Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I understand that the VAT rate in Northern Ireland is different from the rate in Ireland—there are different rates of VAT across Europe. It is important to remember that VAT is a national tax in the UK, at 20% across the country. It is important to have consistency for businesses operating across the UK. Significant cuts to VAT come with significant fiscal costs. For example, halving the rate of VAT on hospitality would cost the Exchequer about £11 billion.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to reform business rates.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

I am very busy today, Mr Speaker, as ever. I thank the hon. Member for asking about business rates. She will know that we have already started the work of reforming the business rates system so that we can put in permanently lower multipliers for high street businesses. As part of tax update day, we will be consulting on ways to collect more of the VAT that online sellers dodge by making online marketplaces liable for VAT on both UK and overseas business sales of goods. We will put every penny of the additional revenue raised into improving the business rates system for high street businesses.

[Claire Young]

When I met Chipping Sodbury chamber of commerce recently, business owners told me that the business rates system is broken and unfair, in part because it is based on turnover, not profit. In response to a letter, the Exchequer Secretary promised to bear in mind the points that I had raised ahead of future Budgets. Does he now accept that the business rates system is broken, and that rather than being reformed it should be abolished and replaced with a fairer system?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have a tax on profits in the UK, which is corporation tax. In our corporate tax road map, we have committed to keeping that stable in this Parliament, rather than having it jump around as it did in the last one. It is important to have a broad tax base, so it is reasonable for business rates to continue to be—as they have been since the late 1980s—set in accordance with an estimate of the rents of properties. I do not think it would be right to change that.

Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

Claire Young Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this debate.

The Lamb Inn in Iron Acton was built in 1690. It is believed that Mary and William of Orange stayed there. It is a real community pub that has been run by Tracey and Brendan Byrne for the last 20 years, but the Byrnes tell me they have a long list of burdens bearing down on them, including employer national insurance contributions, business rates, VAT and alcohol duty, all of which are under the direct control of this Government.

That is the reality facing rural pubs across Thornbury and Yate, and indeed the country. These are not simply places to drink; they are community anchors, spaces for the lonely, meeting points for neighbours and outlets for local breweries and farmers. Pubs in villages and hamlets without the footfall that town centre pubs enjoy, which often have higher energy costs, cannot absorb pressure the way larger operators might. When they close, nothing replaces them—the loss is permanent.

Greg and James at the Swan at Nibley have also been hit by National Highways closing a road for three years. They are looking forward to trade improving from this weekend, when the closure ends, but they say that a cut in VAT for hospitality would make a big difference to them and all pubs in our area.

The employer national insurance rises have forced publicans to make brutal choices about staffing. Those hit hardest are young people looking for their first job—the kind of formative, confidence-building experience that hospitality provides. Previously, pubs were able to employ 10 to 15 young people, working a few hours a week; now they struggle to employ three. That is a dozen NEETs for every pub lost, in more than one way.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is right to highlight the number of NEETs in this country. We probably should not call them NEETs, because so many of them are trying to find employment, education or training. They want to cut their teeth on the opportunities that hospitality venues such as rural pubs provide. Does she agree that, if we can take some pressure off those rural pubs, they will be more than willing, ready and able to bring young people into their businesses, to give them the skills to go on and do other things? Right now, with the pressure that they face from all angles, the owners end up doing all the work themselves.

[Claire Young]

I agree. The Swan has been taking on apprentices, but many pubs are unable to do so because of the challenges. There is often a lack of opportunities in our villages and, with transport issues, it can be difficult to travel to places where they can be found.

On business rates, Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a fair and more proportionate system. The Government’s partial climbdown—a 15% reduction on a planned hike, after sustained pressure from the House—was welcome but it went nowhere near far enough.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine has beautiful countryside pubs but they are struggling. Pub owners have told me that this year is worse than the covid years. They face closure, despite being the only place for communities to meet in rural areas, as in many others. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must overhaul the entire business rate system to give pubs the support they need to thrive, not just barely survive?

[Claire Young]

I absolutely agree. I could also highlight many other anomalies that affect the wider hospitality and attraction industry.

