Oral Answers to Questions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Australia, Italy, India and more have all slashed fuel duty in response to Trump’s idiotic war in Iran. We Liberal Democrats are calling for fuel duty to be cut by 12p per litre here. Last week, the Chancellor claimed that anyone calling for a cut in fuel duty was “economically illiterate”, because it would push up inflation. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the current 5p fuel duty cut has led to a 0.2% reduction in the rate of inflation. Does the Chancellor think that the OBR and all these other countries that are helping their citizens are economically illiterate, or does she accept that her Government might be in the wrong and that it is time to act?

[Rachel Reeves]

Last time she stood up in the Chamber, the hon. Lady said that she wanted a 10p cut in fuel duty; now it is a 12p cut. What she has failed to explain is how on earth she is going to pay for any of those policies. As a former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), has just explained, untargeted support will result in higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes, which would hurt people in St Albans and around the country rather than helping them with the cost of living.

I support what the Liberal Democrats say about opposing the war in Iran—that is our policy—but they appear to be the only people on the planet who think that a war in the middle east is somehow good for the Treasury coffers. I would not be surprised if in their next manifesto they said they would commit themselves to closing the strait of Hormuz for good. It is not good economic policy, and I am afraid that that says a lot about the Liberal Democrats’ policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Business rates bills have been landing on doormats over the last few weeks, and some small businesses in St Albans and beyond tell me that the future looks bleak, with some taking the crushing decision to close their doors. Will the Chancellor please look again at the eye-watering revaluations and release the full 20p discount for small businesses, which the Government legislated to do, to save our high streets?

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

On business rates, the hon. Member will know that this Government inherited the plans that were set in train for an independent revaluation of properties to take place for the first time since the pandemic. It would not have been the right thing to do to delay that independent revaluation for those businesses who have seen their rates fall since the pandemic, so we went ahead with it, and we then put in £4.3 billion of support to limit the increases in bills that businesses would pay. Of course we keep all taxes under review, but we have for the first time put in a differential within the business rates system so that high street businesses face a lower tax rate—a lower multiplier—than the largest online giants.

Middle East: Economic Update

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Rachel Reeves]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady and her party opposed the war and did not want the UK to become involved, unlike the Conservatives and Reform. However, I find what she has just set out fundamentally economically illiterate. The idea that a great fiscal policy is to close the strait of Hormuz! Why did we not think of that when we came to office? If we close the strait of Hormuz, all our problems will be over because we can get in all this money—that is what the hon. Lady is suggesting; that we will get some great windfall from a tax. The truth is that the IMF and every other forecaster are clear that tax revenues will be lower, not higher, because of the conflict in the middle east. The money that the hon. Lady wants us to spend simply does not exist. I am afraid she is falling into the failed economic policies of the Conservatives, who delivered untargeted, unfunded support that resulted in higher interest rates, higher inflation and higher taxes. She is suggesting an untargeted approach, but that is what got us into the mess we are in today.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady supports us on decoupling, which is the right thing to do with our gas and electricity prices. I regret that she and her party did not support the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which enables us to build the homes and energy infrastructure that we need. On working with banks, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is working with every high street lender and energy company to help people who are struggling with their bills.

Middle East: Economic Update

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement. Our thoughts are with our brave armed forces at this time.

I agree that the last Government’s failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country. Today we face the stark reality that we cannot guarantee our national security, our energy security or our food security. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we launched the auction for onshore wind and established the Green Investment Bank, helping to drive down costs and quadruple renewable energy. The Conservatives’ decision to scrap the Green Investment Bank has left our energy system more exposed, and should be worn as a badge of shame.

To shore up our energy security and to tackle the energy crisis, we Liberal Democrats have consistently argued for a three-pronged approach: first, to reduce energy demand by incentivising households and businesses to invest in energy efficiency, without the tax penalties built into the business rates system or prohibitive up-front costs; secondly, to fix the broken energy market that is unfairly inflating prices, especially for small businesses on our high streets; and thirdly, to provide targeted support for the most vulnerable and for those with the highest energy needs. I urge the Chancellor to consider our proposals to create an energy security bank that can offer low-interest loans for energy-saving improvements for households and small businesses, to reverse the cuts to home insulation programmes, and to exempt business investment in energy efficiency from business rates calculations.

Although the action from the Competition and Markets Authority is welcome, it is not enough. Small businesses have been blocked from the best energy deals for years—well before Donald Trump started bombing Iran—yet there has still been no CMA investigation into suppliers blocking access to those fair deals. I ask the Chancellor again: will she please instruct the CMA to do that investigation without delay?

On targeted support, families are fearful. Will the Chancellor consider zero-rating VAT on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas and introducing a price cap mechanism for off-grid fuels? Will she commit to halving energy bills over the next decade by reforming pricing structures? If bills rise to more than £400 a year, as some are warning, will the Chancellor commit to coming back to this House and outlining a broader support package so that many struggling households do not face a crippling hit of that scale?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Nick Clegg once said that it would take 10 years to get nuclear power up and running so there was no point in doing it, as it would come on stream only in the 2020s. Imagine if that Deputy Prime Minister had not blocked investment in nuclear energy then—we would have the benefits of it today. The Liberal Democrats had a chance when they were in government, and they did absolutely nothing. The Conservatives opposed onshore wind, which is also helping to bring down bills.

In terms of supporting investment in renewables and energy security, we have created the National Wealth Fund, which is prioritising investment in defence and energy security, including in critical minerals in Cornwall, carbon capture and storage and the roll-out of chargers for electric vehicles. We have also put £14 billion into the warm homes plan to subsidise and support people to make energy improvements in their homes in order to reduce their energy consumption and therefore their bills, alongside doubling the number of people eligible for the warm home discount. We are looking at improvement relief through the business rates consultation to ensure that if people do make improvements, including on energy efficiency, they will not then be whacked with higher business rates.

The hon. Lady said that we should cut VAT on heating oil. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, they increased VAT on everything, so it is a bit rich to say that they want to cut it now. We have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to do a review into heating oil, which I set out today, in addition to the £53 million of support we have put in.

