British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for coming to the House proactively this morning. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my former career in asset management.

I very much welcome the Government’s recognition that industrial energy bills remain incredibly high. This is an issue that businesses across the country have been raising for many months. I have heard what the Secretary of State has to say, and there are a number of areas where I would appreciate further clarity. First, according to the Government’s figures, at least 99% of companies will not benefit from the scheme, even after the announced expansion. Pubs, restaurants, farmers and retailers also face energy cost challenges, and innovative companies such as OpenAI have halted planned multibillion-pound investments in our country. What action will the Government take to address those businesses’ concerns?

Secondly, although businesses are being told today that they will be supported and that their energy bills will be reduced, no relief will actually come their way until next year, so what plan is there to provide a more timely relief for businesses who have to pay their energy bills right now? Finally, I am not clear on how this one-off additional payment next year will be funded. Just this week, the International Monetary Fund has expressed concern about the UK economy, saying that we are the most exposed of all major advanced economies, so can the Secretary of State provide clarity to the markets this morning about how this will be paid for?

High energy costs for British businesses did not start with the conflict in Iran. We all know that energy prices have been far too high for far too long, and we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the whole G7. We should look at the root of the issue at hand: the structural energy challenges that we face as a country. I am pleased that in the regulatory consultation launched today the Government have committed to the removal of carbon price support from April 2028. That is adopting one of the key provisions of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, so I very much welcome that, but why wait until 2028, and why stop there? The Secretary of State could go further and adopt the plan in full, ending the carbon tax and green levies right now, as well as scrapping the 78% tax on North sea oil and gas companies. Those pragmatic and sensible steps are actionable right now, today. If he does those things, he will have our full support.

[Peter Kyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the scheme. I know it is qualified support, but where that qualified support exists, I am grateful for it. Let us be very clear about the scheme, which I have been designing for quite some time: it is a competitiveness scheme, and it is targeted; it is not a general scheme for the entire economy. It is to increase the competitiveness of businesses, so that they can compete globally and be more profitable domestically. The scheme will be highly impactful for those businesses. Many of them are already profitable and doing great work. Through the scheme, we can turbocharge their ability to be competitive, both domestically and internationally. I have announced a range of other schemes, including the supercharger for energy-intensive sectors, and I have made other interventions, just in the six months that I have been Secretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman was gracious in praising parts of the scheme. He could have also mentioned that the growth figures that came out today show that we approached the challenges in the middle east by busting the forecasts and exceeding expectations for growth. That is good for every single business in the entire country. Growth is the No. 1 mission of the Government, and that is what we have been getting on with. That, of course, means that, going into this challenging period, we have more resilience and success in the British economy.

The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. As I said in my statement, the scheme is being funded through reliefs on three schemes, and through support from the Exchequer. It is fully funded and within the fiscal rules, and that is fully set out. More details will flow as we work with business to ensure that we get the implementation absolutely right.

The hon. Gentleman went on to call for a whole set of measures that he would like to see. I would like him to hold himself to the standard to which he holds me, and to set out how he will fund all the commitments he is making.

Draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair presiding over us, Mr Twigg. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for setting out the regulations. It is clear that this is a matter of great importance across Government, and it is an important matter for the Opposition, too. In fact, the regulations carry on work that the Conservatives started—work that the Labour Government are now continuing.

The aim has always been for reforms that support our domestic tourism and hospitality industries, while still providing appropriate protections for consumers. That is exactly what our goal should be with all regulations. I am pleased that, in this area at least, the Government seem to recognise that growth is increasingly being held back by red tape that brings little benefit to anyone. At least one of the four changes before us reduces regulation, which is a good thing and something that I applaud.

While I welcome the sensible measures to alleviate the regulatory burden, however, we must always remember that there is little point having pro-growth deregulation while increasing anti-growth taxation. Over the past two years, many in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries have felt like a target—in fact, many have felt like target No. 1—when it comes to additional red tape and higher taxes. At least two of the four changes we are considering still act to increase regulation. I have a few questions on those changes.

First, as type A linked travel arrangements become absorbed into the package definition, in the explanatory memorandum the Department has clearly set out that this will increase the regulatory burden. The ongoing compliance costs for businesses offering those services will increase. Can the Minister now give us an estimate of how many businesses the Department feels this will impact, and can she confirm that she has at least met with some of those businesses to hear their views on how the regulations will impact their day-to-day operations?