At the Horseshoe in Chipping Sodbury, I met Matthew Lewis of the Independent Pub Alliance. The ask from the pub trade is not complicated: stability, fairness and a Government who understand that these businesses are part of the community infrastructure. I urge the Minister to meet the alliance to better understand its ask, and I would be delighted to bring Matthew to meet him. My constituents value their rural pubs, as do I and my party. Will the Government show that they do, too?

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the crisis and resilience fund as an important lifeline for families across this country. We work with local authorities to make sure that the funding gets to the frontline, because local councils best understand where the most acute pressures are in their areas. I am, however, happy to discuss this with him later.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Heat batteries are the only clean heat technology certified by the microgeneration certification scheme that is excluded from VAT relief under the energy-saving materials framework. This penalises smaller homes and lower-income households that cannot accommodate a heat pump. Will the Chancellor commit to removing that anomaly, and meet me and representatives of the UK heat battery industry to discuss it?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government regularly assess whether to add energy-saving materials, including heat batteries, to the list of items covered by the current VAT relief, which is set to continue until March 2027. Any decisions would have to be announced by the Chancellor at a fiscal event, but I am happy to discuss the matter.

Business Rates

Claire Young Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I would be happy to discuss that matter with my hon. Friend. Indoor play is a really valuable and growing part of our economy, but there are challenges. With more free childcare, it may be that fewer people are going in during the day, and I know that many indoor play centres have seen increases in their rateable values. We set out our proposals on business rates at the Budget to support these businesses with significant caps this year, next year and the year after.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

When I visited The Play Shed in Yate last year, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief was already costing it £12,000, even before the more recent changes. This package is welcome for pubs and music venues, but what will the Government do to help other leisure businesses in my constituency that are struggling with business rates?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have changed the tax rates, the multipliers, within the system so that a typical high street business may now pay 38p in the pound and an online retail giant may pay 51p in the pound on their rateable values. That is a significant underlying reform to the tax system that is here for good.

Covid-19: Financial Support

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Member, and I will get to that point. In Stratford-on-Avon and up and down the country, business owners ask a simple question: why were they excluded when they had paid tax for years? These were people running events businesses, training services or consultancies, freelancers in the arts, music or creative sectors, and small companies that formed the backbone of our local economy. That is the injustice that this debate seeks to address.

It is important to say at the outset that we do not deny the scale or urgency of the Government’s response in March 2020. The coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme were introduced at a speed and on a scale never seen before. According to the House of Commons Library, the overall cost of covid-19 business support ran into tens of billions of pounds, and for many people and businesses it prevented immediate hardship and business collapse. That context matters, because it shows that the Government were capable of acting decisively, and that the state was capable of dealing with a suite of diverse and complex scenarios. The question is why, alongside that intervention, millions of people were left with nothing at all and simply abandoned.

Around 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from meaningful financial support during the pandemic—a figure supported by analysis from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Audit Office and research cited by the Library. They included company directors paid through dividends, newly self-employed people, new businesses, pay-as-you-earn freelancers, new starters, and those on maternity, adoption or parental leave or on carer’s allowance, whose circumstances placed them just outside rigid eligibility rules. They were a substantial part of the British workforce. The Government support schemes worked well for many, but excluded millions by design.

The problem was not the absence of data, but the choice made about how that data would be used. Company directors paid through dividends were told that their income could not be verified, despite their submitting annual self-assessments, corporation tax returns and company accounts to Companies House. New businesses were excluded simply because they had not traded for long enough. Mixed-income workers were penalised for having diversified their earnings. These people were not invisible to the tax system, but they were invisible to the support schemes. The decision to exclude them was not an administrative necessity; it was a policy decision, and for that alone, the 3.8 million people left out must have an apology.

These decisions are now rightly being examined by the UK covid-19 inquiry. Module 9, which focuses on the economic response, is considering how eligibility criteria were set, how fraud risk was assessed and how trade-offs were made between speed and fairness. That scrutiny is essential, because the consequences of exclusion were not abstract; they were human, financial and, in many cases, long-lasting. The inquiry must not simply catalogue what happened, but confront what it meant for those left outside the system.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

A 2021 University of Bristol report stated that women in their 40s with dependent children were disproportionately represented among the excluded. That raises concerns about child poverty, mental ill health and compounding the effects of the gender pay gap. Does my hon. Friend agree that research is needed into those and other longer- term impacts, so that they can be addressed?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Absolutely; I fully agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, that is one of our asks, so that we do not make the same mistake again.

