SS Richard Montgomery: Masts

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He has illustrated the issue and the concerns over the explosives, although the second and up-to-date assessment seemed to indicate that maybe the threat is not the same. I want to ask him about marine and maritime history and the three masts. Does he agree that the ultimate goal is to protect local maritime history by creating a lasting public display for locals and tourists alike? Does he not further agree that our maritime history—my constituency of Strangford has incredible maritime history—should be promoted in schools across the United Kingdom and that schools should be encouraged to visit these masts, as we do in Northern Ireland with the Titanic museum in Belfast, to gain a better understanding of our strong history? He should be congratulated on bringing this issue forward. None of us—not me—would have known about it but for his knowledge.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for creating a link back to the topic.

[Kevin McKenna]

Yes, for any community that has strong links to the sea, the stories of the sea run deep in everyone’s veins. As I was about to come on to, there is an amazing mural in the middle of Sheerness of a fairly mean-looking mermaid who has her hands gripped around the plungers of a TNT detonator, threatening Sheerness. People have a sense of pride about that mural and the stories, and it matters to all the communities that surround the area where the Montgomery is laid to rest.

It is important that we ensure that the masts are preserved for the future and, building on what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, people locally are keen that if these masts are removed, they come to land. The Government, as I say, are removing the masts. We do not know what condition the masts will be in when they come off the ship, but certainly people in Sheppey would love to have one of the masts, at least, returned to the mainland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin McKenna]

Absolutely. As I have talked to people on Sheppey, some people have gone, “The masts are all ours! We have to have them all.” There are three masts—we can share. I know that it matters to people in Southend; I have had communications from some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and also from people more generally.

There is one extra snag in this project. Currently, the masts are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. There was an Act of Parliament in 1973, largely pulled together for the Richard Montgomery so that we could take on what has been described as the most dangerous wreck in Britain. Although for decades the United Kingdom Government have been responsible for ensuring that the masts are safe and that shipping transits around them safely, as soon as anything comes off the wreck, it reverts to its original owners, which are the United States Government. Although I know that people locally would like the masts, and I am sure that the United Kingdom Government would be happy for them to come to Sheppey and to Southend, we will have to ask the United States Government for one of the masts. There are three masts; Southend could have one, Sheppey could have one, and maybe one could go into the ballroom that Donald Trump is building at the moment—they would look great covered in gold leaf. Beyond that, this means that we must engage in a bit of diplomatic discussion with our American allies. It would be a massive testament to our partnership with our American friends during the second world war, and since then through NATO. It is a way of bringing that story to life for people. We could use this to bring us together, as it would bring people in Southend and Sheppey together. It could reignite—not literally; that would be terrible—the bonds with our American allies.

I have a few questions for the Minister, some of which have been raised by my constituents. A no-fly zone has recently been extended around the wreck of the Montgomery, including bans on drones. Several constituents would like to know why and what has changed. Are the changes reflective of any additional concern about the explosive nature of the Montgomery’s cargo? People would also like to know what this would involve, and what we need to do to ask the Americans if we can have the masts. Do the Government still believe that the masts should be kept in the United Kingdom? I would also like some general evaluation of the Government’s ideas about a timeline for the removal of the masts and what it would involve.

This is quite a romantic story in its way. Shipwrecks always have a degree of romance to them, and the Montgomery has the added frisson of an incredible amount of explosives, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) said, adds a little bit of fear. The wreck speaks to me about how such stories get embedded in communities, even over a few decades. The people of Sheppey really care. I have a petition running at the moment, and I hope that there is a petition in Southend, too. I encourage anyone to sign my petition so that we can show the strength of feeling and the real desire to finally bring the masts of the Richard Montgomery home to the United Kingdom, home to Sheppey and home to Southend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The most dangerous wreck in Britain—respond to that, Minister!

Middle East: Economic Update

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that question, and for his important work on this issue. There are two ways to reduce the number of days in which the gas price sets the electricity price. First is to invest more in home-grown renewables and in nuclear, so that more of the mix is made up of electricity. The second way is to delink gas and electricity prices, first by increasing the electricity generators levy to bring in money but also—this is crucial—by incentivising those companies that are currently getting the market price to go instead on to a contract for difference, which gives greater certainty for families, pensioners and businesses with their bills. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.

The Chancellor should have come here today to explain how she was going to use the £20 million extra that the Treasury is pulling in every single day through higher VAT, a higher energy profits levy and other taxes, to tackle the immediate cost of fuel crisis that is facing families and businesses today. The Chancellor is fundamentally wrong when she says that a knee-jerk response would have put household finances at risk through higher inflation and higher interest rates. We need just to look at what other countries are doing. The Government could have used that £20 million to drive down prices—the price of petrol at the pump, the price of train and bus fares, and the price of home-charging electric vehicles. Slashing those prices could have helped the Chancellor to control inflation and higher interest rates. That is what other countries are doing, and what we Liberal Democrats are calling for.

The Liberal Democrats were the only political party to have in our manifesto a commitment to break the link between gas and electricity prices, so we are glad that 18 months on, the Government have finally listened.

