Clause 1

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I wish to speak, on behalf of the official Opposition, to new clauses 10 to 12, which are in my name, but first, I want to set the scene on clauses 1 to 8.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

A valid point that my constituents have brought to my attention is that if they pay the higher rate of tax, tax on the interest from savings rises to 40%. Those who scrimp and save and put their money away for a rainy day will be penalised. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is absolutely immoral and very wrong?

[Gareth Davies]

I agree. We are trying to create a savings culture. We are trying to get people to take responsibility, and to put their income away for a rainy day and for their retirement. As I will go on to say, the Opposition’s position is that the Bill does not achieve that; in fact, it does the very opposite.

As I was saying, clause 4 increases the ordinary and upper rates of income tax charged on dividend income by 2%, a fact the Minister seemed to miss out in his opening remarks. The income tax rate hike will apply from the tax year 2026-27. Clause 5 sets the savings rate of income tax for the tax year 2027-28 two percentage points higher than it is this year, and than the rate set in the Bill for 2026-27.

[Kit Malthouse]

I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wonder if the shadow Minister shares my concern about the change in the taxation rate on dividends? Even more important than building a savings culture is building an enterprise culture. Sadly, by continuing the modern trend, started under George Osborne, of taxing the return on risk, we destroy any idea of having an enterprise culture in the UK. If fewer people see that the investment of starting a business, or investment in plant and machinery, results in a return that is taxed more lightly than un-risky income, they are less likely to take that risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says. He is right that there is a point at which you overtax risk and enterprise, and people stop taking risk and stop being enterprising. The trick in the Treasury is to ensure that the Government can raise enough revenue from a broad base of different taxes to pay for public services. [Interruption.] They need to try to achieve growth, not overtax growth and growth activity. They should incentivise it through other means. I completely agree with him on that point.

I was talking about the increase in tax on dividend income and savings. Together, clauses 4 and 5 will have significant consequences, not just for those who take risks, but for household savers and pensioners, as well as investors in the companies that my right hon. Friend describes. In fact, Hargreaves Lansdown described clause 5 as a “shocking tax rise” for savers. The measures will combine with the Chancellor’s cut to the allowances for individual savings accounts—in the Bill, there is a double whammy tax on savers. It treats saving less like a virtue to be encouraged, and more like a habit to be discouraged. We believe that will have a big impact on savings culture and the financial reality of people across the country. That is why new clause 11 calls for the Chancellor to come to the House to make a statement setting out the impact that the onslaught of this savers’ tax hike will have on all British savers and pensioners.

It is not just savers who are impacted by the Bill. Small and medium-sized businesses are, as we were just discussing, the engine of growth up and down the country, in every constituency. They provide 60% of employment. They will feel the pain from these changes. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that through clause 4, the Government continue to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money.

Many entrepreneurs and business owners choose to pay themselves part of their income in the form of dividends. For many years, dividend tax rates have been set below the main rate, not by accident or ideology, but to reflect the fact that dividend income is paid out of profits that have already been taxed through corporation tax. I am afraid that even the largest businesses, never mind small and medium-sized enterprises, are not safe. Literally as soon as the Chancellor announced the changes in clause 4, investment managers were warning that the change completely contradicts the Government’s stated desire to encourage more investors to hold UK equities—many of which, by the way, are pretty good income-paying stocks. International investors come to the UK to buy dividend-yielding stocks, yet these measures will discourage that even further.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the overall thrust of these clauses is to discourage saving and enterprise, and to hit the people who do the right thing, all to fund more welfare spending? That is not a recipe for growth, is it?

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. What is this for? People know that they have to pay tax. We may disagree on who pays tax and how much, but ultimately, where is the money going? It is going to the surrender of the Chagos islands. It is used to pay public sector workers eyewatering sums, only for them go on strike again. The hard bit for the general public is understanding where on earth all the money that is being raised by record tax hikes is actually going. That is what the Minister needs to be held to account for today. No explanation has been made. We are not in covid times; we are not in times of great crisis. This money is being raised because Labour is in trouble and in the pocket of the unions. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

New clause 10 includes further assessments specifically on domestic equity markets and institutional investors. This will have a negative drag effect on the international climate as it relates to getting more investment in UK equities from institutional investors.

Finally, clauses 6 to 8 and schedules 1 and 2 introduce new rates of income tax altogether, this time on property income. Again, those rates are to be set for the tax year 2027-28 at two percentage points higher than the main rate of income tax. Government Members may take great satisfaction in what could be described as a war on landlords, but we should pause and remind ourselves who many landlords are. They are not barons or vast landowners; they are ordinary people doing what we have encouraged them to do for decades: taking responsibility for their future. They are the couple—one parent works long hours in a steady job, and the other juggles work and family life—who save carefully and invest in a small property because they know that the state pension alone might not be enough when they retire. They are the retired couple who inherit a modest flat from their parents—a flat that is not a windfall, but a source of security in later life—and who rent it out to supplement a fixed income. These are not people gaming the system, as many Labour Members have tried to suggest in the past, but people responding to it. They are good people. Forty-four of them are Labour MPs.

