Inheritance Tax

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is good to see the shadow Chancellor open this debate, because after his conference speech I too was not sure whether he would be trusted to close it. The shadow Chancellor was not the only Conservative Front Bencher to deliver an interesting conference speech, as the Leader of the Opposition simultaneously told us that every spending commitment would be matched by a source of funding, but then proceeded to announce a string of unfunded pledges—[Interruption.] Oh we got the numbers. It is clear that “Keminomics”—[Interruption.] I think the official Opposition are slightly rattled, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now clear that “Keminomics” is simply Trussonomics 2.0, and if Conservative Members get anywhere near the levers of power again, or if they choose to hand the keys to No. 10 to Reform UK, they will once again propel this country towards another crash in the public finances.

Let me turn to the substance of the motion. We Liberal Democrats agree that the inheritance tax system is not fair. Ordinary families can face an inheritance tax rate of 40%, while those inheriting estates worth tens of billions of pounds are often able to avoid paying their fair share through complex tax planning and accounting arrangements.

[Noah Law]

There are issues with the current administration of the tax, but those are more to do with the fact that many of the wealthiest are avoiding it. Does the hon. Lady agree that businesses are genuinely in a better place to receive tax planning advice, so while there are a lot of retorts about the difficulties of selling plant and machinery, for example, businesses are better placed than households to take on that tax planning?

[Daisy Cooper]

Households and businesses feel absolutely hammered by the tax burden at the moment. On the subject of this particular motion, I hope we can agree that there is a problem because the wealthiest people can avoid inheritance tax through various loopholes.

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Lady really believe that the top 4% of households are being “hammered” by inheritance tax right now? I do not believe that is the case.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman’s first question was broader and was asking about the capacity of businesses generally to pay for advance tax planning. Hopefully we can all agree that the tax code in this country is so complicated that unfortunately people must seek expert tax advice. Our tax system could be much simpler. The point that I was trying to make is that there are problems and loopholes with this particular tax. We have one of the highest headline rates of inheritance tax in the OECD, yet only 4% of estates end up paying it. The burden often falls on those who cannot take advantage of the loopholes and exemptions that are available to those with access to expensive tax advice.

We would reform inheritance tax to make it fairer, but let us be clear: a mini-Budget style approach to tax cuts is not the way to do it. There is a better alternative. If we want to help people who are being squeezed by the cost of living, the fairest and most effective approach is to cut income tax. We Liberal Democrats have done that before; when in power, we would do that again. In Government, we cut tax for millions of people, taking 3.4 million people out of income tax altogether. Today, we Liberal Democrats are committed to raising both the income tax personal allowance and the national insurance threshold to £15,000 over five years—[Interruption.] Conservative Members ask where we are going to find money for that—I will tell them.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent case for her leadership campaign. If the Liberal Democrats got into government and put these policies forward, does she believe that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would be there to do it?

[Daisy Cooper]

Yes. Of all political parties represented in this Chamber, the official Opposition will know that the leader of the Liberal Democrats was an excellent climate Minister in the coalition Government. Our party leader is an economist and would never, ever have done what the hon. Gentleman’s party did with the mini-Budget.

Our Liberal Democrat policy would take a further 2.5 million people out of paying income tax altogether. While the Conservatives’ proposal would benefit only around 30,000 people, funded through a mini-Budget style approach to tax cuts, our plans would deliver tax cuts to more than 30 million people across the country. Crucially, we would pay for that responsibly through the growth dividend generated by a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union.

[Dr Murrison]

What would the hon. Lady say to her constituents about this subject? I have been looking on Rightmove at houses prices in St Albans, where a very nice but semi-detached house in Carlisle Avenue is on the market for £1.4 million. She has just dissed those people by saying they will not be a priority for tax cuts at the next general election. Can she advise how they should vote?

[Daisy Cooper]

I know exactly where Carlisle Avenue is. Based on the demographic of that ward, I might go and knock on that door and ask if their mortgage went up after the Liz Truss mini-Budget.