In addition to the measures outlined today, may I ask the Chancellor about two specific things? First, has she spoken to any banks about rolling out low-interest loans for householders who want to do the right thing and adopt energy-saving measures, but are struggling with the up-front costs? Secondly, I met the Competition and Markets Authority on Monday. The CMA and Ofgem both agree that there is a case to answer about the broken energy market and why hospitality and small businesses are being blocked. Will the Chancellor join me in writing to Ofgem and asking it finally to investigate, without any further delay, a broken energy market that is blocking hospitality and small businesses from accessing the best deals?

Spring Forecast

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To support me in getting more Members in, can questions please be short?

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that my hon. Friend’s Portsmouth constituency will benefit from Pride in Place funding to invest in those places that were forgotten by the previous Government. It will also benefit directly from the uplift in defence spending, which will ensure not only our country’s security, but good jobs that pay decent wages in Portsmouth. Our reforms to the Green Book mean that coastal communities will get their fair share, and will get an opportunity to bid for funding to help grow their economy through the £120 billion that we are putting in for capital investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right about the shadow Chancellor’s blood pressure—but, frankly, I am worried about his future employment prospects.

NHS waiting lists are falling because of the money that we have put in, but my hon. Friend makes a point about overall investment in the economy. After lagging behind pretty much every other advanced country in the world, since the general election we have had the fastest investment growth in the G7.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question—the one we have been waiting for—I call Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement about two hours ago. Fortunately, my Shakespeare quote for the day is “brevity is the soul of wit”, so I will be very quick. We know that the national debt soared under the last Government, and that £1 in every £10 is spent on servicing that debt. What difference can we make to public services in Harlow if we can spend less on debt repayment and more on those services?

School Minibus Safety

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to her campaigning. I know that she has shown real determination in working with her constituents, education unions and others on this issue throughout her time in the House.

The minibus collision on the M40 in 1993 was a truly dreadful incident, and my heart goes out to all the parents and families, including Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, who suffered such an awful loss. We all want to do everything we can to ensure that such an incident never happens again.

Since the tragic crash, many improvements have been made to enhance the safe operation of minibuses, including mandatory seatbelts in minibuses and coaches; a ban on the crew bus where minibuses had two benches facing each other; and improvements to the driver licensing regime. Road safety statistics show an overall decrease in the number of incidents and serious collisions involving minibuses in the last 10 years, but I recognise that there is always more to do. I strongly believe that road safety, and the safety of students, school staff and teachers travelling in minibuses, are extremely important.

I will start by setting out what the Government currently do to support the safe use of permits. The permit system that is set out in the Transport Act 1985 recognises the value of not-for-profit organisations that provide services for community, social and charitable benefit. There are section 22 permits used for community bus services, and the more common section 19 permits. Those permits allow the holder to operate transport services that would otherwise require a full public service vehicle operator licence.

Users of section 19 permits will include schools, but also a wide range of charities and community transport operators that support trips every day across the country, such as dial-a-ride, social club trips or camping trips by youth groups. The permit system was designed because we recognise the value of those activities, and that small, non-profit-making organisations do not always have the capacity of larger, commercial ones.

Driving a minibus usually requires D1 entitlement on a licence, as my hon. Friend said, but a vehicle with a section 19 permit can also be driven by someone with two different types of entitlement. First, prior to 1997, car driving licences came with an automatic form of D1 entitlement. Secondly, there are more limited circumstances in which a minibus can be driven on a car—category B —driving licence. Those circumstances include being 21 or older, having held the licence for at least two years, driving on a voluntary basis where a minibus is being used for social purposes by a non-commercial body, and meeting vehicle weight restrictions.

Even though permits are not a full operator licence, holding them comes with important responsibilities and obligations. Operating and driving minibuses is never to be taken lightly. To support permit holders with their responsibilities, we publish guidance to promote and support the correct and safe use of vehicles operating under permits. That guidance sets out the permit rules and the responsibilities of permit holders, including schools, for ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. Those responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, for which the guidance sets out recommended arrangements.

The guidance also covers the need to ensure that drivers are correctly trained, have the correct driving licence and take adequate breaks. It notes, for example, that drivers should plan more rest breaks than are set out in the regulations if they do not drive for a living, and that drivers should be given clear, written instructions about their responsibilities covering all aspects of vehicle operation. The guidance further sets out that all drivers should be aware of the risk to passenger safety from driving when tired, and that it is not sensible to start a long trip after a full day’s work, whether that work involves driving or not. I might add that no driver—teacher or otherwise—should ever be put under pressure to drive a minibus.

In addition to the overarching sections 19 and 22 permit guidance, we have specific guidance for schools and local authorities on driving school minibuses. That was published jointly with the Department for Education, and it outlines driving licence entitlements, training, insurance and other legal requirements. It is of course important that all our guidance is as clear, direct and helpful as it can be to end users, and I am always open to hearing about ways in which anyone thinks it could be improved. I also acknowledge the work of the minibus driver awareness scheme—MiDAS—administered by the Community Transport Association and, I understand, used by many schools, in contributing to the improved safety of minibus drivers.

Notwithstanding everything that is currently done to support permit users, my hon. Friend raised important and well-expressed challenges, and they warrant further thought. I acknowledge, for example, her argument about different rules applying to different sorts of schools, and the importance of children being safe regardless of such distinctions. The section 19 permit framework has wide-ranging benefits, but it is right for us to keep challenging ourselves to ensure that the system is striking the correct balance between flexibility and safety. I know that my hon. Friend recently met the Minister for School Standards, and I can commit that Ministers in both Departments will meet to discuss the subject further. I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and I am sure that they will form the basis of part of that meeting.