My constituent Victoria, who is in the Gallery, ran an events business hosting exhibitions and award ceremonies. She was ineligible for any scheme. A bounce back loan was taken out simply for the business to survive. Five years on, the debt remains, the recovery never fully came, and the business is now closing. Another constituent of mine moved roles, and was informed that he would not be furloughed by his new employer, as the cut-off for furlough through payroll had passed. There was little consideration of people in that position.

Another constituent was a director of a small education consultancy. They were told that income as dividends could not be distinguished from unearned income, despite verified accounts and professional oversight. The effects of that decision did not end when lockdowns lifted. The financial impact of exclusion was severe, but the human cost was greater still. Campaign groups have documented widespread mental distress across those excluded from support, including cases of suicide linked to financial hardship during the pandemic. There were people who felt hopeless, abandoned and unseen. The mental health consequences of exclusion are still being felt, and they should weigh heavily on this House.

The excluded have three requests of this Government: an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned; parity of support; and an acknowledgment of the loss of earnings and consequential losses. I ask the Minister to meet the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in covid-19 financial support, so that he can hear directly from those affected.

At the same time when millions of taxpayers were excluded from support, vast sums of public money were spent on dodgy personal protective equipment. The National Audit Office has confirmed that billions were lost through error and fraud across covid-19 schemes. The PPE MedPro case starkly illustrates that imbalance: a company fast-tracked through the Government VIP lane was paid £122 million for surgical gowns that were later ruled unfit for use, and has since been ordered to repay £148 million to the public purse.

This debate is not just about reflecting on what went wrong; it is about recognising and acknowledging the injustice, starting with an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned under the Conservative Government. We also must prepare properly for the future. Public health experts have been clear that we should be talking about not if, but when, there is a future pandemic or national emergency. When the moment comes, this House will have a responsibility to ensure that no one slips through the gaps again.

Emergency support schemes must be designed around the reality of how people work in this country. Millions of people do not fit neatly into a single employment category. They combine PAYE work with self-employment, run a small limited company, take time out for caring responsibilities or build new businesses from scratch. That diversity is a strength of our economy, not a problem to be designed out of eligibility. The state already holds vast amounts of information through His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and other bodies. The lesson of covid is that the issue was not a lack of data, but a lack of willingness to use it flexibly and fairly.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Claire Young Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The amendment, which has already been laid before the House, sets out the changes that the Government are making. In the letter that all hon. Members will have received, we set out our estimate that the number of estates we think will be affected will halve, and that about 85% of farming estates claiming APR—sometimes with BPR—will not pay any additional inheritance tax at all as a result of these changes.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Looking at farm sizes and land values locally, I fear that family farms will still be paying the family farm tax. What evidence is there that £2.5 million realistically reflects the value of a typical family farm in a constituency with higher land values, such as Thornbury and Yate?

[Dan Tomlinson]

May I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House for their engagement on this important issue today? We have set the threshold at £2.5 million for a single person and £5 million for a couple as a result of the changes announced at the Budget 2025. We think that threshold is right and fair. It means that the number of farming estates that will be affected will fall by half, and the vast majority will pay no additional inheritance tax at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

1. How much capital funding she plans to allocate for the maintenance and repair of critical infrastructure in the next five years.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister—congratulations.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Through the spending review and the 10-year infrastructure strategy, the Government are funding at least £725 billion of infrastructure over the next decade. That includes investment in critical assets, such as £24 billion over the next four years to maintain and improve motorways and local roads and £7.9 billion over 10 years to maintain existing flood defences and invest in new ones. We have also committed to long-term maintenance budgets for public service infrastructure, with £10 billion of funding per year by 2034-35 to maintain and repair our hospitals, prisons, courts, schools and colleges so that providers can deliver cost savings by planning ahead.

[Claire Young]

The weight limit imposed on the M48 Severn bridge due to the deterioration of its supporting cables is having a big impact on local businesses and farmers who work on both sides of the Severn. National Highways estimates that it would cost up to £600 million to repair the bridge, with restrictions only postponing the inevitable. Will the Chancellor meet me to discuss the impacts and commit to providing the funding to get the bridge repaired and reopened for everyone as soon as possible?