We Liberal Democrats are clear: rebuilding our relationship with Europe is the single biggest lever available to increase economic growth, to boost living standards and to cut personal tax. For as long as the Conservative party refuses to acknowledge that, it will remain an anti-growth, anti-business party. We Liberal Democrats know that economic growth is not an end in itself. As we grow the economy, it is incumbent on all parties to ensure that the benefits of that growth are shared widely across the country.

[Paul Holmes]

In the hon. Lady’s view, what would be the greatest thing to increase growth and business growth in this country? Would it be rejoining the European Union, or would it be halving national insurance contributions by businesses for people aged 18 to 24?

[Daisy Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Member that, based on the statistics, the thing that would bring the biggest amount of growth would be having a closer relationship with Europe. He will know that we Liberal Democrats opposed the rise in national insurance contributions, and we have said that we would like to see the reversal of the lower threshold as an immediate move to give businesses back the incentive to give young people jobs, given the crisis of young people not in education, employment or training. That is why our plans link the additional growth generated by a stronger partnership with Europe directly to tax cuts for working people. That is the fair way to help families facing the cost of living crisis, the responsible way to cut taxes and the honest way to pay for tax cuts, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded promises.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Where is the fairness in rightly reducing an earning couple’s tax bill over time so that they can accrue capital and buy a house, only for it to be taxed when they want to leave it to their children?

[Daisy Cooper]

I think we all accept that there are many unfairnesses in our tax system and that there are many tax reforms we want to see for growth. I have acknowledged in my speech that there are unfairnesses in the way that inheritance tax works, but scrapping taxes in an unfunded way is not the way to reform tax in this country, and it is certainly not the way to run the economy. Rather than offering another round of economic fantasy, we Liberal Democrats have a credible growth plan that would make the United Kingdom safer, stronger and more prosperous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with me that there are few instincts more human than wanting to leave something behind for your children: a home you have paid for, for over 30 years, perhaps; a farm your grandfather worked before you; or maybe a business you built from nothing. I know that Members on the Conservative Benches know all about all three. On this side of the House, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. On the Labour side of the House, as we have heard over the past few years and today, they simply cannot resist their natural instincts to penalise aspirational homeowners, farmers and business owners.

Let us remember that inheritance tax was once something that only the very wealthiest had to think about. But not anymore. The nil-rate band has been £325,000 since 2009, and this Government have frozen it all the way up to 2031. Over the same period, we know that house prices have soared right across the country. The result is that receipts have hit a record £8.2 billion and the Office for Budget Responsibility expects them to reach almost £14 billion by the end of the decade. Analysis by Tax Policy Associates suggests that by next year around one in five pensioner households will face a bill if they die. That was not in contemplation when inheritance tax was first envisaged.

From April next year, because the party opposite cannot get enough of hoovering up people’s wealth, unspent pensions will also be dragged into the liability. That is not a tax on the super-rich; it is a tax on hard-working constituents right across the country, including those in three-bedroom semi-detached houses where they have raised their children and, as we have heard today, including families in Carlisle Avenue in St Albans, no less.

[Daisy Cooper]

It is fascinating that the Conservatives are so obsessed with Carlisle Avenue. I have just looked up Carlisle Avenue’s local election results from last May: one half of the street is in Bernards Heath ward, where the Conservatives came fourth, and the other end of the street is in another ward, where the Conservatives came fifth. Does the hon. Gentleman think there are structural issues with his party that mean that people living on Carlisle Avenue have no interest in its policies?

[Blake Stephenson]

I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s research between the intervention earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and her making that point now. I might add that constituents on that street may have been duped by some Lib Dem bar graphs.

Mid Bedfordshire is a rural constituency with many farming families, as is the case right across the country. They were told in October 2024 that the Government were coming for the land that they have worked for generations. Thanks to their hard work, campaigning and pressure from the Opposition, the Government retreated last December and raised the threshold to £2.5 million. Those farming families are grateful for that, but it does not go far enough.

Despite debate after debate in this House, the Government still do not seem to understand that a farmer earning a small yield from land worth millions on paper only, cannot cover the inheritance tax liability unless they sell the land. If the Government would prefer farmers to sell their land rather than farming it, they should just say so. If not, they should acknowledge that the incentives their family farm tax creates are simply wrong. Under their plans, a 20% charge still applies on land that often yields only 1% or 2% a year, but that is vital for them to help feed the nation.