The Government take road safety very seriously, as shown by the publication of our road safety strategy last month, which my hon. Friend recognised. The strategy sets out a clear and ambitious path to improve road safety in Great Britain, and its targets include a 70% reduction in the number of children under 16 killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 2035. As she will know, the strategy also includes measures around safe road users and safe vehicles, and proposes further action in relation to those who drive for work. We plan to develop and launch the national work-related road safety charter later this year, and I will raise with my officials the point that she raised in relation to schools.

I thank my hon. Friend again for her continued interest in, and advocacy on, this very important subject.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I wish all colleagues a peaceful and productive recess in their constituencies and, I hope, some time with their families as well. I look forward to spending time with my nephews, Ali and Aadam, who are superfans of Bad Bunny—they make me listen to his music non-stop, and they are looking forward to teaching me the dance moves next. I am not sure whether that is good or bad.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Safety

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

First and foremost, I thank Members from across the House for taking part in this debate, and I particularly pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives or faced life changing injuries in road accidents. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future.

The ability to travel in our cars and on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people’s everyday lives. Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people, so all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others, deserve safe journeys.

In considering the Government’s road safety announcements, the Opposition support and welcome some elements of the strategy, while the effectiveness of other measures remains in question. We strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and action to combat ghost number plates. However, the overwhelming sentiment, which I hope the Minister adopts when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy, is about enforcement. One of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, putting themselves and others in danger.

Unfortunately, since the Government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with a decrease of more than 1,300 officers between September 2024 and September 2025 and further decreases occurring before that date. How can we expect the Government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers? It would be useful to know what discussions the Department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police our existing road laws and any additional ones the Government might bring forward. Also, I understand that the Government’s police performance framework says that there is a target to “decrease” the number of

“People killed or seriously injured in road traffic collision”,

but does not actually say what that target will be.

To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers, who put everyone on the road at risk. One issue that demands an even greater focus is drug driving. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Although that represents some progress, I would call on the Government to go further. Data shows that, in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014. Among the youngest cohort of drivers—those most likely to get into terrible accidents—the vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact.

In addition, I hope the Government strongly consider any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which, in particular cases, have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law.

To conclude, for road safety measures, I believe that the Government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take. Where drivers do not feel that those road safety measures actually help them—such as with 20 mph limits—they will not take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, and delivered well, but with drivers, not just against them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister, who I am told is aware of how much pressure there is on timing.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 8—Review of impact of section 86 on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the impact of the measures contained in section 86 on the hospitality sector.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of section 86 on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade, and

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established.

(3) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review and report on the impact of the alcohol duty measures in Clause 86 on the hospitality sector, including effects on employment and business viability.

New clause 9—Review of cumulative impact on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of—

(a) the measures contained in section 86 of this Act, and

(b) changes to taxation and business costs affecting that sector introduced outside this Act since 2020.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), changes to taxation and business costs include, but are not limited to—

(a) changes to employer National Insurance contribution rates or thresholds,

(b) changes to business rates, including reliefs and revaluations, and

(c) any other fiscal measures which materially affect operating costs for hospitality businesses.

(3) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the matters listed in that subsection on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade,

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established, and

(d) the financial sustainability of hospitality businesses.

(4) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures in the Act alongside wider fiscal changes, including employer National Insurance contributions and business rates.

New clause 26—Statements on increasing alcohol duty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase to alcohol duty made under section 86 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) the hospitality sector,

(b) pubs,

(c) UK wine, spirit and beer producers,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in alcohol duty.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am pleased to open this session—the sixth and final session in Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill—on clause 86, which concerns alcohol duty. This Government’s approach to alcohol duty is one of proportionality. Indeed, we are taking a fair and coherent approach to alcohol taxation as a whole. The measures in the 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.

Clause 86 makes changes to alcohol duty rates from 1 February 2026. Specifically, the clause changes the rates of alcohol duty for all alcoholic products in schedule 7 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 to reflect the retail prices index.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild]

It feels like we are getting warmed up for scrutinising the 536 pages of the Bill upstairs in the Public Bill Committee shortly. It is good to see that the popularity of the topics we are debating has increased as we move on to alcohol duty, which clause 86 increases in line with the retail prices index from 1 February.

I am proud to confirm that His Majesty’s Opposition are big supporters of beer, wine, spirits and hospitality businesses. As such, we oppose these tax rises. This £26 billion tax-raising Budget piles pressure on households and businesses that are already struggling because of the decisions of the Chancellor. Prices are high, growth is sluggish and now the Chancellor has chosen to impose another duty hike.

Our new clause 26 would therefore require the Chancellor to publish a statement on the impact of increasing alcohol duty on the hospitality sector, on pubs, on UK wine, spirit and beer producers, on jobs and on the public finances. These sectors are already being hammered by this Government’s economic choices. A Government who say that the cost of living is their priority are raising alcohol duty, putting more cost on to people and businesses that keep our rural communities and high streets alive.

Clause 1

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

This is the normal way that inheritance tax assets are taxed. There is not just APR and BPR, and the changes coming in in April; other assets are passed on through inheritance. We are applying the same treatment here; this is the standard way that inheritance tax is set for various assets.