There seems to be a slight contradiction in what the hon. Lady is saying—does she want targeted support or blanket support? I argue that the progressive, universal approach that we are taking is the right one. It means £150 off everyone’s energy bills, but also targeted support for those who need it most. We cannot repeat what happened when Liz Truss was Prime Minister—we are still paying the price for the cheque that was written then with higher interest rates, inflation and taxes than we would otherwise have had.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but the Federation of Small Businesses is warning that they will face a cost cliff edge in April because of the cumulative impact of all the new taxes and responsibilities put on them at the same time. During the course of the Finance Bill, we Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for an assessment of the cumulative impact of taxes on hospitality and small businesses, including business rates. When the Government bring forward their high streets strategy, will it include an assessment of the cumulative impact of all tax changes—yes or no?

[Dan Tomlinson]

When we bring forward the high streets strategy, it will look in the round at what more we can do on regulation, licensing and the decisions that are made in the Treasury to continue to support small businesses and those on our high streets. That is incredibly important, and we will continue to look at that closely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

In times of crisis, the UK Government have often had to spend more on energy support for households and small businesses than other comparable countries, because our energy market is so broken. Hospitality and small businesses tell me that some suppliers simply refuse to supply hospitality businesses at all. If the Government are determined to refuse Liberal Democrat calls for an emergency VAT cut, can I please ask them whether, at the very least, they will consider our call to instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate bad practices in the energy market affecting hospitality and small businesses, so that we can drive down bills through greater competition?

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

The hon. Lady is right to talk about the long-term answer here, which is more domestic energy security. That is why we are getting on with building nuclear power—whether it is in Wylfa, Suffolk or Somerset. On her specific question, the Chancellor and Ministers have been very clear with the CMA that, particularly at times such as these, we need to ensure that no companies are taking advantage of customers—whether they are customers filling up their domestic heating oil or hospitality businesses.

Middle East: Economic Update

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement, but it does not include a single concrete announcement, and in itself will not provide the reassurance that householders and businesses are looking for as they hear reports that energy bills are about to escalate. Last week, the Liberal Democrats asked the Chancellor whether she would consider scrapping the planned 1p increase in fuel duty, due in September. Will she confirm that that option is still on the table and has not been ruled out?

Last autumn, we Liberal Democrats called for a new energy security bank to roll out low-interest loans to households and small and medium-sized enterprises. We welcomed the Government’s warm homes plan in January, but will the Chancellor confirm that it could be extended from five to 10 years and that it will have a greater emphasis on home insulation? Could small businesses’ investment in energy-saving measures be excluded from business rates calculations?

In the long term, we need energy market reform. I urge the Chancellor and her Government to intervene to stop these unpredictable fluctuations in the gas market. We need urgently to develop a plan to delink gas and electricity prices, and move expensive old renewable subsidies from the renewables obligation to the much better and cheaper contracts for difference model.

I am glad that the Chancellor has written to the Competition and Markets Authority about keeping an eye on petrol pump prices, but last autumn I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and asked him to instruct the CMA to investigate bad practices in the energy market that affect hospitality businesses and small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses and UKHospitality have also asked for that investigation but, six months on, it still has not happened. Will the Chancellor please confirm that she will speak to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade?

Finally, on rural homes, we know that off-grid homes rely on oil, and they are already seeing prices go up as panic buying spreads. I am grateful that the Chancellor indicated that there will be a meeting on Wednesday. Will she confirm that an announcement will be forthcoming by the end of this week?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Lady talks about energy security, but she has never once acknowledged her party’s failure when they were in government. In 2010, her then party leader Nick Clegg justified opposing new nuclear energy on the grounds that it would take until 2022 to become operational. Well, 2022 has been and gone, but what is here is another example of Britain paying a high price today for the choices of the Opposition parties.

I turn to the hon. Lady’s specific questions. We announced at the Budget that we will take £150 off bills—that will come in in April and continue until June—by taking the failed energy company obligation levy, over which the last Government presided, off bills. People on heating oil also use electricity in their homes and will benefit from reductions in their energy bills from April. As I said, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will meet relevant MPs this week.

The hon. Lady walked with her colleagues through the Lobby to oppose the Budget measures, which included freezing fuel duties, so it is a bit rich of her now to say that she wants us to cut fuel duty. On ensuring that homes are properly insulated, at the spending review last year I announced £15 billion for the warm homes plan, which is focused on lower-income families.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that contracts for difference are crucial in weaning ourselves off imported oil and gas. We are in a better place because of the CfD auctions we have been holding and the energy infrastructure we have been building, and which we can build because of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which Opposition parties opposed.

Finally, as I said in my statement, the Competition and Markets Authority has an important role in ensuring that markets are functioning properly on heating oil, on petrol forecourts and for small businesses. We will ensure that it fulfils that role so that people are not overcharged for the energy they use.

Spring Forecast

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The country is paying the price for two anti-growth Labour Budgets. Growth has flatlined, youth unemployment is up, and the cost of living crisis grinds on, pushing people and businesses to the brink. So we plead with the Chancellor: please, for the sake of our country, put a laser-like focus on getting a better trade and defence deal with Europe so that we can protect our country, get Britain growing again and end the cost of living crisis.

The Chancellor said that she will make an announcement about trade relationships in a couple of weeks, but the Government are already 18 months in. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to announce the Government’s intention to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union to kick-start growth, cut red tape for business and build ties with our reliable allies in the face of Trump’s chaos. Why didn’t she?

The spring statement comes at a critical time for our national and economic security. OBR projections will soon be out of date. Trump’s illegal actions in Iran this weekend will be felt in people’s pockets right here in Britain, with the cost of fuel and food set to rise. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to scrap the fuel duty hike, which is due this September. Why didn’t she?

Young people are angry and fed up. The next generation of young people could always expect that they would have a better life than the generation before, but that promise for today’s young people has been ripped away. Almost 1 million young people—the highest in more than 10 years—are now unemployed. We are facing a youth unemployment crisis. The Chancellor’s youth guarantee is simply a sticking plaster for the damage that has been done by the jobs tax. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to reverse the jobs tax changes that have undermined job opportunities for young people and part-time workers. Why didn’t she?