The rules have changed twice in 14 months. A farm or business succession cannot be planned over a generation when the tax rules change every Budget. The same is true of a family business. The engineering firm, the builder’s merchant, the garden centre—up and down the country, great family businesses cannot plan their succession when they do not have certainty in the rules.

--- Later in debate ---

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

There is a principle at the heart of the motion and it is a simple one: what a person earns through a lifetime of work belongs to them and not the Treasury, and that when the time comes, they have the right to pass on what they have earned to the people they love. It is neither a loophole nor a privilege. It is the oldest instinct there is: for people to work, to save and to leave their children better off than they were. That stands in stark contrast with the Government’s approach. The question that we have put before the House is not complicated: should Governments spend less so that families can keep more? The Conservatives’ answer to that question is yes.

In the Mandelson files published this summer, we saw that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to Peter Mandelson:

“Every meeting I have is, ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.”

He was right to be exasperated. Some 7 million people—more than 10% of our population—now claim at least one benefit. We will spend over £100 billion on health and disability benefits just this year. A full-time worker on the national living wage takes home £22,500 a year. Someone out of work on credit, with the average housing support and personal independence payment, receives £25,000 a year. We now pay more not to work than to work. However, if somebody has worked and then dies, her unspent pension will now be taxed because of this Government, and the house that she spent her life paying for will be taxed. It beggars belief that Labour MPs looked at those figures, recognised how they are strangling our country, and concluded that they would rebel against the modest reforms proposed by the last Prime Minister. Indeed, the Labour party would rather remove a sitting Prime Minister than attempt to create a fairer system.

I ask Members to imagine that they are farmers in the communities that I serve. You are up at the crack of dawn and working until very, very late. It is relentless every day. Your profit margins are the lowest of almost any industry, but you persevere, because you value your land and your family’s connection to it, and you take pride in feeding our country. But Labour hits you with increased road taxes on double-cab pick-up trucks, increased employer NICs and minimum wage, taxes on fertilisers, the cruel family farm tax, and now a levy on the land itself when it passes from parent to child.

Lincolnshire and Rutland are the breadbasket and agricultural heartland of Britain. We are proud of what we do to feed this country, so it is offensive when the Nature Minister says that traditional rural Britain—the pubs, ale and loyal dogs that we adore—is a far-right fantasy that never really existed. I invite her and any Labour MP to come and visit Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages, because we are not a fantasy; we are communities who deserve respect—although if I came from her constituency, I would also consider it a fantasy to see the type of idyllic life that we lead in our villages. We will never apologise for valuing the traditions and way of life that make our rural communities so special.

The Nature Minister was wrong when she claimed that rural pubs “never really existed”. She would, however, have been correct if she said that she and her Government are doing their best to wipe them out of existence. Under Labour’s plans, the Bertie Arms in Uffington faces a 2,000% increase in business rates by 2029. The hard-working landlady has dismissed the minor relief that came as tokenistic and says that it will make no difference because of Labour’s other tax hikes.

[Daisy Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The business rates increases under this Government are very damaging, but she will remember that the previous Government also pledged to fundamentally reform business rates and completely failed to do so. Does she understand why businesses across the country are fed up with both the Conservatives and Labour on this point?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am grateful to have the chance to state our record. We cut employee national insurance twice, taking 9 million workers out of it. We raised the national insurance threshold. We abolished the lifetime allowance. We cut fuel duty. We had business rates relief for hospitality and pubs. We did all those things to support our pubs and businesses.

The Prime Minister told the voters of Makerfield that the family farm tax “needs looking at again”, so I wonder whether Members in this Chamber who have given it their full-throated support this week will regret their words in a few weeks’ time. Let us see. Since he took office, Members on his Front Bench have excitedly chattered about reindustrialisation, as if the word on its own builds a factory; it does not, and neither does taxing a business at the moment that it passes to the next generation. From April, the family firms in my communities, such as Rutland Plastics, Coles Plant Centre, Arnold Wills, CS Ellis and Rutland Garden Village, and independent family shops on my high street, like Harrison & Dunn and Walkers Bookshops, will all face the same death tax as our wonderful farmers, like Percy Gilman.