As I was saying, these reforms get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses, fixing the public finances and funding public services. They reduce the inheritance tax advantages available to some owners of agricultural and business assets, but those assets will still be taxed at a much lower effective rate than most other assets—a £6 million estate owned by a couple, for example, could have an effective tax rate of just 1.2%, which can be paid, interest-free, over 10 years.

Those opposing these reforms in full will be voting for a status quo in which the very largest estates pay a lower average effective inheritance tax rate than the smallest estates—a status quo where the Exchequer sees £219 million in tax relieved from just 117 estates claiming APR, and £558 million in tax relieved from just 158 estates claiming BPR. That is not sustainable, and it is certainly not fair. I therefore commend clause 62, schedule 12 and Government amendments 24 to 29 to the Committee.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies]

I wish to speak to amendments 3 to 23 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). By now we all know what clause 62 and schedule 12 do: they would restrict agricultural property relief and business property relief to 100% of the first £1 million of qualifying assets and 50% thereafter—though I note that this legislation was written before the recent announcement, which I will obviously come on to. Members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party will fiercely oppose Labour’s family farm tax and family business tax in the Lobby today, just as we have since these policies were announced. We must first face the reality of the sheer number of Labour MPs intent on punishing those who dare to feed us, or who take a risk to build their own business.

Our amendments seek to mitigate at least some of the damage by removing the anti-forestalling measures that have purposely tied the hands of so many farmers and business owners across our country. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and many others have pointed out that these measures particularly trap more elderly farmers, who have been robbed of their ability to plan. The Government have said all along that they expect farmers and business owners to alter the ownership structure of their assets. I would be really interested to hear just how the Minister believes that elderly farmers, in particular those in the final few years of their life, should do that.

Before I turn to the other issues, I note that the amendment paper tells its own story: Government amendment after Government amendment, each one a U-turn and a rushed attempt to bury the incompetence, indifference and hostility that this Labour Government have shown to family farms, tenant farmers, rural communities and family businesses. I ask respectfully of the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked earlier, why it has taken the Treasury more than a year to admit that it got this wrong. Why have farmers been forced to leave their fields and bring their tractors to Whitehall, just to be heard?

I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who gave this House five chances before today to vote against these changes. The Government had ample opportunity, but here we are. We know that their partial U-turn will not be enough. The Country Land and Business Association has been very clear that it will only limit the damage.

Many serious questions and concerns remain on the impact of clause 62, but I will highlight just three. First, from the very start the Government’s numbers have been, at best, questionable. The Treasury has disagreed with the CLA and others on how many farmers and businesses will actually be affected. Even after the partial U-turn, HMRC expects 1,100 estates to face larger inheritance tax bills in 2026-27, 185 of which will be claiming APR. Yet the experience of many Members, from speaking to farmers and businesses in our constituencies, and that of several industry bodies is that that figure is massively wide of the mark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Absolutely; the hon. Member makes a point that I am going to come on to later.

Welsh farms are typically smaller than those in England, with 55% being less than 20 hectares, and 66% of Welsh farms are cattle and sheep farms situated on hilly or mountainous terrain, compared with just 12% in England, which also has a much higher concentration of arable farming. This leaves Welsh farms with the lowest average income of the four nations—£18,000 lower than in England. Welsh family farms are also a cultural bastion of the Welsh language, with almost half the people working on Welsh farms speaking Welsh as their first language—more than double the Welsh average.

While the Government’s changes to APR and BPR are likely to disproportionately benefit Welsh farmers, the diverse nature of farming across the four UK nations needs to be considered when making such significant changes. That is why the Welsh Affairs Committee continues to call for the Wales-specific impact assessment of the Government’s changes to inheritance tax that the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) just referenced. It is critical that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share of tax. That is why it is important that we close the inheritance tax loophole that allowed wealthy investors to purchase agricultural land as a way of avoiding tax.

Ensuring that the tax burden falls fairly relies on effective data, however. The Welsh Affairs Committee and I remain concerned about the availability and accuracy of the data used to justify the thresholds set for APR and BPR, particularly in regard to Wales. The Government have thus far been unable to provide any estimate of the number of Welsh farms that will be affected by these reforms to inheritance tax. Such data is critical when considering any potential impacts on the Welsh farming sector, given its greater financial precarity and reliance on low-income, family-run livestock farms. We cannot afford to be complacent. I hope that the Government will ensure that they take specific account of the unique cultural, environmental and economic circumstances of farming in Wales when making such significant policy decisions. I wholeheartedly support the changes to the APR and BPR as laid out in the Government’s amendment to schedule 12.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Would you like to intervene?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I have no desire to intervene on the hon. Member—“Would the hon. Member like to intervene?”

[Charlie Maynard]

My apologies, Ms Ghani.

Road Safety Strategy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our new national road safety strategy.

It is a sad truth that, by the time I finish speaking and we hear the Opposition’s response, it is likely someone will have died or been seriously injured on our roads. It is an even sadder truth that that would likely have been entirely preventable. Even though we have some of the safest roads in the world, more than 1,600 people died on our roads last year, and nearly 28,000 were seriously injured.

Over the course of my lifetime, road safety has improved immeasurably—in no small part thanks to a titan of my party, Barbara Castle—but it is safe to say the last 10 years represent a lost decade. Death and serious injury numbers have plateaued despite improvements in vehicle safety. The UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings, and the human cost of too little action and too much complacency is clear: lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition, and lives grieved by the families left behind.