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

It seems that I have a list of bids for place-based business case pilots, which we will take away and consider. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight why this issue is important. When the Government are spending a lot of money on a particular thing, including through industrial policy or defence spending, we need to ensure that that translates into good jobs and good pay, with housing and good public infrastructure, so that people can access those opportunities and help drive the economy forward.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

As one of my constituency neighbours, the Chief Secretary will be aware of our local infrastructure needs, such as upgrading junctions 16 and 17 on the M5, fixing the original Severn bridge and upgrading Westerleigh rail junction. The West of England has often been overlooked in the past, so how will he ensure that the funding is distributed fairly and for the benefit of all regions?

[Darren Jones]

Noting that I need to manage carefully my conflicts of interest as a Minister and a constituency MP, I would just point the hon. Lady to the announcement made the other week—I thought it was very good—about nearly £800 million of devolved funding going to the Mayor of the West of England, Helen Godwin, allowing her to get on with lots of the transport upgrades that in the past we waited many years to get funded.

Regional Growth

Claire Young Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent work as Chair of the Transport Committee, which has shown on a cross-party basis why the announcements we have made today are good for the economy, good for jobs and good for constituencies across the United Kingdom. She encourages me to answer questions about statements that will be made next week. All I can say at this stage, I am afraid, is that there is not long to go.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

The Chief Secretary says that west of England funding will increase services between Bristol city centre and Brabazon. I have been pressing Ministers to extend the funding for half-hourly trains at Yate, which is due to end next year. That is vital to provide a service to the new Charfield station, which is due to open in 2027. Both places are, of course, in the city region. Will this funding support or even improve those services, or is this more about the city than the region?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for, I think, welcoming the nearly £1 billion of investment in transport for the west of England, which we know is a thriving part of the country. With the right investment in affordable housing, clean, renewable transport that works on time and is affordable to use will be great for people living in her constituency and mine, and great for the country.

One point to note is that the funding announced today is capital investment, not day-to-day spending. There will be further announcements in the coming weeks from the Department for Transport about issues such as bus subsidy and rail subsidy, but we are absolutely committed to supporting funding within regional combined authorities. This is not about particular places; that is why we have given this money to mayors, who will work with Members of Parliament like me and the hon. Member to ensure that we are delivering for the west of England and for the country.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Claire Young Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Dwight Eisenhower said that

“farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”

Too often, this Government appear to be a thousand miles away from the cornfield. I urge them to review their changes to the agricultural property relief, listen to farmers and put their needs and the best interests of this country front and centre.

This subject has aroused strong emotions in my South Cotswolds constituency, where we have both ends of the spectrum, from the many small family farms to Dyson’s UK headquarters. Our 750 farm holdings employ more than 2,000 people—including Mike, who is in the Public Gallery today—who all demonstrably contribute to feeding our country and caring for our natural environment. These farmers are distraught. As we seek to reverse the destruction of nature in our severely nature-depleted country, it is clear that we need the participation of the sector that manages 70% of our land.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

A small farmer with a farm near Frampton Cotterell, in my Thornbury and Yate constituency, highlighted the fact that, as well as high land costs, some of the machinery needed to farm that land costs upwards of £100,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that for farmers to have the confidence to invest in the modern, sustainable farming practices that are needed, we need a policy that recognises the high-capital, low-income nature of farming?

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for a good point well made.

From waking up before the crack of dawn in the lambing and calving seasons, to often finishing the working day beyond midnight during the harvest, it is not hard to recognise the long and draining hours that farmers put in, the huge financial pressures that they work under and the toll that the lifestyle takes on their mental and physical health.

Farmers have to be able to plan for the long term, with their meteorological, financial, logistical and agricultural predictions having impacts for generations to come. Being such forward planners, and having been promised by the current Government when in opposition that there would be no change to APR, it came as a great and not pleasant surprise in Labour’s autumn 2024 Budget to hear that they would indeed be subjected to a change in inheritance tax. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for his point earlier about the injustice of retrospective legislation.