Business property relief existed for a reason—so that a company need never be broken up to pay the Treasury. Those same businesses are not just economic powerhouses in communities like mine, but social powerhouses, as Philippa Wills said to me this morning. They are rooted in our communities and make decisions for the longer term, because they care about what happens to our people, communities and towns. The Government do not care about that; they have broken the social contract between businesses and our young people and those in part-time work, because they have made it so much harder to hire them. Who loses out the most, apart from young people? Women, because it is women who rely on part-time employment when raising their children who are now unable to pick up additional work. That is the true cost of this tax: not the £15 billion a year that the Government forecast it will raise by 2030, but the businesses never started, the capital that leaves, and the women and young people left without jobs.

Tax cuts must be paid for, which is why we have put spending cuts first, but let us be clear. If we tax a family firm at death, the founder sells early, moves abroad or never builds at all. If we tax a farm, the fields go to a solar developer, or they are built on and we become reliant on foreign imports. If we tax the people who work and pay the people who do not, we should not be surprised when fewer people work. We want people to work—we want them to be able to celebrate and benefit from a lifetime of toil and hard work. That is human nature, and nothing to be ashamed of.

We have a Government who are asking who they can tax, and an Opposition asking how much more people can keep. Labour’s assault on farms and businesses, its insistence that rural life does not exist, and its addiction to spending will destroy this country. We want people to succeed, and we hold our rural way of life close to our hearts. That is why everyone must support this motion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman get on the Clapham omnibus, because it is a great opportunity to have his finger on the pulse of the British public. I think most will say that they want a fair system so that when they have worked, strived and built up a legacy for the next generation, they have something to hand down, because that is the most loving thing that people can do. I have not built up a family business or run a family farm, and I cannot imagine the stresses and strains that that involves, but these individuals understandably want to hand their businesses down to the next generation. We need them to do so, because if we do not have the farmers of tomorrow and the generation after that, we will not have on our tables the food that we enjoy today and that we hope our children will enjoy in years to come.

[Daisy Cooper]

Was the hon. Gentleman sticking up for farmers when his party negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which undermined farmers in the UK?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I fundamentally do not agree with the hon. Lady’s point, and I suspect that farmers in this country will be wondering why her party has not stood up for farmers over fertilisers today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I welcome the Chancellor to his place. After two anti-growth Budgets, I genuinely wish him well and urge him to deliver a growth Budget this autumn, so that we can avoid more punishing tax rises or painful spending cuts.

Last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged that Brexit had ushered in a “decade of low growth” but did not outline what he thinks is needed to tackle it. On Monday, the Chancellor made what was briefed as a major economic speech on growth, the product of deep thinking, and yet there was barely a mention of the impact of Brexit. Recent studies suggest that deeper alignment with Europe could boost GDP by at least 2.5% to 3.6%, so should the Chancellor’s plan for growth not include the growth and defence partnership with the EU that we have called for?

[John Healey]

The hon. Lady is talking to the person who led the work to establish a defence and security partnership with the European Union and bilateral agreements with other countries, on which we now build both our economic strength and our national security strength.

On the question of the Budget, I ask the hon. Lady to look at what we have done in the seven weeks of this Government. We know that we cannot relieve the cost of living and the cost of business pressures, but we will take steps where we can to do that. I will take that principle into the Budget, and we will back business and do what we can to see growth in more places across the country, because for too long this country has relied on too few of our major cities to drive national growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

As the Member of Parliament for the constituency with more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, I have been campaigning to reform the broken business rates system for longer than I have been an MP. My understanding is that the Government’s review will look at the fair maintainable trade criterion, which sees pubs singled out to be valued on the basis of what they could earn rather than what they actually earn; but, as pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), the review falls far short of the Labour party manifesto, which pledged to overhaul the entire business rates system. May I ask Ministers whether that pledge still stands? If so, will they overhaul the business rates system before the next general election?