If that was not enough, a decade without a comprehensive road safety strategy has meant that the country lost out on nearly £7 billion in economic output last year. That should not just give us pause; it should spur us to action. We would not tolerate that on our railways or in our airspace, and I am determined to ensure that we no longer tolerate it on our roads. That is why I am standing here today: to say quite simply that enough is enough.

The targets that we are setting match the full measure of our ambition. We want to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, and by 70% for children under 16. Our vision is clear: any road user—however they choose to travel—should be able to move safely on our roads. There are four main ways in which we will deliver that vision through the strategy.

First, we will put all road users at the heart of the strategy. When it comes to protecting vulnerable road users, we will be guided by the evidence. We know, for example, that young drivers between 17 and 24 are at a higher risk of death or serious injury on our roads. They account for 6% of driving licences yet are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. That is why we will consult not just on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, but on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers. I would also recognise the important debate on young driver safety that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) secured last January.

Another key area is the safety of older drivers. In 2024, about 24% of all car drivers killed were aged 70 or older. While driving is rightly seen as a vital form of independence in older age, it cannot come at the expense of safety, so we will consult on mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70 and explore options for cognitive testing, recognising the risks of driving with conditions such as dementia.

We also will not ignore the fact that motorcyclists are 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads compared with car drivers, so we will reform the motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime. That starts today with a consultation, including on removing the ability to ride on L-plates indefinitely.

Let me move to advances in technology and data. We will consult on mandating 18 new vehicle safety technologies under the GB type approval scheme—a change that could prevent more than 14,000 deaths and serious injuries over 15 years. That includes autonomous emergency braking, a proven safety technology that Meera Naran has tirelessly campaigned for as Dev’s law, after the tragic loss of her son. I am delighted to see her in the Public Gallery; she has been an incredible campaigner on this issue.

To learn from collisions and prevent future harm, we will establish a data-led road safety investigation branch covering the whole of Great Britain. It will draw on data to carry out thematic investigations and make recommendations. To give those involved in collisions the best chance of survival, we will ensure that police-recorded collision data and healthcare data are shared more effectively.

The third theme is about infrastructure. Safer roads and effective speed management are essential pillars of the “safe system” approach that guides the strategy. That starts with investment. The Government are providing £24 billion between 2026 and 2030 to improve motorways and local roads, building on record funding for pothole repairs. We will also publish updated guidance on setting local speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras, supporting local authorities to make evidence-based decisions.

Because rural roads remain among the most dangerous, with motorcyclists often navigating sharp bends, we will build on the success of Project PRIME—perceptual rider information for maximisation of enjoyment and expertise—in Scotland, which saw real safety improvements thanks to new road markings.

Finally, let me talk about enforcement. We know that most drivers are safe, and we do not want to get in their way. However, they need to feel confident that the Government have their back, so my message to the minority of drivers who are unsafe and reckless is simple: if you drive dangerously, if you drive illegally or if you make our roads less safe, you will face the consequences.

Take drink and drug-driving. We know that it was a contributory factor in 18% of road fatalities in 2023, so we will consult on lowering the drink-drive limit, which has not been changed in England and Wales since 1967. We will review penalties for drink and drug-driving offences and explore the use of alcohol interlock devices. New powers will be considered to suspend licences for those suspected of the most serious offences.

We also propose tougher penalties for those who drive without insurance—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We will also look at penalty points for failing to wear a seatbelt and failing to ensure that child passengers are wearing theirs, too.

Thanks to the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), we are tackling illegal number plates. We will increase penalties for using illegal plates and ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is empowered to carry out more robust checks on number plate suppliers.

These rightly bold ambitions cannot be met by Government working alone. We call on the support of Members from all parts of the House and extend our hand in partnership to the devolved Governments, mayors, local authorities, the police and other stakeholders. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her support on behalf of the Transport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety for his advocacy on this important issue.

I have sat with families torn apart by deaths and serious injuries on our roads—it is one of the hardest parts of my job. Even through intolerable pain, they campaign, fight and demand change so that others can be spared their sense of loss. This strategy is for those brave families. I truly believe that this is a turning point for road safety in this country, when we finally put victims at the heart of policymaking, see road safety as a shared responsibility and understand that, while driver or rider error is inevitable, fatalities and serious injury are not. A multilayered system, from safer speeds and vehicles to safer roads and robust enforcement, is how we protect every road user. That is how we ensure that people walk away from collisions rather than being carried and how we deliver safer roads for everyone who relies on them. I have laid copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

We are no longer the safest. We have been dropping down the rankings, and progress has stalled compared with other countries across Europe. Sir Peter North’s review in 2010 estimated that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save an estimated 43 to 168 lives each year and avoid a very large number of serious injuries—a conservative estimate put it at 280. We are acting on the evidence.

When it comes to drug-driving, we are looking at how we can make better use of testing. I know that too many people who have suffered as a result of someone drug-driving wait a long time for their case to come to court. It takes too long to process, which is why we are looking at things like roadside testing. Through our award-winning THINK! campaign, we continue to target publicity at those who cause the most danger: young men aged 17 to 24. At the end of last year, we did an anti-drug-driving campaign—the first in 10 years—using the sorts of media channels that get to those we are trying to target, including TikTok and Instagram.