This new tax does not just hit landlords, though; it hits renters, too. The British Property Federation and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility have both warned that this measure could restrict the supply of private rental properties, adding pressure to an already strained market. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Residential Landlords Association both say that rents will rise faster as a direct result of the Bill. New clause 12 in my name seeks to force the Government not to rely on their stereotypes about landlords, but to assess the impact of their new renters’ tax on both the supply and cost of private rental properties.

In summary, these clauses represent a new front in Labour’s war on the middle class and aspirational households in Grantham and Bourne, Chipping Barnet and across the country. These clauses impose not one, not two but three income tax rises on the British public, totalling more than £5.5 billion. This is not a plan for change; it is a savers’ tax onslaught, carefully phrased, politely worded and deeply felt—the same old Labour.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Before I speak, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to speak in this packed Chamber, and to the millions of people no doubt watching at home.

I will speak to clause 4, but first I wish to thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). I seem to recall making a slight mistake last year in a debate on the Finance Act 2025 by not speaking to a specific clause. He very graciously saved me, callow youth that I was, and I thank him very much. I certainly remember that today.

Britain faces an affordability crisis, with record numbers unable to afford a decent living standard. On top of that, we face a military crisis; we have to defend our nation as we have not had to for almost a century. As a nation, we are deeply divided between those who can afford decent lives and those who cannot; because of that, we are unable to stand united as one nation to meet this moment and those challenges. That is why today I speak in favour of clause 4. Yes, it is a tax that hits the wealthiest, but it also ensures that we can help grow the economy, and it is easily implementable. I will cover why that is.

People in this country are deeply frustrated and angry about where this nation is. Record numbers of people cannot afford a decent standard of living; just one third feel comfortable with how much they can afford. That is lower than in the financial crisis, and lower than during austerity—it is the lowest rate in our lifetime. That is why we see such anger on our streets and screens. We constituency MPs feel it viscerally.

Meanwhile, we have also seen the wealth in this nation grow dramatically. We have seen wealth as a proportion of GDP double since the 1980s, the amount of dividends paid out more than doubling since 2010, and owner-managers able to reduce their tax liability by not drawing their income from earnings. That is why it is right that we rebalance the tax burden between earnings and income earned from elsewhere, and especially income earned from dividends.

Our taxation system has not kept up with how our economy has changed; wealth has become far more important in this nation, but it has not been taxed commensurately. While income tax and national insurance have increased as a share of GDP, the same has not happened for taxes on profits. While the amount of wealth as a proportion of GDP has doubled, the income tax from that wealth has increased by only 30%. The income taxes in this nation are being levied on earners, not those who get their income from wealth. That is why it is entirely right that, through this Budget and this clause, we tax dividends at a greater rate. I will set out how this measure will improve growth and ensure that we hit the richest, and will show that it is easily implementable. We know that it improves growth because, as we have seen in France, dividend taxation stops payments going out of companies, instead ensuring that money stays in and is invested. We know that it hits the wealthiest, because one fifth of those who gain dividends are in the top 1%. We know that it is an easily implementable tax, because we are seeing it implemented in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies]

I wish to speak to new clauses 13 to 15, which are in my name, but first I will cover what the clauses in this group mean for British taxpayers. If you will forgive me, Madam Chair, I will do so slightly out of numerical order. Clause 9 sets the starting rate limit for savings for tax years 2026-27 to 2030-31, keeping it fixed at £5,000. That is an important allowance for so many with relatively low incomes, including those who work part-time or are retired. Clause 69 fixes the various inheritance tax thresholds at their current level for a further tax year, 2030-31. Clause 10 freezes the basic rate limit for income tax at £37,700, and sets the personal allowance at £12,570 for tax years 2028-29, 2029-30, and 2030-31.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Labour Government’s freeze to income tax thresholds will raise around £7.6 billion in 2029-30 alone, and more than £12 billion in 2030-31. This is a £23 billion tax rise; clause 10 alone is a £23 billion broken promise. The OBR is clear: 920,000 more people will be pushed into the higher rate, and 780,000 more people will be pushed into income tax altogether. We have already heard the Minister try to explain away Labour’s breach of the promises that it made to the British people. The best the Chancellor can manage is to say that it is not her fault, because she was very clear in the small print—a technicality dressed up as an excuse. But people are not stupid. It would not be quite so embarrassing if the Chancellor herself had not proclaimed so theatrically in her first disastrous Budget that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. Yet here we are, and it is no surprise that the Prime Minister is breaking records for unpopularity. New clause 13 would ensure that the Government undertook an assessment of the impact of clause 10 on the average earner, because we all know that working people will be hurt very badly by this clause.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Davies]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will not ask me why we froze the threshold, because he will know that we did so under tremendous pressure, given the covid pandemic and the debt that we accrued in the economy. We are in a very different scenario now. I am sure that is not what he is going to ask.