Graduates are being ripped off. They have studied hard—[Interruption.] Graduates are being ripped off—[Interruption.] They have studied hard, they have done everything they were told to do, but they are facing eye-watering repayment costs and they are struggling to get on in life. On this issue, it is a plague on all our houses—partisan point scoring does no favours to those young people. We have set out what we would do. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to end the repayment threshold freeze, putting £100 back in graduates’ pockets in the first year, rising to £210 in the third. Why didn’t she?

With great instability and conflict around the world and a move away from the rules-based system to great power politics, we must look urgently at building our national energy, defence and food security. In so doing, we can and must turn the necessity of building national resilience into strategic opportunities for economic growth. We welcome the fact that the Government have done a deal for helicopters with Leonardo, as a result of the calls from these Liberal Democrat Benches, especially hon. Friends from the south-west, who have raised this issue week in, week out. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to launch a new defence bonds programme as part of a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Why didn’t she?

Finally, I will come full circle. I said that the country has paid the price for two anti-growth Labour budgets. The OBR today is clear: the downgrade in growth in 2026 is bigger than the upgrade in the next two years combined. We have to stop the cycle of short-term Treasury tax grabs over long-term growth. Our United Kingdom is an amazing country and has enormous potential, but we cannot take that for granted. We must accept that we are stuck in a rut, in a doom loop of low economic growth, and that is a big problem. I urge the Chancellor to take the measures that I have outlined to protect our country, to get Britain growing again and to end the cost of living crisis.

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Member gives less an economic programme and more a wish list of things that she would like to see, without any means at all of paying for them. She seems oblivious to the things that the Government are doing. She says that we should have a closer relationship with Europe, and I agree—I said it in my speech—yet she omitted to mention that that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have taken action, as the hon. Lady knows, with a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to back British agriculture and on Erasmus, and it is this Labour Government who are working with our EU neighbours to tackle illegal gangs and to improve our security.

The hon. Member calls for a big cut in taxes, but VAT at 20% as the standard rate is the rate the Liberal Democrats introduced when they were part of the coalition Government, and it has been ever since. We have provided £4.3 billion of support in business rates and further support for pubs and live music venues. If the Liberal Democrats want to deliver on this enormous unfunded promise, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell us which public services they would like to cut this time. They cut enough public services when they had a chance and were in office, but they are too scared to tell us which ones they would cut today. Is it the NHS? Is it schools? Is it investment in our regional transport infrastructure? Who knows? She will not tell us.

It is quite extraordinary to hear the Liberal Democrats having the nerve to raise student finance when they trebled tuition fees when they were in government and created the plan 2 scheme. In fact, it was a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State who oversaw that policy, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was in that Cabinet meeting when they signed off that decision. We will take no lectures from them about how to support our young people.

The hon. Lady says that they have set out what they would do on student finance. Is that a bit like what they did in 2010, when they set out what they were going to do on student finance? In 2010, what was it that they were going to do with tuition fees? I think I remember. That’s it: they were going to abolish tuition fees. But that is not what they did, is it? What did they do? Oh, they tripled them. Why should we believe a word that the hon. Lady says now on student finance?

Some of us have not forgotten that they teamed up with the Tories to cut our police, cut local government and cut our armed forces spending. We are dealing with the consequences. This is why we are investing in our public services: to fix the damage that they did with the Conservatives. What have they been doing? They are opposing our investment in the NHS, because that is what it means when they say they want to reverse the tax changes that we have brought in. The only reason we have £29 billion more a year to spend in the NHS is because of the tax changes that we made. The Liberal Democrats need to understand that they cannot have one without the other. They oppose our plans to build more homes. They oppose our plans to make work pay. They opposed VAT on private schools to help the 93% of kids in our state schools. They are simply not serious.

Business Rates

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

If the Government are serious about saving the high street, then these measures can only be the start. Since the Government’s first Budget, we Liberal Democrats have been warning that high streets were at risk if the Government did not make the various changes that they have made over the past 18 months.

A number of questions arise from today’s statement. There are 11 pubs in my constituency, not all of which could be described as large, that have a rateable value of more than £100,000 because of the ridiculous valuation system, and they will still see their rates bills go up. There will be such pubs across the country, but is it correct that they will get only half of the percentage relief? Pubs can already have 50 temporary event notices a year, so extending that is simply a soundbite solution without a problem.

I am glad that the Government are looking at hotels, but what is the timeframe? The Samuel Ryder hotel in my constituency tells me that its bill is going up by 157% in the first year alone, and it will not be the only such hotel. Will the new formula for hotels be in place in April, or will they be left in limbo?

The statement still offers nothing for the rest of the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors—the restaurants, soft play centres and high street shops that made business, investment and hiring decisions based on the expectation of the full 20p discount. I welcome the announcement of a high street strategy, which we Liberal Democrats will engage constructively with, but will the Minister start now by heeding our calls to direct the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the energy market, which is blocking hospitality businesses and other sectors from getting the best energy deals? Will he also look at our fully funded proposal to slash VAT until April 2027, to give our high streets a boost?

Over the past few weeks and months, getting answers and data from the Government has been like getting blood from a stone. Just 90 minutes ago, I asked the Minister if he would tell us what he knew and when; he said he would, but he has not.

Finally, on the methodology for pubs, the use of fair maintainable trade—turnover—has long had its day, but may I urge the Minister to allow for parliamentary scrutiny? None of the current legislation relating to pubs or business rates allows for any scrutiny in this House or the other place. I asked the Government about the valuation methodology back in July 2024; it was one of my first written questions after the general election, but it has taken 18 months for the Government to listen. Will they please allow this House to scrutinise their plans so that we can get a long-term fix to save our pubs?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The 15% reduction will apply to all pubs. As the hon. Member knows, there are different caps for pubs depending on their size, but if bills had been frozen, no bill would have fallen next year. Instead, because we have decided to apply the 15% reduction, around 75% of pubs will see their bills either stay the same or fall. I acknowledge what she says about the very largest pubs, but we will still significantly reduce the increase that they would have expected this year. Their bills will then be frozen in full in years two and three of the period before the revaluation review—I am glad that the hon. Member is able to welcome that review. Its results will be implemented for future revaluations.