Finally, the shadow Secretary of State is right to speak about enforcement. That is why this Government are investing in additional police officers—an extra 3,000 police officers by March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are responding to the requirements of the police. We are giving them the legislation and the powers they need to crack down on those who cause danger on our roads. I am pleased to see that our strategy has been welcomed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for roads policing, Jo Shiner. I welcome the right hon. Member’s other comments, and we look forward to reading the official Opposition’s comments in response to our consultations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

This strategy and the many elements within it are hugely welcome, and I congratulate the Government on addressing what the previous Government spent 14 years not properly addressing, during which time too many people have been killed or seriously injured on our roads in preventable incidents. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Transport Committee previously, she spoke positively about London’s “Vision Zero” strategy. Now that the road safety strategy has been published, are the Government planning to adopt a “Vision Zero” strategy nationally, and if not, why not?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support, and she is right to commend Transport for London. Indeed, a number of mayors and local authorities have adopted “Vision Zero” strategies. Of course, we want to get to a position where the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads is zero, but in setting out this strategy, we have established national road safety targets that we think are achievable. Of course, in the longer term, we want to work towards a position where no one is injured on our roads.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the strategy. We welcome it, having called for an updated road safety strategy for some time, following years of neglect of our roads by the previous Conservative Government. The strategy shows serious intent, and I commend the thought and research that has gone into it and the breadth of thinking on display. It is welcome that it is largely substance rather than gimmicks, which could have been the case. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Ryan’s law campaign on penalties for hit and run, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), is incorporated into the strategy.

Our concern is that much of the strategy is based on a commitment to undertake consultations. I hope the Minister agrees that we would not want to see a repeat of the time it has taken to undertake a pavement-parking consultation—admittedly one initiated by the previous Government—with a wait of five years until the welcome announcement of something today. Consultations need to be meaningful, but they also need to be time-bound and then translated into action.

A number of areas need focus. We need to consider the significant impact on some groups in society that these measures will have, right though they are for advancing road safety. The first group is older people. The older generation have grown up in an age of decades-worth of Government policy promoting travel by car, so this runs the risk of having a significant impact on them. As I know from constituency casework, they also suffer from DVLA administration failures in processing medical changes and so on. This underlines the importance of improving public transport to reduce car dependency—in particular, the development of demand-responsive transport in rural areas, which the Transport Committee has looked at in detail.

These measures also run the risk of placing further pressure on the rural economy. Our pubs and farming communities are already under real pressure from increased alcohol taxation, business rates and inflation and poor international trade arrangements, which makes it even more important that they are properly supported and that the Government listen, including to Liberal Democrat calls for a 5% cut to VAT for hospitality.

It is welcome that the strategy mentions potholes, which drive all our constituents mad—particularly mine on the A4130 between Didcot and Wallingford and the Milton interchange in Queensway. Most importantly, we need to support young drivers. More is needed, given that the Government have twice moved the deadline for reducing the wait for tests to seven weeks. The six-month wait is understandable, but it is important that we support young people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench know that they have two minutes, not two minutes and 50 seconds or three minutes and 10 seconds.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. Let me be clear that we are consulting on a number of the measures in the road safety strategy so that the public and stakeholders have an opportunity to share their views. The intent is not to delay. The consultations will be open for 12 weeks, and then we intend to take concrete action as a result of the feedback we receive. Some of the measures in this strategy will take very little time and do not require legislation. Others will require secondary or, indeed, primary legislation, but we intend to take action in order to meet the ambitious targets we have set for just nine years’ time.

I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman says about older people. We do not want to restrict older people’s independence, and we know how important driving can be, but the truth is that we need to keep people safe. We do not want anyone on our roads whose medical condition means that they are not safe to drive. Some people may be unaware that their eyesight has deteriorated and poses a danger to others. I know that many families find it difficult to have those conversations with an older relative about when is the right time to stop driving. We hope that the measures we are proposing on eyesight testing will help in those circumstances.

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about rural areas and the need to ensure that these measures are rural-proofed. When it comes to potholes, he is right: they are not only very annoying for all our constituents but a real danger to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. That is why this Government are investing £7.3 billion over the spending review period in local roads maintenance, on top of the additional £500 million this year. We are giving local authorities that long-term funding settlement so that they can improve the shocking quality of the roads we were left with by the previous Conservative Government.

When it comes to young drivers, we have considered carefully the right balance between protecting young people, who we know are at particular risk, and not curtailing their opportunities for work, education and social activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that on rural roads in particular dangers are posed by drivers who hit animals, and right to raise concerns about horse riders. He will know that the highway code was strengthened to ensure that those who are driving are mindful of horse riders and the need to pass them safely, slowly and with sufficient room. We will look at what more we can do to strengthen the advice and guidance, and ensure that people are aware of those issues in the highway code. I have listened carefully to many people who have raised with me their concerns about cats, and work is under way in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at further research on that issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call David Williams, who is permitted to leave early so that he can deal with his cough.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

