge that there are important fiscal considerations for the Government. It is important that we manage the public finances and bring down Government borrowing, and we are forecast to have the fastest reduction in Government borrowing of any G7 economy, with our deficit falling below the G7 average for the first time in a very long time. Of course, I will listen to the representations made and the asks from campaigners, but I caution that we have to ensure that we have sufficient revenue to fund our public services in a sustainable way.

[John Glen]

The Minister will acknowledge the distinct combined effect of a whole range of Government decisions on the rural pubs sector. While I acknowledge the need for fiscal responsibility, what work has he done to look at the net effect of all Government decisions, and at why a distinct solution is needed for this particular sector?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We consider our policies in the round, on a sector-by-sector basis, as well as looking at measures tax by tax. The right hon. Gentleman is right that, as politicians in the Treasury, it is important for us to push the civil servants to make sure that we look not just at individual measures in silos, but at them in the round.

There are some cross-cutting measures that particularly help hospitality. For example, if a hospitality business wishes to employ a young person, aged 21 or younger, as long as their wage is less than around £50,000, the business is relieved from NI. That is up to 25 years if it hires a young apprentice. Of course, the Government are always considering the impacts of their policies on sectors as a whole.

Middle East: Economic Update

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

For my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dartford and for people around the country, there have been six interest rate cuts since the general election. The more than doubling of the headroom means that we have a bit more room for manoeuvre in the face of shocks. However, gas has set the price for energy at a third less than it was just four years ago, because of this Government’s investment in renewables.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the targeted nature of these measures, but three weeks ago it looked like inflation was going to return to the level that the right hon. Lady inherited when she took office in July 2024. That is no longer going to happen, but we are now seeing it the cost of borrowing. Given that we are spending well over £100 billion a year on debt interest, what assessment has the Chancellor made of the implications for the public finances of higher inflation and higher borrowing costs?

[Rachel Reeves]

It is because of those concerns and not wanting to put any upward pressure on borrowing costs or inflation that we are looking at what targeted support can be offered, rather than the blanket support we saw the previous time energy bills went up. The Bank of England offered its assessment on the potential impacts on inflation, but as the Governor of the Bank of England has also said, the upward pressure on inflation because of the conflict in the middle east is tempered somewhat by the action that I took in my Budget last year, which reduces inflation by between 0.4 and 0.5 percentage points, taking off some of that upward pressure on inflation.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

5. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of the Office for Budget Responsibility's growth projections for 2026 on future departmental spending levels.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

At the spring forecast last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor showed that we have the right economic plan. Our plan has lowered inflation, borrowing, debt and debt interest payments. Our approach means that investment is up, helping to create the conditions for growth across the UK. Our firm approach to public spending is helping to keep public finances on a sustainable path.

[John Glen]

Given that the Chancellor has pencilled in 0.3% real-terms growth in public spending in 2029-30, and assuming that health spending is at its historical average, the special educational needs and disabilities spend is as per the proposals, and defence is at 3%, that will leave a 2.5% real-terms cut in unprotected Departments. What plans do the Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury have to fill that £13 billion gap in the 2029-30 envelope?

[James Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the plans that we set out through our spending review, he will be clear that we are increasing spending by £50 billion a year by 2028-29 compared with the previous Government’s plans. At the same time, we are ensuring that taxpayers get value for money. We are making £3.9 billion of efficiency savings by 2029-30, rising to £5 billion by 2030-31.

Middle East: Economic Update

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. Five-hundred businesses will benefit from an increased discount through the supercharger, taking it from 60% to 90%, from April. Next April, the British industry competitiveness scheme comes in, and it will benefit around 7,000 businesses. Of course, we will continue to consider how we can support our energy-intensive industries if the situation in the middle east continues.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Given that it was promised at the start of June last year, when will the Chancellor sign off on the defence investment plan?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman and the time he spent at the Treasury. As he knows, the previous Government committed to reaching 2.5% by the end of this Parliament. We are committing to bringing that forward, and by April next year we will be spending 2.6% of GDP. We will set out the defence investment plan based on our strategic defence review. Of course, the previous Government did not even bother to do a strategic defence review.

Spring Forecast

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We are backing the innovators through the reforms that we made in the Budget last year to make it easier to list in London, and easier to raise finance in the UK. We have permanently changed business rates, so that we have a lower multiplier for high-street businesses and smaller businesses, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We did that by putting £4.3 billion into the system. All of that money would have been withdrawn by the Conservatives.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Undoubtedly, every Government deals with different challenges, and I note that the Chancellor did not mention the challenge of covid in the last period of government. When I was in the Treasury, I did everything I could to support businesses with bounce back loans, and to support our public services, but clearly, covid significantly scarred the economy. When the Chancellor last stood at the Dispatch Box, the “Economic and fiscal outlook” said that growth this year would be 1.4%. It is now 1.1% and flat over the period. The big strategic choice that this Chancellor faces, as the world is different in her tenure in office, is whether she will grip welfare spending at a time of grave insecurity in the world, because an open promise to raise defence spending some time over a five-year period will not cut it for this country’s best interests.

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the work that the previous Government did on covid, and of course it was right to support people with furlough and bounce back loans, but it was not right to hand money to friends and donors to the Conservatives through covid contracts. We are getting the money back that they wasted. I say again that it is a bit rich of the Conservatives—especially as the shadow Chancellor was previously the Work and Pensions Secretary—to talk about welfare spending when they presided over a 113,000 increase in young people not in education, employment or training. We have already made reforms to universal credit to narrow the gap between the health element and the standard element. That will ensure that more people are out looking for work, and employment has increased since the start of last year.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

East West Rail is a transformational project that will unlock economic growth and housing. Just yesterday, I was glad to host a representative from East West Rail at an infrastructure roundtable at the Treasury with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. My hon. Friend is another powerful advocate for her local area, and I will happily discuss this matter with the Rail Minister and get back to her.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Last week I met Lawrence Bowman, the chief executive of South Western Railway. I am keen to make sure that all the Government’s changes take positive effect in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, so that tracks, signal and stock can be improved. Will the Minister make sure that there is a suitable reference board along the commuting line into Waterloo, so that when Lawrence Bowman’s business plan is delivered, there will not be any delays when he has to interact with local authorities—a concern that he raised with me last week?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the services used by his constituents. I can assure him that I will look into those and get back to him.