[Gareth Snell]

No, that was not what I was going to ask, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got to the “It was all covid’s fault” argument so early in the debate. I was going to ask whether he has an in-principle objection to freezing the rate, or whether he objects to it because he thinks it is somehow a breach of the Labour party manifesto. Those two things are different. I would be genuinely interested to know whether he has no issue with the rate being frozen, and more people paying tax as they earn more money, and whether this is about the party politics of previous manifesto commitments.

[Gareth Davies]

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but as the spokesperson for the official Opposition, I speak on behalf of millions of people who were told that this would not happen, and who voted for a party that told them that it would not be increasing taxes on working people. The Chancellor repeated that claim at the Dispatch Box just a year ago, but then went back on it, which is unacceptable. Whether I agree with it does not matter; we have to represent the millions of people who were frankly let down and misled by this Government. That is our job—to hold the Government to account for breaking that promise, and for where the money is going. I ask the Government: what is this about? Is it about giving up sovereignty—giving up the Chagos islands—or paying off public sector unions, only for them to go on strike once again? There are two issues here. First, the public were told that this would not happen. Secondly, now that it is happening, the Labour party—the Government—is spending that money recklessly. That is unacceptable, and it is the job of the official Opposition to hold the Government to account.

Finally, there is an elephant in the room. From April 2026, the state pension rises by 4.8%. The new state pension will sit below the personal allowance next year, but that changes in 2027-28, when, for the first time, people whose only income is the state pension will be dragged into paying income tax. The Chancellor, when challenged on this after the Budget, said that she will protect pensioners from paying small amounts of tax, and the Minister just repeated that. Fine, but where is it? It is not in the Bill. It is not in clause 10, or anywhere in the 535 pages of the Bill. As far as I can see, it has not even been costed. I have two straightforward questions for the Minister: what is the Treasury’s assessed cost of that promise, and how will it be delivered in practice?

[Dr Evans]

The other point is: what is a small tax? What is the definition? Are we talking about £100, or £1,000? The Government have not even set that out. The Chancellor has just come up with a term that we have no reference for, no use for, and no understanding of when setting tax policy for this country.

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I want to ask the Minister, as he does, how this will be delivered. What is the definition of what the Chancellor has described, albeit to the media? How will this work, and why is it not in the Bill? We know that when the Government have spoken before, they have not stuck to it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that regardless of whether we are talking about a small tax or a large tax, the Chancellor promised that there would be no tax on people who went out to work every day, and no increase in tax on pensioners? It is not really a question of degree; it is about whether the promise is being broken. Clearly, from what the Minister said tonight, the promise will be broken.

[Gareth Davies]

Exactly. I have nothing to add to that; the right hon. Gentleman puts it perfectly. New clause 14 would require a proper assessment of clause 10’s impact on state pensioners, and new clause 15 would require an assessment of the cost of the Chancellor’s so-called exemption from small amounts of tax—let her define that in a piece of legislation; I do not think she will be able to. Clause 10 is simple: another Labour tax promise has been broken and pensioners will pay the price. I hope that Members from across the Committee can see that and that they will vote with the official Opposition tonight.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The Government’s figures were pretty shoddy when the policy was announced at the Budget. How confident is the shadow Minister that the Government’s figures are any better now?

[Gareth Davies]

My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has engaged extensively with farmers and those who represent farmers. The reason I am raising this point now is because the numbers are questionable—and not just on who is impacted by the measures but the net revenue to the Exchequer too. Some have suggested that the changes in clause 62 may even end up costing the Exchequer. While the OBR has forecast that £500 million will be raised through clause 62 in 2029-30, the Confederation of British Industry’s analysis suggests instead a net loss to the Government of some £1.9 billion over the forecast period because of the impact that clause 62 will have on the wider economy.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is making a serious point. Given the huge discrepancy in the robustness of the figures from the Treasury and wider Government, the challenges they have faced from industry bodies and experts, and the sensitivity of the issue and importance of the agricultural sector, does my hon. Friend agree that while the Treasury may well wish to stick to its policy, it should pause and take some time to build consensus across the sector on the data and work out the trajectory of costs? This back-of-a-fag-packet, fly-by-night way of trying to approach serious policy is simply insulting.