The hon. Member mentioned temporary event notices. We are trying to implement the recommendations of the licensing review, which was carried out in conjunction with pubs and other businesses in the sector, so although she may think that changes such as these do not touch the sides or make a difference, pubs themselves told us that—in addition to ensuring that we could support them in the right way fiscally—such changes would be welcome. I hope that pubs that are able to make use of them will do so.

The hon. Member also asked about the 20p multiplier. She is right that we legislated for a reduction of up to 20p, but we have to see these things in the balance. The decision to reduce the multiplier by 5p came with a £900 million price tag; reducing it by the full 20p would cost significantly more. Taken in the round, our package of support has a lower tax rate within the system—a lower multiplier—but also steps in with caps to support businesses if they are experiencing increases in their values or having to adjust to the slow unwinding of the pandemic relief.

The hon. Member asked about VAT. All I will say—she will expect this—is that when the Liberal Democrats had the chance in government, they put VAT up; now, they seem to be calling for it to go down.

Finally, on the question of what I knew and when, as the VOA set out, Ministers were provided with details of the increases in the valuations. However, at that time, we did not foresee—I did not foresee—that after the changes in the rateable values that were published at the Budget, pubs and their representative bodies would want to withdraw their support for the independently and previously agreed methodology. Given that and the Government’s judgment that there are issues, to which the hon. Member has referred, we thought it was right to pause, review the methodology and ensure that it is fit for the future for pubs and hotels.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I wish you a speedy recovery.

We know that pubs have been badly hit by these business rates changes, but businesses right across retail, hospitality and leisure have made investment and hiring decisions based on the expectation raised by this Government that they would get a full 20p discount on their business rate multiplier. Those businesses—music venues, restaurants, soft play centres and hotels—are the high street shops that communities most love. Do Ministers accept that anything less than the full 20p discount for retail, hospitality and leisure will leave the three-to-five-year business plans of those high street businesses in total disarray?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We announced a 5p reduction in the multiplier on top of the 7p or thereabouts reduction that was taking place as a result of the revaluation more broadly. That is a £900 million transfer of underlying rates liability away from the smallest high street businesses towards the online giants and the largest properties. When the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives had the chance, they kept the tax rates the same. We have introduced significant reform, and we started the work of that reform at the Budget. Of course we will continue our conversations in the months ahead.

[Daisy Cooper]

Businesses up and down the country know that the Government raised their expectations and then dashed them. This whole sorry saga has been an absolute shambles. The question remains: why were Ministers so blindsided, when the VOA has confirmed that it was providing data drops over a period of 12 months? Will Ministers use the opportunity in 90 minutes’ time to answer all the questions that Opposition MPs have asked and to explain what they knew and when?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, happily.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

These business rates changes will hammer high streets, and with the jobs tax on top, many businesses have already decided to shut up shop. Getting data out of the Government has been like getting blood from a stone; every question I am about to ask, I have asked before, but let me try again. Why did the Government set the expectation that they would reduce the business rates multiplier by the full 20p discount for retail, hospitality and leisure, and then not use the maximum power that they gave themselves to do that? Do they accept that lots of small businesses have made investment and hiring decisions based on the expectations that this Government set, and will they apologise to those businesses for raising their expectations and then dashing them? Can the Government finally tell us how many business premises have been brought into paying business rates for the first time?

Last Tuesday, we learned that that the Valuation Office Agency had sent the Treasury data drops regularly over the past 12 months. What did Ministers know, and when? The VOA also confirmed that it had told the Treasury that more than 5,000 pubs would see their business rates double, so how is it possible that Ministers did not know that this would happen? Finally, whatever the Government are considering, can they confirm that it will apply to all hospitality businesses and not just pubs, and will they consider our fully costed Liberal Democrat plan for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality?

[Dan Tomlinson]

On the point about 20p versus 5p, we legislated for a reduction in the multiplier of up to 20p for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, but that did not set an expectation that we would go that far; it set the bounds within which the Government could choose to operate. As the first step in our significant reform to the business rates system, we chose to reduce the multiplier by 5p, which reduces the total taxes paid by RHL businesses by almost £1 billion and increases the tax take from the largest businesses by an equivalent amount.

The answers to many of the questions that hon. Members ask are very easy to find in the data published by the VOA. Detailed breakdowns of the change in the value of properties between the different revaluation periods are published on the Government’s website. I will not take—I will not say “lectures”—suggestions from Liberal Democrat Members on VAT, given that when they were in power, they and the Conservatives chose to whack up VAT, a decision that pushed up inflation and added to the cost of living for people up and down the country.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

This is a retrospective tax without transitional protection. It upends plans for those who have already made sacrifices to build up their pensions, undermines confidence in pensions planning, reduces long-term investment and causes people to rush to withdraw money from their pensions.

As has been mentioned, the chartered institute and the ATT have raised concerns about this group of clauses, which shoehorn pensions legislation into tax legislation. There are major worries about creating personal liability without control for personal representatives, whether executives or administrators. Personal representatives are legally obligated to gather all the assets, settle any liabilities, including inheritance tax, and distribute the remainder of the estate to the beneficiaries. They are personally liable if they do not set aside enough money to settle all financial liabilities, including IHT. Experts have warned that someone being personally liable for IHT on a pension fund that never comes into their hands leaves the door open to costly and protracted litigation and will understandably make personal representatives, such as professionals or friends of the deceased, much more cautious before they distribute all of the estate.

Even more concerning is the fact that if representatives discover a new pension fund after settling the initial IHT liability, this would have a knock-on effect on not only the estate but all other pension funds. It means that IHT will have to be recalculated for every part of the estate and every pension fund. It is far from uncommon for people to have had different jobs with separate pension plans, so the risk of miscalculation is obvious. If someone passes away before they have had the chance to consolidate their pension funds, tracking down the unused pots within six months of their death will be very difficult for executors and will mean that the initial IHT calculations could be wrong. The Government must recognise that and amend this measure. If they do not, and Ministers simply ask future executors to sign some sort of disclaimer form, they will soon find that nobody will want to take on that role.