[James Murray]

I wonder whether any other Members might say that they have the most pubs in their constituency, or whether the hon. Lady has done her research. [Interruption.] I hear her saying that hers are the best pubs, a claim that even more Members may challenge in the Chamber.

Although the hon. Lady and I have some differences, I think that we share a desire to see a fairer business rates system. I know that the 20% cut for pubs and community venues was widely welcomed, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that we want to go on looking at what we can do to support our hospitality venues, pubs and other high street uses. This is not a question of taking one policy announcement from July and thinking that that is the end of the story, because we know how important high streets are to communities across the country, and we want to see them thrive.

Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 to 3. New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to publish a report on the use of additional receipts arising from the increase in the electricity generator levy from 45% to 55%. New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to review the adequacy of the approved mileage allowance payment rate set under clause 2 in respect of care workers using a personal vehicle in connection with their employment. New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the combined impact on haulage costs and consumer prices of the temporary vehicle excise duty rates for goods vehicles.

As I indicated on Second Reading, we support what the Government are trying to do with these measures. However, it is really important for trust in politics that when Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the intention is to use the levy to supporting households and businesses with the cost of living, there is a report to demonstrate to the public that the money does, in fact, go towards measures that do just that, rather than the money disappearing into Treasury coffers. I urge the Exchequer Secretary to accept new clause 1, which would provide transparency to Parliament and the public.

Let me turn to new clause 2. Some Members will know that I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the extraordinary work carried out by our care workers. The salary of our care workers, and the status they are given, is nowhere near big enough to recognise the extraordinary work that they do. I have spent several hours with Abbots Care in my constituency, watching how their care workers work. They have an enormous emotional investment in every single client; they observe their habits and personality, and they know when something is slightly out of whack or not quite right. A care worker’s routine can suddenly change if there an emergency with another client. There may be something wrong with the client’s medication and they have to make phone calls that they had not expected to make. They are experts on their client and on people, but they are not experts on tax.

I was very heartened that the Exchequer Secretary said on Second Reading that employees who do not receive the mileage allowance can claim back an equivalent amount. I was also heartened to hear him say that he would look into ways to make it easier for care workers. Could he outline what those measures might look like? We owe care workers so much thanks for the work that they do. It is diligent, hard work to make sure that our loved ones are cared for and can live with dignity. We should make the system as simple as possible for them. It might be a case of care organisations and providers sending letters to care workers to tell them what they are entitled to, or it might be a case of requiring HMRC to proactively write to them, but we must bend over backwards to make sure that care workers can benefit from this particular measure.

As I said on Second Reading, we welcome the measure, but we urge Ministers to think very carefully and to go as far as they can to make sure that every care worker who is entitled to this benefit understands that it is there for them. It must be made as simple as possible for care workers, and we must make it clear that it will not end up in a drawn-out dispute with HMRC; I urge the Exchequer Secretary to think about a dedicated hotline for care workers, in case we need one down the line. Finally, new clause 3 requires a report on this particular measure.

Our three new clauses are all transparency measures, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on them.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for their scrutiny and attention to the measures contained in this short Bill. I am proud that, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary said, we removed three taxes, and I am glad to say that, on a temporary basis at least, one tax is being put down to £1 as a result of the legislative changes that the House is about to vote on. It is a privilege to close this brief debate on behalf of the Government.

Let me turn to each amendment. New clause 2 would require a report to the House of Commons on the approved mileage allowance payments system, including the adequacy of the rate for care workers. The hon. Member for St Albans spoke powerfully about the work done by care workers in her constituency, who she has the honour of representing. I think that all Members will know—from personal experience of family members who have either worked in the sector or been cared for by those who work in the sector—just how valuable care workers’ time, effort and care is.

I am glad that the hon. Lady is now aware that care workers can claim back the tax. They cannot claim back the whole amount—it is not fully equivalent—but they can claim back the tax relief, as it were, on the amount. I want to look at whether we can make that process simpler and easier to use. As the Department does so, I would be happy to provide further updates—if not at the Budget, then beforehand. We have said that the Government’s review of the rates is not over. We came forward with the 10p increase, and we are continuing the review and will update the House further at the Budget. I therefore urge Members to reject this new clause.