[Gareth Davies]

I completely agree. We would not be doing this, and we should not be here, but clearly the policy has been executed without a plan—without serious thought, analysis or engagement. I would welcome anything that the Government can do to make this less painful for those affected and to get the numbers right.

The Minister explained that the Government expect to raise around £300 million even with the U-turn, but the initial costing was labelled in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook as “highly uncertain”. For those not familiar with this, there are different categories of uncertainty in the EFO, and “highly uncertain” is the most uncertain that one can be about a figure. Surely this new figure of £300 million is uncertain, just as the £500 million was. What assurance can the Minister provide that the Exchequer will not in fact lose out overall, despite the pain that the Government are determined to inflict? How confident is he in these numbers?

Secondly, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, family businesses and farmers have had to make many difficult decisions. Family Business UK and Make UK say that 55% of BPR-affected and 49% of APR-affected businesses have paused or cancelled investments. Family-run farms are putting off the purchase of new, more efficient machinery and family-run shops no longer see the point of expanding to an additional site or another high street, or of taking on more staff. It comes back to the questionable figures I talked about and the CBI’s analysis of the impact on the wider economy.

Finally, we should have no confidence in the practicality of the measures before us. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that extending 10 annual interest-free instalments to APR and BPR property does not solve the problem; those instalments will still be a significant burden. In practice, it is unlikely that many families will be able to pay the tax without selling up.

[Robbie Moore]

On practicalities, I would be interested to understand whether the Minister or the Treasury has done any analysis of the impact on the district valuer. There is a real challenge in that when a farm is valued, that value will be disputed by either the Treasury or the agent acting on behalf of the landowner with that tax liability. Secondly, if we look at two farms in different parts of the country, we see that values vary dramatically. What consideration does my hon. Friend think the Treasury has given to how tax liability varies based on the value of 200 acres of land in one part of the country and 200 acres valued at a higher rate, such as in Northern Ireland? Practicalities matter.

[Gareth Davies]

That is exactly right. I will let the Minister address that point, but let me pay tribute again to my hon. Friend, who has been a forceful champion for farmers across the country and has consistently raised these issues. That goes back to my point about the warnings provided to the Government about the practical implications of the changes, with their impact on family farms in particular. They were ignored until this point. The Minister will have to explain why that was.

Indeed, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that schedule 12’s failure to allow allowances to be allocated to specific property could undermine many wills as currently drafted. This creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, disputes and real hardship.

Where the cap is exceeded, the first inheritance tax payment will fall just six months after death. If that deadline is missed, the estate will be hit with a punishing interest rate. Within six months, family farms must secure probate, value complex agricultural and business assets, calculate the liability and then raise the cash—often by selling parts of the estate to make the first payment. The NFU has been clear that expecting probate within six months is “unrealistic” given the complexity of valuing agricultural businesses, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In practice, families and personal representatives will miss the deadline—through no fault of their own—without a confirmed tax bill and without the funds to pay for it.

The Government’s expectation is simply unrealistic. The approach is flawed, and the window must be extended. If clause 62 is agreed to and the Government do not finally concede, family farmers and businesses in my community of Lincolnshire and those across the country will not rest until these changes are fully reversed. The only consolation I can offer farmers and businesses watching the votes closely tonight—they will be watching every single one—is that the next Conservative Government will scrap these immoral changes.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on schedule 12. I greatly welcome the Government’s changes to the proposed agricultural property relief and business property relief thresholds. As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am proud of the work that my Committee has undertaken on reviewing the Welsh farming industry and the report with clear recommendations that we produced before the Budget. I also thank the Treasury for its swift response to our report as well as the changes that it has made to the thresholds. These changes show that the Government are listening not just to farmers but to the Welsh Affairs Committee and Welsh Labour MPs.

The new higher thresholds are a win for Welsh farmers. Raising the allowance for 100% relief from £1 million to £2.5 million will ensure that the changes to inheritance tax are properly targeted at the wealthiest estates while ensuring that smaller-scale family farms remain protected. Couples will now be able to pass on £5 million-worth of agriculture or business assets between them, tax free. This additional relief will have a particularly significant impact in Wales, given its specific context, which is very different from England. This was a key finding of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry.