Our new clauses 18 to 20 raise the clear need for significant reforms and are a means of pressing the Government to protect individuals from being liable for private pensions that they did not know about and could not reasonably know about either. Finally, there is widespread worry that family members might have to wait up to 15 months before they are able to access their inheritance, during what is bound to be a hugely straining period of loss and grief. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 20 urges the Government to recognise that reality and take steps to address it.

[Lucy Rigby]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on this group of clauses. Before I respond to the specific points that have been raised, I will reflect briefly on the core purpose of the Bill.

The Bill contains fair and necessary reforms to the tax system, which unfortunately have been ducked for far too long. They will help to strengthen our economy for the long term, ensuring that we can cut the cost of living and inflation, and restore our public services and the public finances to health. The Tories and Reform—who are increasingly indistinguishable, it might be said—have already set out their choice: a return to the chaos and instability of the past. That approach failed before, and we are not going back.

The clauses in this group restore pensions to their core and intended purpose, which is funding retirement. We are not allowing them to function as a tax-free vehicle for the transfer of wealth. Generous tax relief for retirement saving is preserved. The clauses ensure that pension wealth is treated fairly and consistently for inheritance tax purposes. They protect ordinary families, with more than 90% of estates still paying no inheritance tax at all each year after the changes.

Let me turn to the non-Government amendments in this group. New clause 18 would require the Treasury to review the effects of the changes to pension tax policy, including their impacts on individuals, administrators and behaviour. A report would need to be laid in Parliament no later than six months from when the Act comes into force. This new clause is not necessary. The Government have published a tax information and impact note on the changes in the normal way. It sets out the impact on individuals, and accounts for the impact on personal representatives.

As hon. Members know, the Government keep all tax policies under review through the monitoring of returns and communication with representative bodies and taxpayer groups. A review within six months of the policy taking effect on 6 April 2027 is not practical, not least because the data relating to inheritance tax in 2027-28 will not be fully available until the summer of 2030. That is the normal timescale, and it operates because tax liabilities data is available only with a long lag, partly because the filing of the relevant inheritance tax accounts is due 12 months after a death. For those reasons, new clause 18 should be rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper]

We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the doubling of remote gaming duty, and we are grateful to the Government, who have finally listened and taken that on board. This measure will raise vital revenue in a fair way, while addressing the eye-watering profits of the big online gambling companies and standing up for the thousands affected by problem gambling. According to the latest figures from the Gambling Commission, the online gambling giants saw revenues reach an eye-watering £7.8 billion in 2024-25. Meanwhile, Public Health England has estimated that gambling costs the UK economy about £1.4 billion a year through a combination of financial harms and the impact on physical and mental health, employment, education and crime. About 300,000 adults in Britain experience problem gambling, as well as roughly 40,000 children. Those figures are stark. This measure finally takes action that should have been taken a long time ago, and it will raise about £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30 to fund our public services fairly.

Buried in the fine print, however, is a detail that makes it seem as if the Government are giving the big online gambling firms a get-out, and I should be grateful to the Minister for some clarification. According to the “Budget 2025 Policy Costings” document,

“The tax base for this measure is the Gross Gambling Yield”,

which is the revenue retained by gambling operators after they have paid out winnings to customers. The tax base for remote gaming duty as defined in the Finance Act 2014 is a larger tax base. It is known as the gross gambling revenue, and includes the notional stake value of free bets and free plays. Can the Minister explain why today’s tax measure will apply to a narrower tax base than the one currently targeted by remote gaming duty? How much tax revenue has been forgone by this narrowing of the tax base? Was it unintended, or was it a result of influence from the sector? Did any of the big online gaming companies meet any Ministers and discuss these measures while they were being considered?

New clause 21, tabled in my name, seeks to clarify this situation by requiring the Chancellor, within six months of the passing of the Act, to undertake an assessment of the impact of the implementation of sections 83 and 84 in respect of the treatment of free bets and free plays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets, so we can clearly see the impact of this difference.

[Alex Ballinger]

I want to speak in support of clauses 83 and 84 on gambling taxation. I of course strongly welcome these steps on remote gaming duty, which cover online slots, online casino games and other high-risk remote gambling products.

Ahead of the Budget last year, I was one of more than 100 Labour MPs, alongside Gordon Brown, who wrote to the Chancellor calling for a different approach to gambling taxation and one that recognises the reality of the modern gaming industry. We highlighted how taxing the social ills caused by online gambling could pay for the abolition of the two-child benefit cap, and I strongly welcome the action the Chancellor has taken to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty on the back of these changes. For us, fairness was not just about asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more, but about ensuring those whose business models generate the most harm make a proper contribution to the cost of that harm. That is why clause 83 is so important, as it targets the most addictive and dangerous forms of gambling: online slots and casinos.

As a country, we are experiencing record levels of harm caused by gambling. The Gambling Commission’s figures tell us that 2.5% of adults, which is more than 1 million people, are suffering from serious gambling harm. There are many types of gambling harm—debt, family break-up, crime and, at the most severe end, suicide—so it is extremely worrying that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has seen a threefold increase in the number of those referred for gambling treatment since gambling moved online during the pandemic.

In my own area, the Dudley-based Gordon Moody charity, which provides gambling treatment centres all over the west midlands, has seen a large increase in referrals, most worryingly among younger people involved in online gambling. This is not a coincidence, because online slots and casinos are designed to be high speed, continuous, psychologically manipulative and, for many, overwhelmingly addictive. So the Chancellor’s decision to increase remote gaming duty targeted at these most harmful forms of gambling is absolutely the right thing to do. It sends a clear message that the tax system must reflect the level of harm caused.