New clause 3 would require a report to the House on the impact of haulage costs and consumer prices, including the operating costs for and overall tax burden on goods vehicle operators. As I am sure the shadow Exchequer Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will know, the Government have already published a tax impact and information note setting out the expected impact of the measure. The costing for it will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility and set out at a future fiscal event. It is therefore the Government’s view that the new clause is unnecessary.

New clause 4 would require the Treasury to review the impact of the EGL rate rise, including on investment, electricity prices and energy security, and to report to Parliament by 31 March 2028. The EGL was carefully designed to avoid disincentivising renewable generation, which means that since its introduction in 2023 it has had no adverse effect on energy security or new investment; in fact, we are having record levels of new investment in renewables under this Government. It is worth noting that new investments made since 2023 are exempt from the EGL and will continue to be so.

The Government have published a tax information and impact note on this measure, too, which sets out clearly that the Government’s view is that this rate rise is not expected to have an impact on electricity prices or investment in renewable generation going forward. The note also explains the rationale for the new EGL, which we have discussed. I will be consistent in reminding the Committee that, of course, the Government keep all taxes under review and monitor and evaluate tax policy changes on an ongoing basis, and that, unless responding to international conflict, in order to be there for households and businesses, tax policy decisions are usually best made by Chancellors at the Budget in the usual way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

We Liberal Democrats support the Bill and the three measures in it. We tabled our three new clauses in Committee, and I was grateful that the Minister gave assurances from the Dispatch Box that he would look at every single opportunity to ensure that care workers are aware of the ways in which they can benefit from these measures. We are happy to see the Bill fast-tracked, but I believe the Minister said that he would look for opportunities to come back and report to this House—if not at the Budget, perhaps before—on how that is going. I am glad that is on the record. I hope that care agencies see that on the record and act on it to inform their staff, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that. I will try to hold his feet to the fire so that we do everything we can to ensure that care workers are aware that they will benefit from this measure.

Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats support all three measures in the Bill. We recognise that the electricity generator levy is intended to encourage legacy renewable generators to move away from volatile wholesale electricity prices and on to contracts for difference.

As the only party to put in its manifesto a commitment to decoupling gas and electricity, the Liberal Democrats support the Government’s objective. If it succeeds, consumers will benefit from greater protection against future gas price shocks and the volatility that we have seen in recent years. However, if the measure does not achieve that behavioural change, and instead primarily generates additional revenue, I believe that Parliament and the public deserve clarity on how that money will be used. As the Bill progresses through the House, I hope Ministers will say how they intend to report to Parliament the amount of money the levy raises, and how they intend to spend it.

We have consistently argued for an emergency transport package to help Britain keep moving, emergency home insulation schemes, and low-interest loans to support households to adopt energy security measures—something I proposed last autumn that the Government are now consulting on. There are many ways in which the Government could be helping households and businesses with the rising cost of living.

The change to income tax mileage allowance payments is another measure that Liberal Democrats are pleased to support. However, Ministers will be aware that there are many carers who drive their own cars, often hundreds of miles a week, who do not benefit from mileage allowances. Again, I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House, Ministers will say what measures will be taken to ensure that all of our valued and professional care workers can benefit.

The 12-month vehicle excise duty holiday for HGVs is a sensible measure and one that we welcome, but we must also recognise the unprecedented pressures facing the haulage sector. As international instability continues, and global energy markets remain uncertain, we urge Ministers to remain vigilant and responsive to the impact that those pressures are having on households and businesses, as well as industry and haulage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It was recently reported that the newly elected hon. Member for Makerfield had pledged that he would cut business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues by 20% if he became Prime Minister. Given that the hon. Member is facing the near certainty of becoming Prime Minister, I ask those on the Front Bench whether the Treasury has started modelling the numbers to deliver on that pledge, and if not, when that work will begin.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I have to correct the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—I do not think that this hon. Member has a near certainty of becoming Prime Minister any time soon. [Laughter.] It is good that my newly elected right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has taken inspiration from the decision that we made in January to cut business rates for pubs, bars and live music venues by 15% so that we can back the great British pub and other hospitality venues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Today is exactly 10 years since the country voted to leave the EU, and thanks to the Conservatives, the post-Brexit red tape has created 2 billion pieces of extra paperwork for British businesses—enough to stretch around the world 20 times. The hit to growth is the equivalent of the Treasury losing out on £90 billion every single year. Surely by now the Labour Government and the Labour party must recognise that if they want to go for growth and raise revenue, they should drop their red lines on Europe.