Secondly, as the Government Whip set out, the regulations also establish a 14-day period for the refund of cancelled services. Can the Minister therefore set out the rationale for arriving at that 14-day period? When the Government come up with these periods, I am always interested to know how they arrived at, say, 14 days rather than another period. Is there a specific reason for that number of days?

Finally, I was contacted overnight by Expedia Group, which has set out its detailed thoughts on the regulations. I will write to the Department with the concerns it has raised. Its requests include that the Government publish guidance defining the terms “single visit” and “facilitate” within the regulations before commencement takes effect, so that operators such as Expedia have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition. On that specific point, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain her views.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

Thank you for chairing, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for arriving late—I was confused about whether there was another Division in the Chamber. I thank the Government Whip for stepping in and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, for his remarks.

The regulations build on legislation from the previous Government, and we have worked really closely with the sector, which is an important driver of growth in the UK. Great holidays bring so much joy to consumers all over the country, and our reforms are all about strengthening the package—which the hon. Gentleman touched on—for the travel framework, ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from strong protections, while clarifying those obligations to ease the burdens on business, supporting the sector and supporting a healthy and thriving economy.

The shadow Minister asked a couple of questions that I will respond to, first on the cost and the impact on businesses. The policy will deliver a net benefit to business of £19 million over 10 years, with £98 million in costs outweighed by £117 million in savings. The analysis considered a range of sources, including feedback from the consultation.

The best estimate we can point to from published analysis is from the 2023 impact assessment of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, as the hon. Gentleman might know. That analysis estimates that 13,979 UK businesses sell packages. I hope that provides him with clarity on the costs.

[Gareth Davies]

Can the Minister clarify whether she has met any businesses since taking office in this specific industry, and not just relied on the 2023 piece of work?

[Kate Dearden]

I was getting to those points—I thank the hon. Gentleman for the nudge.

[Gareth Davies]

Apologies.

[Kate Dearden]

We have expressed our intention for the regulations to come into force on 6 April 2027. These regulations are commencing next year to give businesses almost a year to implement the changes, and they have been aware of these changes since the Government response in December.

We have been working closely with industry to develop guidance and will continue to do so in the coming months. Officials have already conducted engagement and consulted on the regulation at pace. It is really important for these changes that we work closely with the industry and that it welcomes them. We want to make sure we work closely with the industry on that guidance.

The shadow Minister also asked about the 14-day refund period for businesses. Travel organisers are required to refund consumers within 14 days of cancellation, but sometimes that will be because of a failure from a third party. Introducing a 14-day refund period for businesses from those third parties will create more certainty for travel organisers, helping them to manage cash flow and recover costs. That covers most of his questions, but I am happy to answer any more if he has any. Otherwise, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

We all want innovative British companies not just to start up in Britain, but to scale up in Britain, too. I welcome the Minister’s previous comments, and actually his enthusiasm, for our most innovative companies. However, he will know that the Chancellor’s decision to cut venture capital trust rate relief will be very damaging. How does he explain the disconnect between his Department’s words and what the Chancellor is doing?

[Chris Bryant]

We are trying very much to focus on the key sectors where we know we can really deliver, which is precisely what bringing together the trade strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy is designed to do. I was delighted to be at the security and policing trade event down in Farnborough yesterday, and it was fascinating to see the small companies—SMEs make up a lot of that sector—that have really been supported by different Departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Treasury, to scale up and take their product to market. I think I was able to persuade the Malaysian Government to secure quite a few contracts with British businesses as well.

[Gareth Davies]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but I asked specifically about VCT rate relief. The last time that rate relief was cut, under the last Labour Government, fundraising was cut by two thirds and it took a decade for that to recover in the sector. Specifically on VCT rate relief, which has been cut from 30% to 20%, will he commit to meeting the Venture Capital Trust Association, the industry body, and will he take its concerns to the Chancellor and ask her to reverse course?

Department for Business and Trade

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, not least for the promotion that you just gave me—I hope the Whips are listening. It is a genuine pleasure, even before the promotion, to respond to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I am grateful to all colleagues from across the House for what I think were pretty good speeches that supported local businesses and dealt with the issues at hand.