There is another reason why this change—as well as clause 84, which increases general betting duty—is the right thing to do: many online gambling operators, particularly large global operators, have spent years offshoring their profits, booking revenues overseas, minimising their UK tax liabilities and contributing very little in meaningful employment or investment in our communities. In one example, at the end of last year the online operator Sky Bet moved its headquarters to Malta specifically to avoid UK corporation tax, cutting its contribution to the Treasury by tens of millions of pounds. In another example, an unnamed online bookmaker was investigated by the Gambling Commission for illegally directing customers to offshore-based platforms —indeed, to the black market itself—to avoid paying UK tax and to avoid UK regulations. Increasing these online duties means that it will be harder for unscrupulous operators to avoid tax by moving operations offshore. Online gambling in the UK will be taxed fairly in the UK.

Raising remote gambling duty to 40% and general betting duty to 25% for remote bets also puts us on a footing much closer to that of other European jurisdictions and many states in the United States. Until the Budget, the UK was behind the curve in taxing these highly harmful online products. For us, the Chancellor’s move is a matter not just of revenue, but of fairness, responsibility and aligning our tax system with the reality of modern online gambling.

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

I want to highlight another pressing issue for the Minister, which is the continued prevalence of the B3 gaming machines on physical premises. These high-intensity machines, so often located in areas with higher deprivation, continue to cause significant harm, yet they remain under-regulated and undertaxed relative to the risks they pose. If we are to take harm seriously, B3 machines should be included in the next phase of gambling tax reform.

Finally, the most recent gambling Act was introduced more than 20 years ago, in a completely different era: before the smartphone, before the explosion of data-driven behavioural targeting, and before 24/7 online casinos in your pocket. A new Act is clearly needed. Our laws have not kept pace with technology, they have not kept pace with the scale or sophistication of online gambling operators, and they have not kept pace with the reality of the harm we now see every day in communities across the country. I welcome the measures in the Bill, but I urge the Government to move quickly to update advertising rules, strengthen affordability checks, protect children and vulnerable people, and ensure that tax policy, regulation and public health strategy on gambling are all aligned.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member raises an important point. Before I commit to her that I will take that forward, I would like to check what discussions have already taken place. I hope she will accept that that is necessary from my point of view.

Both the proposed new clauses focus on the impacts of the changes to the gambling duty and ask for a commitment to update Parliament within six months of the Bill being passed. First, this Government did not announce, and are not proposing to make, any changes to the treatment of free plays or free bets through this Bill. Furthermore, the Bill does not make any changes to the duty charged on bets placed on horseracing in high street betting shops.

Secondly, on the illegal market, which has been raised a number of times, the Gambling Commission is already tackling that risk and is protecting consumers, but we recognise that modern technology makes it easier for illegal websites to target consumers. To strengthen enforcement and protect consumers from dangerous illegal sites, we are providing an additional £26 million to the Gambling Commission over the next three years. I hope I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central that the £100 million a year in the form of the statutory levy is ringfenced for prevention, treatment and research in this area.

The Government published a tax information and impact note for this measure at the Budget. As is set out in that note, consideration will be given to monitoring and evaluating the expected Exchequer impacts of the policy after at least two years of monitoring data has been collected and analysed. More broadly, the Government continually monitor the operation of all taxes and keep them under review to ensure that they deliver on their intended outcomes and, indeed, are fit for purpose. For those reasons, the proposed statement and the impact assessment are not necessary.

The measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation. They reflect how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as those changes continue. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised levels of employment. He will know that right across the piece, the OBR expects that employment levels will rise in every year of the forecast. Costings were also raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. The OBR has taken account of behavioural impacts within its costing. Of course, those costings have been certified and scrutinised in the usual way.

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

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that she has consulted and that Ministers have had engagement with the industry. I was specifically wondering whether in the course of that consultation with the industry, there was discussion about using a different measure and choosing a different tax base for the calculation of this particular tax, because it seems as though the tax base could have been bigger if they had used the measure already in the Finance Act, rather than this new measure that seems to shrink the tax base. Did the Treasury have a particular reason for using a different measure for calculating this remote gaming duty?

[Lucy Rigby]

It was not me who had those engagements, but as I said, I confirm to the hon. Member that we are not proposing to make any changes to the treatment of free plays and free bets through the Bill, which I hope reassures her in that regard.

I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 21 and 25 and agree that clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 84 and 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

New Clause 25

Statements on increasing remote gambling duty and introducing a new rate of General Betting 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 in gambling duties made under sections 83 to 84 of this Act.

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

(a) sports and horseracing,

(b) the number of high street betting shops,

(c) the gambling black market,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”—(James Wild.)

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

Clause 86 increases the rate of alcohol duty in line with RPI inflation. On paper, that measure might look like a normal, simple uprating policy, but it must be seen for what it really is: in the broader context, it is yet another tax on struggling hospitality businesses and financially stretched customers.

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

This is one of the sectors that make life worth living. We all remember the place where we fell in love, or had our first date. I remember the music venue where I found my favourite band. I remember the pub where I sat with my girlfriends and one told me that she was not going to survive her stage 4 cancer—and I remember the spa day that we had when she did. Hospitality is part of who we are as human beings. It is unique in what it contributes to our economy, and we must do everything to support it.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

If this debate had taken place before Christmas, I would have had to declare an interest, but my father has now sold his majority share in our local pub in our home town, which I think goes to the core of today’s debate: publicans are leaving the sector. My hon. Friend has been talking about the importance of hospitality. My father’s pub used to host bingo nights on Thursdays and bingo on Sunday afternoons, and on those occasions we would see people there who would never go at other times of the week. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sense of community that pubs build is crucial, and is under threat from this Labour Government?

[Daisy Cooper]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pubs are irreplaceable, and when a pub goes a community falls apart. Pubs are vital as part of the social fabric: they are the glue that holds our communities together, and we must protect them. We tabled new clause 9 because we want the Government to look at and

“report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures”

alongside all the other “wider fiscal changes”, including the higher national insurance contributions and the business rates changes. This really matters.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Back in November, the Chancellor promised to support the great British pub by introducing permanently lower tax rates in more than 750,000 retail and hospitality properties. In my constituency, the Half Moon will experience an 157% rise in business rates, the Inn at West End an 87% increase and the Frog in Deepcut an increase of 128%. Does my hon. Friend agree that this feels less like support and more like last orders?