That is really kind of you, after a full morning in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I warmly welcome the road safety strategy, which will save the lives of thousands of people across the next decade. As the Minister knows, because we have had countless meetings, I have been campaigning alongside Claire, the incredibly brave mother of six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, who was so tragically killed by a motorist in my constituency. Under the current law, police are unable to test the blood of unconscious suspects until they are in a position to give consent, and in their deepest moments of grief, Sharlotte’s family could not get the answers they needed. Does the Minister agree that through consultation we now have an opportunity to change that, and to bring justice and a lasting legacy for Sharlotte and her family, so that no other families have to face such pain and anguish?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. No one should be driving on our roads whose eyesight does not meet the required standard. We have chosen to consult on eye tests for those over 70, but it would be good advice for everyone to have their eyes tested on a regular basis. We have undertaken research on headlamp glare. I know that this is a growing problem, and I certainly recognise it as a driver myself. We are going to consider the outputs of the research that we already have and do further work, in addition to looking internationally at work on vehicle standards, but I absolutely want to take further action on headlamp glare.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We definitely need to speed things up or colleagues will not be able to get in.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her written statement about enforcement on pavement parking, which is a huge issue in Luton South and South Bedfordshire. I welcome the launch of today’s road safety strategy, particularly the emphasis on tackling drug-driving. There was a trebling of fatal collisions between 2014 and 2023 related to drug-driving, so will the Minister elaborate further on how that will be enforced under the new strategy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

Safer roads are an essential pillar of the safe system approach that underpins our road safety strategy. We have had a number of conversations about investments in infrastructure, and road safety remains the top priority for National Highways as it devises its road investment strategy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Can we have super-short questions and super-sharp answers? I call Sarah Edwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) described the Government’s plans to reduce the blood alcohol limit as “absolutely ridiculous” and “wholly unacceptable”, and said that the current system worked “pretty effectively”. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the families of the 260 people who tragically died last year as a result of intoxicated drivers’ behaviour would strongly disagree, and that we should reject those claims?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Let me just give colleagues a bit of guidance: if you are going to mention another Member in the Chamber, the protocol is to let them know in advance.

[John Slinger]

I did, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement on this and a whole range of issues that affect rural communities in Cornwall—he is a strong advocate for his constituents. As he says, we have now come forward with a change in the APR and BPR thresholds to make sure we can protect those smaller family farms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I urge colleagues to keep their questions short, and for the answers to be on point.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

This U-turn comes too late for too many. It is extraordinary to hear Labour MPs saying that their farmers are delighted; mine are sick with relief after 14 months. At the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister accepted that he knew that some farmers had planned to take their lives or had already done so, yet it still took him well over a week to decide that rural lives matter. What was it that suddenly changed after 14 months for him to decide that our farmers should be stood by, and should not be questioning whether or not they were going to be here for next Christmas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s changes in their plans in relation to inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. The current system does not work. We need a tax regime that protects genuine family farms but does not let the super-rich dodge tax by buying up land, and many farmers in my constituency have the same concerns about that, but they have also made it very clear to me that the £1 million threshold was too low and would have a significant and detrimental impact on farming in my constituency. Along with many other Labour Members in rural seats, I have made that case to Ministers directly, and I am very pleased that the Govt are raising the threshold to £2.5 million, because that will make a huge difference for farmers in my constituency. I am very interested to hear, though, what steps the Government will be taking—and what steps the Minister can take, with colleagues—to ensure that profitability is at the forefront of our work with farmers, particularly on things like—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Dave Robertson]

I will leave it there.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Here is a new year tip: look at your question, cross most of it out, and then continue.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

In my constituency, we have not just a lot of farmers but a huge number of other businesses and livelihoods that rely on those farmers, and the whole of that rural economy has been negatively impacted over the last 14 months. Will the Minister undertake not just to apologise to communities like mine, but to ensure that the Government will genuinely start listening to rural communities? At the moment, they do not feel listened to, understood by or even cared for by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier the Minister said that agricultural property relief was not available under Margaret Thatcher. In fact, it was Margaret Thatcher’s Government who brought it in under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, and it was subsequently increased to 100% under John Major. How might I go about getting the Minister to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Lady, due to her experience, will know that the Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ contributions, or those of Ministers—if only we were. She has no doubt got her point on the record, and we do not wish to continue the debate.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is very kind of my hon. Friend. I know that he and others on all sides of the House have made representations over many years on behalf of their constituents affected by the loan charge. I have met some of those affected and members of the all-party parliamentary group. In the months that I have been in this role, having been appointed only on 1 September, I have worked hard to ensure that we come forward with proposals that I hope will help to draw a line under this issue. I hope that those affected can see we have a reasonable and fair set of proposals that will help those who were subject to the loan charge to be able to come forward and to settle; I really encourage those individuals to come forward.

Alongside those changes, we are making steps to continue to close the tax gap by closing loopholes and removing barriers to ensure that people pay the tax that they owe, including raising an additional £2.4 billion in ’29-30 by introducing further reforms to pursue those who bend or break the rules to collect more unpaid taxes. We are also going to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right the first time. With the choices delivered in this Finance Bill, that will bring the total additional revenue raised by closing the tax gap in this Parliament to £10 billion by 2029-30.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken about this Budget being

“a package, not a pick-and-mix”,

and that is so important for our public finances and our public services. Through this Bill, we are choosing to deliver long-overdue reforms to update our tax system so that it can work for a modern, dynamic and thriving economy, and funding vital policies such as the removal of the two-child limit, which will lift half a million children out of poverty.