I also congratulate the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), on what I thought was an incredibly thoughtful, detailed and typical speech for him. As he will hear, it did not inspire my speech, which was pre-written, but I will echo a number of the points that he made so eloquently just a few minutes ago.

The theme of today is that, up and down the country, businesses, entrepreneurs and those they employ are the engine of our economy and the basis for our future prosperity. In so many sectors, it is British business that leads the way. Whether it is life sciences, defence, across professional services or in many other areas, businesses employ millions of people, undertake critical research and attract investment both here and overseas.

In the same sense, everyone who has contributed today, as will be the case for all MPs, will know of some SME in their constituency that seeks to grow, create jobs in their community and provide the bedrock of their local economy. The Opposition know that backing British businesses, both big and small, to grow, trade and invest means reducing the tax and regulatory burdens that they face. Over the past year, covered by the estimate before us today, the Government have indicated that they disagree with that. Just this week, as a result, we have seen business confidence fall yet again, according to the Institute of Directors.

More than ever, I am afraid that Ministers across this Government, including in the Department for Business and Trade, are failing to drive economic growth. Indeed, do not take my word for it, but listen to the Labour Health Secretary and rival to the Prime Minister, who said that the Chancellor has no economic growth strategy at all in a text message to the disgraced Labour peer, Lord Mandelson. Some may question why the Labour Health Secretary is commenting on the economy, but then again he is used to dealing with things in critical condition. Put simply: British businesses need the Government to create a far better environment for firms big and small to trade and, critically, to hire people.

Let me turn specifically, and properly, to the detail of the estimate before us, and I wish to ask a few questions of the Minister. First, to build on the opening remarks of the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the supplementary estimate shows an increase to the Department’s total managed expenditure of £1.5 billion, which is an uplift of 31%. For context, that is much higher than any other Department. In fact, the average in-year uplift for a Department under this Labour Government has been 4.6%—that is 31% versus 4.6%. In fact, last year also saw a large in-year uplift, when the departmental budget increased by some £1.8 billion, which was an uplift of 44.8%.

It feels like the Department is developing a pattern of asking Parliament to approve a budget in the main estimate, only to return months later asking for 30% or 40% more. This is far from supplementary; it is a Department that systematically underestimates its budget in the main estimate, and then returns to ask us for even more. As such, can I ask the Minister please to comment on why DBT is such an outlier compared with other Departments, and can I suggest that when its Ministers next come to Parliament with main estimates, they come with a better estimate of how much taxpayers’ money they wish to spend?

One item that particularly jumped out to me in the 10 February 2026 estimates was the cost of the intervention in British Steel, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North also alluded to. In a written answer to the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on 15 December 2025, the Minister indicated that the total cost to the Exchequer of keeping operations running at British Steel came to £274 million. However, pages 12 and 13 of the supplementary estimates that we are reviewing and discussing today seem to indicate a total cost of more than £830 million across resource departmental expenditure limit and capital departmental expenditure limit business group funding.

That is obviously a significant difference in cost, so when the Minister stands up, I would appreciate it if he could set out the detail of what this is all about. Whatever answer the Minister provides, given that we are still awaiting a steel strategy, as many Members have alluded to, is it not the case that the Government are asking Parliament to approve hundreds of millions of pounds in retrospective spending on an industry they do not really know how to support, and on a company whose future remains undecided and whose costs seem to be open-ended? I would really appreciate it if he could give a detailed answer.

Finally, I turn to the British Business Bank—an organisation that I admire, that I like, and that I had the pleasure of overseeing from within the Treasury. When I looked at the supplementary estimate, I noted that the additional capital DEL that is being provided to DBT for the growth guarantee scheme, which supports business lending, is to the tune of £50 million. Meanwhile, the British Business Bank’s financial capacity has increased to £25.6 billion, and it also has a new industrial strategy growth capital initiative.