The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell, and I wish a happy new year to the Minister. I thank him for setting out how the regulations will help provide legal clarity on the scope of part 8C. As he outlined, the regulations put beyond doubt that the rules do not apply to claimants who are entitled to awards of simple interest at a rate equivalent to, or lower than, a similar rate under the taxes Acts. I understand that HMRC currently applies the legislation as originally intended, which the Minister set out clearly, and that these changes simply reflect the policy as set out in part 8C. Therefore, it will not surprise the Committee that the Opposition will not oppose this measure.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure, as always, to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank Members across the House for their contributions to the debate, in particular those on the Conservative Benches, and notably my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who has been a ferocious champion of farmers not just in Yorkshire but across the country. He also spoke well about the family business tax and his business, Fibreline, which has been adversely impacted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) sought to give those on the Labour Front Bench a maths lesson, although I am afraid it is a little late for that and entirely futile.

I enjoyed very much the speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I enjoyed his A. A. Milne reference almost as much as I enjoyed the unexpected mention of Tinder. Of course, when it comes to politics, I encourage everybody to swipe right. [Laughter.] I thought I would give it a go.

Let me highlight how prominent the family farm tax has been in this debate and acknowledge the contributions from the hon. Members for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who spoke well, speaking out against their own party’s policy when it comes to farmers. That is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do, and we appreciate it.

For my part, I am struck by a sense of déjà vu. Here we are again, with another Finance Bill that targets working people’s pockets while failing on the Government’s No. 1 mission of economic growth. This Finance Bill is actually double the length of Labour’s first Finance Bill, and I fear it will bring double the pain to the British public. Last year we had the now infamous Halloween Budget, which scared the living daylights out of business, and this year we have the nightmare-before-Christmas Budget, which is essentially finishing off the rest of the country. This Bill feels less like a carefully wrapped present and more like something hastily stuffed into a stocking at five minutes to midnight, with the receipt missing and the instructions written in a different language. We were promised a gift to working people, but what we have instead are higher burdens and lower incentives.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, with some very colourful analogies, but if I may be prosaic, is it not the case that the Office for Budget Responsibility has not scored a single impact on growth in the overall Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

As always, my hon. Friend points out something that is important for the whole House to consider. I will come on later to the broader assessment of the OBR, which does not make for pleasant reading for Labour Members.

Tonight, Labour Members must decide whether they are content to vote for a Bill that makes their working constituents poorer, punishes family farmers and family businesses, and breaks promise after promise that they made to secure their seats. For all the bravado that we may hear later from the Minister, there is now a growing gap between what Ministers are saying, and what families and businesses are living. That gap has now become so visible that it has followed Labour Members out of the Chamber and into the real world. At this time of year, pubs should be putting up mistletoe; instead they are hanging up signs saying, “No Labour MPs welcome.” This is a Christmas tradition that this Government have invented all on their own. When a Government cannot get a warm welcome or a pint in the local pub that so badly needs the trade, it might be a good idea to reflect on why.

There is another growing gap between what Labour Members told the public before the election, what they repeated after it, and what is in the Bill. First, the Bill is anti-working people. Only last year, Ministers stood up and promised the House that this Government would not freeze income tax thresholds. They could have stopped there, but they did not. They went further and said that to do so would amount to a tax rise on working people’s payslips. Yet here we are today, with this Bill that freezes income tax thresholds to 2030-31. The message to working families could not be clearer: if someone gets up early, goes to work, does the right thing and provides for their family, Labour will not back them; it will tax them. What will the Labour Government do with all the money they are raising? They will not pay down the national debt—debt is going up. They will not employ more teachers; there are fewer of them now. They will not employ more police officers, either; there are fewer of those, too. In fact, they will fail to deliver on almost everything they promised while in opposition. Instead, they will turn hard-working taxpayers’ money into handouts to appease their left-wing Back Benchers.

This Bill is anti-aspirational and anti-business. If someone decides to start their own business, or wants to take over a business or a farm from their family, what does this Labour Government think of them? As we have heard extensively today, this Budget takes further what they introduced at the last Budget: the family farm tax, as spoken about by so many colleagues, and a family business tax that will destroy aspiration and entrepreneurialism. Time after time, the Chancellor has been warned of the impact of these changes to inheritance tax. She has repeatedly dodged questions in the House, as she is doing this very moment. She has ignored concerns from the business community, and run scared of meeting the National Farmers’ Union. That is not leadership; that is not owning one’s decisions.

Finally, we were promised economic stability and management, yet the OBR’s own assessment of the Bill tells a very different story. Growth will be slower over the forecast; inflation will be higher. Debt will rise every single year of the forecast, and taxes will rise to their highest level on record. Just this morning, we learned that unemployment continues to spiral to levels that we have not seen in years. This was not a Budget for the wellbeing of the country; this was a Budget to try to preserve the careers of the embattled Prime Minister and the embattled Chancellor.