[Daisy Cooper]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. One of the points that I have made repeatedly to other Ministers is that businesses heard the promise that there would be permanently lower business rates, and made decisions based on the fact that they had heard the word “lower”. The Government gave themselves powers to introduce a lower multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure—20p less—and it was understood by the hospitality industry that if they used those powers, that would effectively cancel out the loss of the RHL relief. Businesses made investment decisions. They made hiring decisions. They made all sorts of decisions based on what they thought was going to happen. But the Government have not used those powers that they gave themselves, using a multiplier of minus 5p rather than the maximum of minus 20p.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I recently met Richard, a publican in my constituency, and he told me the trade had never been so tough. He said:

“The truth of the matter is, for the first time I’m thinking I shouldn't have bothered taking the risk of going into business. I should have stayed with the big brewer, taken my salary and relied on my pension.”

He is right, isn’t he?

[Daisy Cooper]

I hope so very much that he is not, but I understand why he said that, and I hear the same from many hospitality owners and pub landlords on my own patch.

It is because we Liberal Democrats care so deeply for hospitality, and recognise the vital role that it plays in every community in the land, that we were campaigning ahead of the Budget for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality accommodation and attractions until April 2027 —a measure that would have brought growth into every corner of our country, saved jobs and our high streets, and given a real boost to consumer confidence. That is why, since the Budget, we have been fighting tirelessly against the Government’s devastating business rates hikes, and pressing Ministers to implement the full 20p discount for which they legislated last year.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member rightly points to the cumulative effect, but I am interested to see that her new clause 9 does not mention the Employment Rights Bill or the impact of the national living wage increase. Is it by design that the Liberal Democrats have not put those in, because they do not agree that they will have an impact on hospitality, or was it an oversight, and they are other cumulative effects that need to be considered when holding the Government to account?

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful for that question, but if the hon. Member reads the explanatory statement closely, he will see that it says “alongside wider fiscal changes”. The Government could of course widen that to other legislative changes, if they chose to do so. However, on that basis, I hope the hon. Member and his colleague will be supporting the new clause when we push it to a vote later.

[Dr Arthur]

As an important point of clarity on the living wage, which of our constituents on low pay does the hon. Member think do not deserve that uplift in living wage? Is she saying they do not deserve it?

[Daisy Cooper]

Absolutely not. During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we Liberal Democrats said repeatedly on the record in both Houses that we supported a higher minimum wage. The problem we are hearing from businesses, particularly small businesses, is that they are getting lots of changes from the Government all at once. It is business rates changes, higher contributions, wages, the new regulation and now alcohol duty as well. It is the cumulative impact of all of the employment changes and the fiscal changes that means business owners and pub landlords just cannot cope.

This is about the cumulative impact. We have made very clear which measures we support and which ones we do not, but the cumulative impact is felt by small businesses. That is why, during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we tabled a number of amendments asking the Government to report on the impact on small businesses in particular. I hope that has clarified the matter for the hon. Member.

[Dr Arthur]

A wide range of concerns has been developed, and I get the point that these are costing the hospitality sector money—I absolutely get that—but all that the Lib Dems are promising is a review. What I do not hear is what they would do to resolve this and how much it would cost, apart from the broad assertion that they would cut VAT in some undefined way. What is this going to cost, and where is the money coming from?

[Daisy Cooper]

I have explained all those measures in this Chamber before, but I am happy to spell them out again, including the remarks I made a few minutes ago.

The very first thing we called for was for the Government to use the powers they gave themselves in the Budget last year. I would love to know the costings for that measure, and I have tabled written parliamentary questions to ask the Government to give me those numbers. If the Government will not answer written questions, how on earth are opposition parties supposed to come up with modern proposals? We have tabled written questions time and again, but we have not received any answers.

On the VAT point, we have costed it. We said it would cost £7 billion over 17 months, and we would fund it with a windfall tax on the big banks, which is a proposal backed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and independent economists. So we have answered all of these points and explained where the money would come from. The suggestions are fully costed and fully funded. We have made those points in this Chamber on several occasions, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see if he has a look at Hansard. My point is that, if we are going to put questions to the Government asking them for data so we can make informed policy suggestions, I very much hope that they start to answer them.

On that matter, it has been reported in various newspapers, on the BBC and in other places that the Chancellor and Ministers did not understand—those sources have quoted the Chancellor and Ministers as saying they did not understand—the impact that revaluation would have on business rates bills, especially for pubs. I find that impossible to believe, and I cannot understand how that can be the case. We know for a fact that, at the very least, the Valuation Office Agency gave the aggregate data to the Treasury. We know that because it says it in black and white—or in black and slightly red—on page 81 of the Red Book. It says that the VOA gave that data to the Treasury.

I tabled a number of written questions asking the Government whether they had received that information broken down by sector, and I did not receive any answers. I wrote a letter to the Leader of the House and I made a point of order, but again, that information was not forthcoming. Then we had a bombshell revelation today when the VOA, in giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, confirmed upon questioning that it had given data drops on the sectoral impact starting a year ago. It also confirmed to the Treasury Committee today that 5,100 pubs have seen their rateable values at least double. It therefore seems, if the VOA did provide that information to the Treasury, that the Treasury should have had that information. It is not clear to me why I did not receive data-rich answers to my written questions asking for that breakdown by sector. It is also not clear to me how the Chancellor and Ministers can say that they did not know or did not understand the impact that the revaluation would have on bills if they had had that data over the course of the past year.