The growth guarantee scheme is a perfectly legitimate use of Government funds—it creates Government-backed business lending and performs an important role in the economy. However, according to page 7 of the supplementary estimate, an additional £50 million has been provided to DBT this year, so it is natural that I want to ask a few more questions about the scheme. First, can the Minister tell us what the default rates are for the loans provided by this scheme, and how does he square that with the additional £50 million of capital? Secondly, it is critical to know whether those loans and that amount of money are complementing private lending, or are actually displacing it. What analysis has the Department done to provide this House with an adequate answer that will get us comfortable with approving that £50 million?

From increased taxes to additional red tape, the Government have soured business confidence, and it is working people who are paying the price for their higher unemployment and higher prices. No matter how many billions are spent by the Department and then increased at supplementary estimates, that fact will sadly always remain.

Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026 Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. Alternative dispute resolution is intended to provide a low-cost, efficient alternative for resolving disputes between consumers and businesses. I thank the Minister for setting out what these regulations seek to achieve.

The regulations follow various pieces of work that were carried out by both Conservative and Labour Governments over many years, with the overall goal of securing a fair deal for consumers and a fair operating environment for businesses. Although the Opposition of course remain supportive of the goals of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, we in this place should always be mindful of the adverse impacts of introducing any kind of red tape on British businesses, no matter how well-intentioned it might be.

As the Committee would expect from the official Opposition, we have a few questions to probe some of the elements in these measures. First, will the Minister set out the current status of the ADR provider sector, and how the Government see the sector changing as a direct result of the regulations? More specifically, how many ADR providers are there in the UK, and how many of those are currently unaccredited and would therefore be impacted by these measures? Do the Government expect the number of ADR providers to reduce as a result of the requirements? If so, what impact does the Minister believe that that reduction will have on consumers and businesses that use those services?

Finally, what is the Government’s view of the impact the regulations will have on those who operate ADR businesses? The explanatory memorandum to the regulations states that the Government expect there to be no impact on businesses, and that

“the instrument does not impose regulatory obligations”.

However, that is exactly what is being done today, so that looks like an error. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether that is an error, and explained the language in the explanatory memorandum for the benefit of the Committee.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and his support for the Act and the regulations we are considering. The regulations place the CTSI on a statutory footing. I alluded in my introductory remarks to the role of the Secretary of State and the accreditation determinations, monitoring, enforcement and information sharing under the Act, as well as the mandatory and accreditation requirements.

In terms of exempt ADR providers, to avoid duplicated regulatory provision, the Act exempts ADR provision under several ombudsmen and equivalent schemes, which are already regulated under other legislation. Those are either statutory bodies performing statutory functions or redress schemes regulated by other bodies under other legislation. If a sector already has its own dispute resolution system, these new ADR rules will not apply and that avoids doubling up regulations and ensures that businesses follow only one set of rules, with no confusion about who is responsible.

There are also some statutory bodies that, to an extent, carry out ADR and it is not considered appropriate to regulate them as their remit does not cover consumer contracts as defined in chapter 4 of part 4 of the 2024 Act.

I am happy to follow up the hon. Member’s point about the specifics on the statistics afterwards if he requires any further information. On the effect of schedule 25 listing exempt ADR providers, that is quite clear, but again, if he would like further information on how we are avoiding duplication, I am happy to provide it as there is a power to add further exemptions in future, which might be used where it is more appropriate to regulate ADR elsewhere.

The important point about the legislation is that it will ensure that ADR is much easier for consumers and businesses. That is really important to reflect on. What ADR can provide in terms of support and streamlining for businesses and consumers is significant, and will offer a cheaper and faster alternative for consumers and businesses seeking to resolve disputes, compared with making a claim to the courts. This framework gives the flexibility to update those standards over time. That is important and provides a foundation for considering further reforms if required.

[Gareth Davies]

I totally understand that the Minister might not have the information to hand right now, so will she commit to writing to me?

[Kate Dearden]

Yes, I am happy to provide that follow-up information.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT DIGITAL MARKETS, COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS ACT 2024 (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026—(Kate Dearden.)

Draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be in this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. The regulations before us continue vital work that occurred under both Conservative and Labour Governments, as the Minister rightly said. I am pleased but not surprised that that work attracts genuine cross-party support. For a baby to lose their mother or primary caregiver is a tragedy for that child, and for the father and wider family. In this place, whenever possible and where it is practical to do so, we should support those families with their grief and as they continue to care for their child. It is with those families in mind that I can of course confirm that the official Opposition support the regulations.