As we approach Christmas, it is traditional to reflect on who has been naughty and who has been nice. We are told that Father Christmas checks his list twice, but the British public need only glance once at this Finance Bill to know that they have been seriously let down. They know exactly which list the Chancellor belongs on. It does not matter if they work hard, run a family business or farm, and have saved responsibly for their retirement; even in death, through the Bill, the taxman still comes a-calling. Under the Bill, there is simply no way that hard-working British families do not end up poorer. Nobody voted for that, and we will certainly not be voting for it tonight, either.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 General Committees

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

It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I will follow the Minister’s lead by starting with the ESG ratings order before moving on to the draft regulations.

The Minister usefully and clearly set out the Government’s view of the ESG ratings order and what it aims to achieve. I want to ask two questions in particular, straight out of the gate. First, although she referred to this slightly in answering the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, could she go into more depth about the approaches taken in other jurisdictions—particularly the United States and the EU? What are the specific implications for our competitiveness? She mentioned that she is open to alignment with other jurisdictions, and she specifically said that she is open to allowing the ratings of overseas ratings providers to be recognised in this country. But will she address the specific point about competitiveness and where the order stands in the global ecosystem of ESG ratings regulation? It would be helpful to understand that.

Secondly, I understand that in the responses to the consultation concerns were raised about charities being granted an exemption. Is the Minister concerned that charities, and particularly household names, might publish ESG scores against certain companies and sectors that investors take seriously, despite there being a lack of transparency on how those scores were reached? I have taken a particular interest as that legitimate concern stood out from the consultation.

As the Minister considers those answers, it is useful for us to step back as we think about ESG to ensure that, as we scrutinise the draft order, we talk about the overall effectiveness of ESG in supporting the interests of savers and investors in the country. My view, having led an ESG team in my previous life—I think this view is shared by a lot of savers and investors in the industry— is that investment managers should always act with the aim of delivering sustainable returns for investors. From the teacher who has paid into their pension their whole life to the entrepreneur who has just sold their business and invested all their money, many people from all walks of life entrust their money to investment firms and portfolio managers, and they rightly expect financial professionals to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities.

In recent years, however, many, including me, have expressed the view that the rise of ESG has allowed and encouraged some fund managers to impose their own values on investment portfolios, thereby potentially impacting the returns achieved for thousands of investors. Of course, where individuals have enough money for a separate account, or where other retail investors choose to invest in a dedicated ESG fund, that is their choice. They may well pay a premium for not investing in certain industries and be comfortable with that.

[Chris Coghlan]

The shadow Minister makes an interesting point about the personal views of some fund managers. What is his view on including defence stocks in ESG portfolios, given the change in the geopolitical situation?

[Gareth Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point. It is a very hot topic right now, in terms of our national security, and I think there are implications when it comes to ESG ratings and the overall ESG approach that many fund managers take.

As I was saying, the overall picture is that there is a risk that everyday savers might miss out on returns because of the values and ideals pursued by a particular fund or fund manager, without their expressed wishes necessarily being taken into account. If we accept, as many do, that this is a problem for funds, it follows that it extends to those who provide ESG ratings, too. Therefore, more transparency, which this measure achieves, could and should help to mitigate the risk for savers.

At a broader level, I have made very clear my personal opinion that ESG has gone too far towards values-driven investing, while neglecting to include our collective national, strategic and economic interest. At a time when the world is increasingly geopolitically unstable, and with an aggressive Russia at the door of Europe, is it really responsible or ethical to shun investment in defence companies?

I believe this mindset undermines our national security effort, but it also means that savers and investors could miss out on better returns. The FTSE 100 index is up around 19% for the year to date, compared with shares in Rolls-Royce, which are up 77%; shares in BAE, which are up 38%; and shares in Babcock, which are up 118%. Those companies form the bedrock of the British defence industry. Over the past year, they would have delivered better-than-average investment returns for savers, but so many savers have been excluded from investing in such companies, perhaps without their knowledge.

Similar national importance could be attached to oil and gas companies and investments. Even the Climate Change Committee has been clear that the consumption of oil and gas will be needed for years to come as part of our energy security. Yet just last week, the National Energy System Operator warned that Britain could face gas shortages by 2030 if the industry—

[The Chair]

Order. While I appreciate the shadow Minister’s thoughts, could he please keep his speech within the context of our debate?

[Gareth Davies]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Harris. This is related to ESG, which is about environmental, social and governance principles, and accordingly an investment approach and ratings. I was talking about defence as part of the “S”, and oil and gas as part of the environment.

[The Chair]

Order. I have to be guided by the Clerk, who fears that we may be going out of scope. I would appreciate it if the shadow Minister kept his remarks to the task in hand.

[Gareth Davies]

I will end my point by simply suggesting that it is not serving investors or the country well by being excluded from oil and gas companies or defence stocks as part of an ESG strategy that they perhaps did not know about.