[Rachel Reeves]

With all respect, the Liberal Democrats backed that referendum 10 years ago, and they were part of the Government who legislated for it. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party actually sticks to its manifesto commitments.

Middle East: Economic Response

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I feel as though we are slightly through the looking glass. For six months, we Liberal Democrats have been calling for an emergency temporary VAT cut for hospitality, leisure and attractions, and our pledge was fully funded. For weeks, we have been calling for an emergency transport package, fully funded using the additional revenue from higher VAT rates and the EPL. All that time, we were told repeatedly that it was impossible to do those things and there was no additional money. Somehow, with the prospect of a by-election in Makerfield and the Prime Minister’s political life being on the line, the money has been found.

Let me ask the Chancellor two questions. First, I genuinely welcome the Government’s focus on the cost of food, which is of huge concern to the constituents of Members of all political parties. However, is there any risk that short-term gain might result in long-term pain? In looking at the tariffs, has the Chancellor had any conversations with the food manufacturing industry about whether it can remain competitive? Does removing the tariffs inadvertently risk undermining our food manufacturing sector? If there is a risk, will she look at our plans for a good food Bill and for promoting nature-friendly farming? I ask that question in the spirit of constructive opposition.

Secondly, the Chancellor and her Ministers will know that we are due to have a very hot summer. That means huge demand for outdoor attractions, because children will want to be outside in the hot weather. Indoor attractions, such as soft play centres, will not benefit so much, because there will not be much demand for them in the summer months, but there will be in the winter months. Will the Chancellor look carefully at the differences within the sector? Children are priced out of play when they need to go indoors in the winter months, but not so much in the summer months.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I am not sure whether she welcomes the changes around the foreign branch exemption, which is what will pay for the policies announced today by ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax in the UK. Unless we can say where the money will come from, all that results is higher inflation and interest rates in the future. That is why I have always been clear that everything I will announce will be fully costed and fully funded.

On food, the hon. Lady cannot both say that she welcomes help with the cost of living, and then be a bit uncertain about tariff reductions. We have focused the tariff reductions on food products and agrifoods that we do not produce in significant quantities in the UK. We work very closely with the Department for Business and Trade in identifying those sectors.

On indoor and outdoor summer activities, I have had enough family holidays in the UK to know that there are plenty of days when it rains. I am sure that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), will be visiting a soft play centre soon.

Costs for Motorists

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Like so many Labour Government announcements, the announcement to extend fuel duty relief later this year is too little, too late. When we look around the world, we see other countries acting now. Other countries are cutting fuel duty now. Other countries are cutting public transport costs now. That is why we Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to cut fuel duty and public transport costs now. What message does the Minister think it sends to people that the Government will take action later in the year when people are feeling the pain in their pockets right now?

On farmers, the Government will be aware that the cost of fertiliser is going through the roof; world prices are up 44%. The Minister says that there will be a further cut in duty on red diesel, but what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of the war in Iran on farmers? It is clear to me that the cut in red diesel duty will not touch the sides when the cost of fertiliser is rocketing through the roof.

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about the cost that farmers are facing, but that is exactly why we are taking steps to cut the duty on red diesel by more than a third to its lowest rate in over 20 years. As I said, that will help not just farmers, but other sectors, too, including in relation to freight. I am afraid that, as so often, we hear suggestions from the Liberal Democrats, “Cut this”, “Cut that”, “Try to bring things down”—[Interruption.]—but they are never funded. We manage the public finances—[Interruption.]

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.