Just one questioned has emerged as I have engaged with businesses, so I would appreciate a simple clarification on their behalf. I understand and welcome the fact that guidance will be provided for businesses, and the Minister acknowledged the £0.9 million impact on them. The Government have made it clear that they will publish details for businesses on the relevant website. The regulations are to come into force in April this year—just 40 working days away—so will the Minister provide a specific date as to when, between now and 40 days’ time, the guidance will be published? Businesses have raised that specific question with me.

I repeat the Opposition’s position that we fully support the regulations. I join the Minister in praising the great work of the former MP for Broxtowe, Darren Henry, the great work of the hon. Member for Bridgend through a private Member’s Bill, and the tremendous campaigning efforts of Mr Horsey, who is in the Public Gallery to witness proceedings. I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations, and we are pleased to support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Kate Dearden.)

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has consider the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Kate Dearden.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

We know that some British businesses are put off exporting by the costs, particularly the cost of cross-border payments. One solution is the adoption of innovative digital payment methods, which is why I warmly welcomed the Government’s announcement of the transatlantic taskforce for markets of the future. However, since its announcement last September, we have not had a great deal of detail on it from the Government, so will the Minister provide an update on the status of the taskforce and what he hopes it will achieve for our exporters?

[Chris Bryant]

I will certainly write to the shadow Minister about that. Electronic commerce generally is one thing that we will need to address at the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cameroon at the end of March. There has been a moratorium on tax in relation to that, and we would like to make it permanent—we are discussing that with our international allies.

On exports, I was at Fever-Tree on Monday morning. Its adverts used to say, “If three quarters of your gin and tonic is the tonic, why on earth do you not care about the tonic?” [Interruption.] I note that several Members are querying whether three quarters of their gin and tonic is the tonic—it might be 50:50, or even the other way around. The point is that many really successful businesses in this country, including Fever-Tree, know that three quarters of their business can be exports. That is what we need to drive up.

[Gareth Davies]

I thank the Minister for that response. This is an area that we genuinely agree on. Digital payment technology will genuinely provide an opportunity for British exporters, so I gently ask the Minister to get on top of the detail on that taskforce and provide an update as soon as he can. We asked DBT Ministers last June exactly what the Government’s strategy on digital payment technology was. We were promised that it would be part of the industrial strategy, but it was missing. Can he explain why?

[Chris Bryant]

The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), has just whispered in my ear that he met the main providers in this area only a couple of weeks ago. As I say, I will write to the hon. Member with some more detail. Some of these issues are difficult to land because of the international co-operation needed. I am pleased that in some of our trade deals we are talking about not just goods and services but ensuring a digital element, because that is where a lot of our economic future lies.

Rogue Builders

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss, and to see the Minister. This is our second interaction in a week, and, under the direction of the Chair, it will be a lot shorter than the last.

I congratulate my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), on securing this debate. I commend his commitment to this issue over many years. Many of us turn up to these debates as one-offs, but he is a consistent champion for builders and against rogue builders.

My hon. Friend again raises a very fair and well-intentioned question: how can we in this place best protect our constituents from the scourge of rogue builders? He is right that the issue is caused by a minority of people and organisations in the construction industry, who exploit people’s good nature and certainly do not deliver for their customers. We all know someone who has faced this issue, whether that is homeowners or subcontractors, particularly those in the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

We have seen the best of Westminster Hall today. I have been struck by the many excellent examples given by hon. Members from many different parties and from across the country of people who have suffered the consequences of cowboy builders. I genuinely thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.

This issue is not simply aesthetic or material; it can and often does have very serious consequences. That is why I am pleased that, in recent years, there has been some progress to address some of the problems set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. For example, there are various competent person schemes that allow builders to self-certify, ensuring that they follow certain rules to comply with building regulations. These schemes ensure that customers are provided with the appropriate financial protection for a minimum of six years to correct work in dwellings that are non-compliant with building regulations.

For our part, the previous Conservative Government passed the Building Safety Act 2022, which introduced competence requirements on anyone doing design or building work. The legislation also brought about the creation of the Building Safety Regulator and the Industry Competence Committee, both of which help to encourage and monitor industry competence. I am nevertheless really looking forward to hearing from the Minister about what specific plans she and her Government have to build on that work to further address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and many other Members from both sides of the House.