I now turn to the draft regulations, which revoke assimilated EU law relating to financial services and replace it with rules set by the Bank of England and the PRA. This is part of an ongoing process to repeal and replace assimilated EU financial services law following our departure from the European Union. The purpose of the draft regulations is largely to revoke the relevant parts of the assimilated prudential regime, as set out in the capital requirements regulation, and replace them with the PRA rules, as the Minister set out.

As the Minister made clear, the draft regulations make consequential technical amendments to UK legislation for the purpose of legal coherence. In practice, any references to revoked CRR provisions will be read as references to the corresponding PRA rules. Where no PRA rule exists, the amendments will help to avoid gaps in the legal framework, with which I think we can all agree. This instrument continues the process begun under the previous Government, as the Minister said, and therefore the Opposition do not oppose it.

[Lucy Rigby]

I welcome the consensus on the draft regulations. Four principal points were raised in relation to the draft order. The first was on the international position, and the recommendations we are putting in place in this draft order are in line with the IOSCO and OECD recommendations. The EU framework has been legislated for, but it will not come into force until 2026. In many areas of financial services, we have the ability to put in place an overseas recognition regime—an ORR. We do not yet have the ability to do that in relation to this, but we hope to take the power in the next financial services Bill to enable us to bring forward exactly this kind of measure where we wish to do so. The shadow Minister might be aware that Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan have codes of conduct of this nature.

In relation to charities—this is a good point and was considered—the scope of the regulated activity set out in the draft order is designed to be proportionate to the risk of harm. As such, charities will be excluded from regulation where a rating is provided on an occasional or one-off basis, or where there is no remuneration or other financial benefit provided to the charity. As I said, this approach, informed by consultation, ensures that the regulation is risk-based and proportionate while avoiding loopholes.

The shadow Minister also mentioned defence. The Chancellor has stated very clearly her view that supporting the defence industry, and indeed Ukraine, is consistent with ethical investing. The regulation will allow investors to more fairly evaluate ESG risks and opportunities related to defence companies. I should make it clear that we have engaged extensively with the defence sector, and we think there is quite limited evidence that defence firms have struggled to access finance on ESG grounds.

Briefly, the fiduciary duty is important and, as the shadow Minister knows, it has been much discussed. The Pensions Minister will address it further in subsequent stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.

[Gareth Davies]

I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s position on defence stocks. I wonder whether she could do the same for oil and gas.

[Lucy Rigby]

The point in relation to oil and gas is exactly the same as that for defence. There is no conflict between what we are doing here and investment in those areas. If anything, it will be helpful across the board. Fiduciary duty was the final point raised, so I will leave it there.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2000 (REGULATED ACTIVITIES) (ESG RATINGS) ORDER 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025.—(Lucy Rigby.)

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise.

As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories.

I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today.

These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania.

Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly?

As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise.

As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories.

I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today.

These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania.

Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly?

As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?

Taxes

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to be able to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition.

Let me start by thanking everybody from both sides of the House for their contributions, but in particular those on my side of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the impact of the family farm tax on his farms in Shropshire and that 6,000 farms across the country have closed. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is sadly not in his place—probably on the phone to his mother—spoke well about Harlow and his mum. I particularly enjoyed the bromance emerging between him and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke well about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions on the Gosport employment market. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said a good quote by Margaret Thatcher. As the MP for Grantham, I particularly appreciated it, but it still rings true today about spending other people’s money wisely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) rightly highlighted that not a single Liberal Democrat Back-Bench MP has turned up, which I agree is completely shameful. We did hear from the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who had the temerity to talk about our country’s reputation when it is his leader who is prancing about in a wetsuit falling off paddleboards—slightly ironic. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who made a number of important interventions, pointed out that every Labour Member should ask themselves the same question every morning when they wake up, “Who voted for this?” None of them have a mandate for further tax rises, just as they did not have a mandate for last year’s jobs tax increase. They must know this. The proof is right in front of them. Labour has over 400 Members of Parliament and fewer than 10 have shown up. I was going to say that they have come to defend the indefensible, but they have not even done that. None tried to defend the indefensible; we just heard more and more speeches about the past, while their constituents are living in the present.

I think that Labour Members know that the upcoming Budget is surely the beginning of the end. The Government have lost control. Just when the Prime Minister should be focused on fixing their mistakes, he is instead having to oversee co-ordinated briefings against the apparent plots to depose him by his own Health Secretary. It is troubling, to say the least, that the Prime Minister seems more worried about the damage coming from inside his own Cabinet than about the damage already done outside it. The truth is that the Labour party will not be forgiven. Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has ever been tried.