This Bill is about delivering on choices: choices to protect working people; choices to cut energy bills, and to freeze train fares and prescription charges; choices to boost wages and reduce poverty; and choices to cut inflation to bring down mortgage costs. It delivers the Government’s commitment to this country to build a stronger and fairer economy in which living standards rise, to see child poverty fall, and to ensure that public services are improved up and down the country. With every measure in this Finance Bill being geared towards that goal, I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As it is the Second Reading of a finance Bill, I cannot impose a time limit, but I can suggest that colleagues keep their remarks to around six minutes.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

I am pleased to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary on bringing forward his first finance Bill. I hope it is the first of many.

Given the limited time that I have, I will focus my remarks on the Government’s central mission: economic growth. The Government have rightly placed investment and reform at the heart of their strategy, and they are removing the barriers to economic growth that for too long have held back this country and the towns, villages and city that make up the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency—be it through major planning reforms, cutting regulatory costs, investing in skills and apprenticeships, or undertaking fundamental pensions reform to free up more risk capital. This pro-investment and pro-reform approach lays the foundation not only for our long-term economic growth across the UK, but for our long-term global competitiveness.

This country is a great place to start a business, despite what Opposition Members have said, but scaling a business has been too difficult for too long for too many entrepreneurs, and too many firms are acquired early by private capital—often from abroad—and therefore fail to scale globally. There are a number of fantastic, innovative and high-growth companies in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency—be it Pulsar, Envisics or Carnot Engines—and I want all of them to realise their full potential in my constituency, not overseas. I believe that this Bill goes some way towards enabling that, and it is not just those companies that it will help. I have read many commendations from the Startup Coalition and the ScaleUp Institute, which have backed many of the measures that I will cover in my remarks.

Clauses 13 to 16 and clause 82 back ambition, encourage investment and reward those who want to take risks. Expanding the enterprise management incentives—by raising the employee limit to 500, the gross assets limit to £120 million and the holding period to 15 years—ensures that more high-growth, innovative companies can attract and retain the world-class domestic and global talent that they need. For many, joining a fast-growing company is a leap of faith, and when that risk pays off, the people who create the success should share in the reward.

I also welcome clauses 14 and 15, which follow the logic that I just set out with regard to the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. I particularly welcome the raising of the company investment limits and the lifetime caps, which will ensure that more early-stage companies can scale here in the UK, not overseas. Similarly, raising the respective gross assets limits before and after share deals sensibly reflects modern growth realities. I believe that these reforms will support life sciences, green technology and advanced manufacturing, all of which are sectors identified in the Government’s industrial strategy, which they published earlier this year. The reforms will enable earlier capital raising and faster, more efficient scaling, and make it far more likely that more companies will become national champions and companies of global consequence that are anchored here in the UK.

The final clause that I particularly welcome is clause 82, on the new UK listing relief, which removes the 0.5% stamp duty reserve tax on transfers for newly listed companies. This measure has been called for by UK financial services, and also by a wide range of sectors that are included in the industrial strategy, for a significant period of time. I believe that the clause will boost liquidity, incentivise more investors of all types—be they institutional or retail—to buy British, and entice more domestic companies to follow in the footsteps of Magnum, Shawbrook and the Beauty Tech Group by listing in London. I am pleased that this Bill strengthens the UK’s ability to compete globally, to support its entrepreneurs and to make sure that the UK is the best possible place to scale a company.

I will close my remarks by mentioning what I hope will be given consideration in a finance Bill in future parliamentary Sessions: the Government may wish to dedicate themselves to pro-growth and pro-enterprise tax reform. The previous Government, and indeed many Governments of different political orientations, have increased the length of the tax code, increased the number of cliff edges, complicated the tax base and, frankly, fundamentally failed to close or tackle various loopholes. As we rededicate ourselves to growth in this parliamentary Session and in future parliamentary Sessions, we would do well to ensure that simplification and fairness anchor our growth agenda.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I cannot set a time limit, but I will ask colleagues to monitor their own timekeeping and I suggest that six minutes would be a good time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member respects our desire for Scottish independence. I simply say to him: when will this Government respect the democratic will of the Scottish people?

I could go on to talk about energy and the coastal growth fund—two measures that, again, have particularly hurt my constituents—but I will leave it there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the final Back-Bench contribution. I just note that the Front Benchers wish to be on their feet by around 6.40 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and the promise to reform business rates made by the last Government needs to be delivered upon by this Government.

As I was saying, as a result of quantitative easing funds, the big four banks alone will make £50 billion of profit this year. The boost that people and the high street need is both the cut to electricity bills and the 5% VAT cut that the Lib Dems propose, funded by a windfall tax on those bank profits. It is time the Government backed small businesses like those in Taunton and Wellington—part of the biggest and most important sector of the British economy—after the economic chaos under the Conservatives. It would be a boost to going out in the evening, a boost to our pubs and restaurants, and a positive boost to the economy. That is the kind of Budget we needed, and that is the kind of Budget the Liberal Democrats would have delivered.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether any points of order raised by Members of this House since this parliamentary Session began have actually been deemed to be points of order. If this is not the case, could you provide guidance to hon. and right hon. Members about what does constitute a point of order, so that the time of Members is not wasted in this House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order on points of order. I can say that his point of order was most definitely not a point of order. For clarity, and for the benefit of the hon. Member, a point of order should in principle draw the Chair’s attention to a possible breach of the House’s rules of order, which his point of order failed to do. I would not like to speculate on how many points of order actually have served this purpose—I am sure many now will—but the hon. Member raises an interesting question. Hansard can point out how many points of orders have been raised that, like his, were obviously not points of order.