Another part of what we can do to push out rogue builders must surely be to encourage those builders who follow the law, play by the rules and deliver for customers. I would not be doing my job if I did not reflect the concerns of the builders I spoke to in preparation for the debate by pointing out that, unfortunately, builders feel that that is not happening under this Labour Government. Instead of backing builders who are not rogue and who work hard, the Government are determined to make sure that doing the right thing just does not pay.

I have spoken many times about the impact of the national insurance hike on the construction industry, but I want to use the last moments of my speech to ask the Minister directly, on behalf of the National Federation of Builders, about the builders tax that the Chancellor is proposing in the upcoming Budget. That will add another £28,000 to the cost of building a new home and drive up the cost of critical national infrastructure, including roads, schools, factories and even nuclear power stations. It will add significant costs to construction and the building sector, and I was asked to ask the Minister what is going on with this Government if they are proposing this tax by way of a formal consultation. On behalf of the official Opposition, I want to be clear that this tax cannot go ahead. Builders and construction workers want to hear her response to that specific point. There are so many hard-working builders in this country, and so many people who make something, and we must get behind them.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister to respond to the debate—very briefly.

Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the relatively new Minister to her first delegated legislation Committee; I am sure there will be many more. It is a great pleasure to see her for the first time in her place.

I welcome the opportunity to address this statutory instrument on behalf of the official Opposition. As the Minister helpfully set out, the instrument gives effect to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 in Northern Ireland and allows it to be legally enforced. The radio equipment directive requires that the radio equipment sold or used within the EU market must meet what are known as essential requirements. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland remains subject to EU regulations in this area, specifically on radio equipment. The Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 have been amended on numerous occasions, as the Minister will be aware. Today’s instrument makes further amendments to requirements relating to internet-connected radio equipment such as smartphones and fitness trackers.

The Minister alluded to this in her speech, but the Department for Business and Trade states that these regulations enhance cyber-security, and that many businesses are already compliant with the regulations because they export to the EU; therefore, in the Department’s view, there should be no significant impact on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Despite that assessment, let me ask for clarification on two points. The explanatory memorandum says,

“Many UK businesses also supply the EU markets…and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive.”

What estimate does the Minister have of the percentage of radio manufacturers who are likely to be compliant? It would be helpful for colleagues to have an understanding of the progress made already, without this regulation in place. Secondly, will the Minister outline whether the standards are in keeping with those in other international markets, in particular the United States? What assessment has the Department made of the competitiveness of these regulations in relation to those other markets? Other than that, we will not oppose the measure and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Labour’s industrial strategy recognises that housing and infrastructure are vital to driving regional investment. But as I hope the Minister will know, across the road, the Treasury has been quietly consulting on changes to the landfill tax, ending the decades-long exemption for quarries. That change would add millions of pounds on to infra- structure projects and increase tax costs for construction businesses across the country. How would such a move help grow our economy and build the homes and infra- structure that we need?

[Blair McDougall]

We are fast approaching the time of year when I have to tell my children that they will have to wait until Christmas to find out what their presents are. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has to wait until the Budget to find out what is in the Budget. He mentioned planning. We have made huge changes to planning rules, which have resulted in a saving of about £272 million in red-tape costs for business, so we are ensuring that that sector, in particular, has the environment it needs to contribute to growth.

[Gareth Davies]

I am afraid that is not good enough. The industry is facing deep uncertainty around the kite flying going on across the road at the Treasury. I realise that he is not responsible for that, but he needs a better answer for the construction industry. The Construction Products Association has just cut its growth forecast for the sector to barely 1% next year, warning that the uncertainty over new taxes is choking investment. I will ask the Minister again: how on earth will adding £28,000 to the cost of a new home, or 25% to road construction costs, through a new builders tax do anything other than cement the slowdown that Labour is overseeing in our economy?

[Blair McDougall]

To stand up and raise uncertainty, and then complain about it, is quite something. The shadow Minister said that we are slowing growth; we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of 2025. We are now the fourth-largest exporter in the world, and we have had five interest-rate cuts in a row—