I urge Ministers when they come to the House, as they are indicating they will, to provide some kind of a U-turn—we do not know what that looks like—to bring some clarity to all those questions. In the meantime, I hope the Government do support new clause 9, because we need to see the cumulative impact not just of alcohol duty changes, but their impact alongside national insurance and business rates.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Lady is giving a very good speech. I hope, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, she will say just a tiny bit more about rural pubs. I think a lot of urban Members do not understand the context. Where I live here in Westminster, it takes me one minute to walk to my local—one minute. Where I live in the Lincolnshire Wolds, it takes me one hour to walk to the pub—one hour. Everybody who accesses pubs in rural England has to go there by car. We do not ride horses any more, and it is too dangerous to walk on the road or take a bicycle. The Government have to understand that the rural pub is in real danger from the alcohol limits and other measures.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Member for making that point. I am the MP for St Albans, which is a small city, but I am a Suffolk girl born and bred. I know how valuable rural pubs are. They provide all sorts of services: they look after older people and single people; they are a fantastic community hub; and they provide employment for young people—one of my first jobs, aside from apple picking, was working in a pub—so I understand the vital importance of pubs in every single village, town, parish and hamlet up and down the United Kingdom. I am grateful to him for making that point.

In closing, I hope that when the Government respond this evening they provide answers to some of these questions. What did Ministers know and when? If the VOA sent that sector information on valuations, when was it sent? When did it send the information on pubs, specifically? If the VOA did tell Ministers that rateable values had at least doubled for more than 5,000 pubs, how is it possible that Ministers did not know? Why have we still not had a statement from the Government on what they are trying to do? Will their announcement extend to the rest of the hospitality industry, or just to pubs? Will the Government now use the full powers that they gave themselves? I cannot cost this, because I have not been given the numbers despite repeated attempts to get them. Will the Government consider a VAT cut?

Finally, the only rumour we have heard about what the Government may be considering are the changes to licensing laws, so let me close with this point: if your pub is empty, you do not want to keep it open for longer, paying more money to keep the lights on, the radiators heated and the staff behind the bar. That is not an answer to this problem.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

As the MP representing the home of British brewing, Burton-upon-Trent, it will come as no surprise that I will speak to clause 86, and focus my contribution on pubs and hospitality. For me, this not just political; it is personal. As a Burtonian, I grew up with the smell of hops permeating the air and Burton’s famous water flowing from the taps. My very first job was in a pub. This industry is who we are.

Pubs are woven into the very fabric of our country. They are the heart of our high streets and villages, and are among our last shared spaces. When we talk about growth, and supporting wellbeing and employment, pubs and hospitality sit at the heart of that conversation. Yet this is an industry that has faced years of challenge. Navigating the pandemic, absorbing high energy costs and managing rising prices have left many venues operating on very low margins, if any at all.

That is why the decisions we make in this clause matter so much. We must look carefully at the overall effect of alcohol duty and how it interacts with consumer behaviour. There is a case for strengthening differential rates of duty between supermarkets and pubs, known as draught relief. Drinking in a pub is not the same as drinking at home. Pubs are supervised, regulated spaces. Landlords ensure responsible drinking, with pubs providing social connection and supporting mental health in our communities. Pubs give character to our high streets and town centres, yet the tax system makes it cheaper to buy alcohol in bulk from a supermarket than to go down the local pub. If we are serious about encouraging people back into our town centres, into these shared protected spaces, alcohol duty must work in favour of pubs.

I encourage Treasury Front Benchers to read the letter from those of us on the all-party parliamentary beer group, which calls for the multiplier to be increased from around 13% to 20%. Our proposal is supported by the Campaign for Real Ale, the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates and the British Institute of Innkeeping. This is not about encouraging more drinking; it is about encouraging better drinking in places that strengthen our local communities and our local economies.

I recognise that the Government have put in place the permanently lower multiplier on business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, but any wins in this space have been wiped out in many cases by the new rateable values published by the VOA. In my constituency, the rateable value of the Devonshire Arms—the Devvie, my favourite pub—is set to increase by over 60%. Down the road at the Roebuck, the rise is more than 70%. At this rate, I am not going to have much of a pub crawl.

We must stay true to the manifesto commitment we made to level the playing field between online retailers and the high street. An average 76% increase for pubs compared with just 14% for online retailers means that we must think again on this policy. It is no good having transitional relief in place when the bill at the end of the three years is simply unaffordable.

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

The Government are right to listen to Labour Members who have been raising the voices of pubs, brewers, restaurants and small business owners. I want to thank those publicans, business owners and representative bodies that have engaged positively with me; it is only through working together constructively that we can bring about change.

Businesses that I speak to want to invest and grow, but they need the space and certainty to do so. I really welcome the recent hospitality investment that my constituency has seen—from Lowe’s on Carter Street to Nathan Dawe’s expansion of Isabel’s and Bespoke Inns’ redevelopment of the Hart and taking on of Tutbury Castle. Such businesses need to be supported by Government so that we can meet their ambitions. We must create more well-paid jobs and revive our high streets and town centres.

That means a fair approach to alcohol duty under clause 86, a recognition of the difference between pubs and supermarkets, and targeted support on business rates while deeper changes are delivered. If we get this right, the reward is clear: thriving pubs, stronger high streets, more resilient local economies, and communities that are not just better off but happier and more connected. That is why pubs and hospitality must continue to be listened to, supported and championed in this House and by this Labour Government. I shall continue to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

New clauses 8, 9 and 26 would require the Government to publish reports on the impacts of alcohol duty. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), invited me to refer to our tax information and impact note, and I will take him up on that invitation. As is usual practice, our note was published at the Budget. It outlined the anticipated impacts of this measure for alcohol producers and the hospitality sector. Because this uprating maintains the current real-terms value of the duty, the Government do not expect it to have significant macroeconomic impacts, including to the employment rate or hospitality businesses’ costs, where a duty on drinks will have comparable relative bearing as now.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make some progress.

On the impacts on the public finances, HMRC publishes data on alcohol duty receipts quarterly. That data is reviewed alongside other evidence by the OBR when it produces its forecasts of alcohol duty receipts, as it did most recently alongside the November Budget. The Government’s view, as is evident from OBR-certified policy costings in recent years, remains that freezing or cutting alcohol duty rates reduces duty receipts.

The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens raised the importance of producers of Scottish whisky, and I agree with him about that. This Government are supporting key Scottish industries, including whisky, such as through our free trade agreement with India, which will boost exports of whisky and add £190 million a year to the Scottish economy.