We should not forget that Labour won the last election because it promised not to be a socialist Labour Government. It said that it would not fiddle with the fiscal rules to borrow more money. It said that it would not increase national insurance, income tax or VAT. It said that it would not pursue ideologically driven policies that would push up energy bills—in fact, it said that it would cut those bills by £300. Unfortunately for the country, this has very much turned out to be a socialist Labour Government after all: higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower confidence, and an economy put into reverse—back to the 1970s. That is felt in every boardroom, every workshop, every pub and every place of work across this country. The best thing that the Government can do right now is take responsibility for their actions and show leadership. After just 16 months of Labour, inflation has doubled, taxes are heading for record highs, borrowing has risen rapidly and unemployment has surged to the highest level since the pandemic. And none of that takes into account what may yet be to come.

We know that the Chancellor deliberately picked the latest time possible for her upcoming Budget, in a last-ditch hope that someone, somewhere might come up with something that makes it all better. The date of 26 November is a highly unusual one for an autumn Budget. The last time we had a Budget this late, phones still had aerials, Mark Morrison was “returning the mack”, and we had to rewind VHS tapes before taking them back to Blockbuster. If only we could rewind the past 16 months; sadly, we cannot.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this very long lead-in period for the Budget has caused enormous uncertainty for businesses, which have faced a string of briefings in the media about every possible tax rise, and that the very date that the Chancellor has chosen for her Budget is itself causing more uncertainty and delaying investment decisions?

[Gareth Davies]

I could not agree more. In fact, markets and investors have now endured week after week of reckless and irresponsible speculation, not about whether Labour will put up their taxes, but about which taxes will go up. The endless uncertainty that my hon. Friend mentions has caused relentless Treasury kite-flying that has damaged confidence. There are so many kites in the air but none of them is tied to an actual plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said it well: everyone seems to be looking over their shoulder to see who the Chancellor will come for next. That cannot be what Labour MPs want in the run-up to Christmas. They have a chance tonight to reaffirm the promises that they made to all their constituents. It should be their easiest vote this year. Their core manifesto commitment, which won them the election, is printed in black and white in the motion. To fail to support the motion is to confirm to each and every one of their constituents that Labour is content to betray their trust. Be in no doubt, the country is watching.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Mobilising more investment from the UK pension fund market is critical to driving regional economic growth. The Chancellor says that she is a builder, not a blocker, but her proposed builders tax threatens to drastically increase the cost of building anything from homes and roads to nuclear power stations. This will make investing in UK infrastructure increasingly unviable. To avoid even more investment-killing uncertainty, will the Minister agree to scrap Labour’s proposed landfill tax reforms and let Britain get back to building?

[Torsten Bell]

I can reassure the hon. Member that we are scrapping the attitude of the Conservative party, which blocked any building from happening anywhere in this country year after year. Houses were blocked. Railways were blocked. Anything that involved any difficult choices was blocked by a party that gave up governing long before the general election.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Chancellor once claimed that she had a plan for fixing the foundations with infrastructure at the very heart. Now, through a consultation that the Government hoped nobody would notice, she has found a way to tax the foundations. By looking to impose a new levy on quarries, Labour could add billions of pounds more to the costs of infrastructure projects across the country. That cannot be right. Can the Chancellor please provide the construction industry—the very people who will grow our economy—with an assurance that this proposed builders tax will not go ahead?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Government are currently consulting on a landfill tax. It is a consultation, and it is open for comments from right across industry, but this Government are investing in infrastructure. Compared with the plans that we inherited, which would have seen capital investment fall as a share of GDP, we are instead putting an additional £120 billion in, as well as £70 billion through the National Wealth Fund. Crucially, that is leveraging in private sector investment in transport infrastructure, including roads, railways and airports, and digital infrastructure. We are growing the economy—a far cry from what the Conservatives did in their 14 wasted years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is becoming clear that one year in, the public still do not know what Labour is all about, and the same could be said for its so-called National Wealth Fund. Not only has the National Wealth Fund invested less equity in clean energy than before its costly £7 billion rebrand, but it is also now rightly subject to a Treasury Committee inquiry, at which expert witnesses could not name a single thing it is doing differently. The CEO of the British Business Bank now says the Government did not understand what they were setting up. Can the Minister tell us why the National Wealth Fund has invested less in clean energy than before the costly rebrand and why the Government U-turned on incorporating the British Business Bank?

[James Murray]

The shadow Minister forgets to mention the fact that we have had £30 billion of investment in green energy since the general election. I am sure he has consulted the spending review documents closely—I know he is a diligent shadow Minister in that regard—and he will have seen the investment that we are putting into Great British Energy, Sizewell C, small modular reactors, fusion, nuclear R&D, the warm homes plan, and carbon capture and storage. All of this is to make sure we improve our energy security and bring down bills for good.