Finance (No. 2) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

On 26 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered her second Budget at this Dispatch Box. This was a Budget to build strong foundations and a secure future for our country, with no cuts to capital spending—which I am sure would have been implemented by the Conservatives, if they were in this financial situation—and no return to austerity, including for public services. This is a Budget about Labour choices.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Minister says that there will be no cut to capital budgets, but of course he is talking only about the public sector. Has he seen the CBI Economics research that suggests that there will be severe capital budget reductions in the private sector—the very sector that creates the wealth on which everything else depends?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report—we had a bit of extra time to read it this year. He will know that according to that report, investment—both overall, whole-economy investment and private sector investment—has outpaced the OBR’s forecast from March this year. I look forward to returning to those points later.

The Budget delivers choices that were fair and necessary—choices that deliver on the public’s priorities, and that bring about the change that this Government promised. This Government have chosen to cut the cost of living, delivering £150 off energy bills and freezing train fares and prescription charges. This Government have chosen to cut NHS waiting lists, delivering 5.2 million more appointments and announcing in the Budget 250 new neighbourhood health centres. This Government have chosen to lift 550,000 children out of relative poverty in this Parliament, by removing the two-child limit, and by expanding free breakfast clubs and free school meal eligibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Our proposals on APR and BPR mean that those with business or agricultural assets will have both the additional £1 million allowance and a tax rate that is half the rate that others within the system pay. My understanding is that the system will be more generous than the one in place before 1992, throughout the whole time that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.

We are reforming the Motability scheme to end the VAT relief on top-up payments, which was a one-off payment required to lease more expensive vehicles on the scheme. We are also ending the application of insurance premium tax on leases to ensure that the scheme delivers value for money for the taxpayer, while choosing to continue to support disabled people.

We are introducing reforms to ensure that private hire vehicle operators will no longer be able to illegitimately exploit an administrative scheme intended for tour operators to pay a much lower rate of VAT than others.

[Graham Stuart]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will give way—persistence pays.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister is always both gracious and generous. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about the impact of BPR, imagine a company that is worth £11 million. It will have a £2 million BPR tax payment to make. The person who inherits the shares will not have that £2 million, so they will have to extract that money from the business. Am I right in thinking that that would require £3.3 million to be deducted and taken out of the company in order to pay that £2 million in tax? Is that in the right order?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am happy to discuss those numbers with the right hon. Member in more detail, either afterwards or I can come in and discuss those points with him, although I did not quite follow all of the maths—[Interruption.] I thank Members on the Conservative Front Bench for their intervention about that.

Increasing taxes on online gaming and betting is another change that we are making in the Budget, with the rate for remote gaming increasing from 21% to 40% from April 2026, and the rate of remote betting increasing from 15% to 25% from April 2027, while choosing to protect in-person betting and horseracing, which plays such an important role in our sporting culture and many local economies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

I notice that my right hon. Friend is being restrained in his use of language, given the severity of the matters we are discussing. He is absolutely right. Business property relief is being changed in broadly the same way as agricultural property relief in this Bill. That will have a devastating and similar consequence for family businesses across the UK, and I have been up and down the country to meet many of them. One of the foremost in campaigning has been Steve Rigby of the Rigby Group. He is the head of Family Business UK, and he put it perfectly when he said that family businesses are spending too much time protecting their legacy and succession, not on promoting growth. That is the whole point. If this Government want growth, they will have to do things that get businesses to think about growth, rather than having to worry about being broken up because of onerous tax measures.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend worry, like me, about the background of those on the Government Front Bench? I do not want to disrespect either of the individuals sitting there now, because they are both fine people, but neither has ever, so far as I am aware, been involved in running a private business. They do not understand how private business works, and they equate the inheritance of money—for example, from a father to a daughter—with a family business. A family business needs to continue, because of all the employment that arises from it. Equating the two and saying that it is half the normal inheritance tax is to show a complete failure of understanding of the economy of this country and the economy of a family business.

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It shows a complete lack of understanding of business, and it reflects the lack of true business experience on the Government Front Bench. It also goes right to the core of the difference in principles and beliefs between the two principal parties in this Chamber. We on the Opposition Benches believe that if someone works hard, saves hard and has something left at the end of their life, they should be allowed—because they love those who they wish to look after in their absence—to pass on that inheritance without the taxman taking a huge, disproportionate amount of what they have accumulated. All the Labour party believes in is mounding up ever more debt in a statist world in which that debt is to be passed on to future generations to be paid back.

We believe in supporting the little platoon, as Burke put it—the families that together form a mighty army. We believe in personal responsibility and for that to be rewarded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and follow the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who is rare, as a Member on the Labour Benches, in feeling such commitment to maintaining and fulfilling the promises he made, not least to his farmers.

I will begin by focusing on the farming issue. Too often we look at it in an overall, structural way and make comparisons with other types of inheritance, rather than looking at the specifics of the farming industry. A third of farmers do not make any profit at all, and those who do make profit make very little. Although we do not have exact data, it would appear that well over half of farmers make a 1% return on capital employed or less.

Even if Treasury Ministers do not have any business experience—sadly, Labour Treasury Ministers typically do not—they should at least practice numeracy. If they are numerate, they can work out that if someone makes just 1% return annually on the capital value of their business, it would take 20 years of earnings to pay a 20% tax—and a third of farmers do not make anything at all. How is someone who makes 1% profit going to pay a 20% tax? This is not some freak thing that has just happened; it is consistent.

The Government, to be fair to them, seem to have woken up in one sense. They said, “We must have a new initiative”—I forget what it is called—“to increase the profitability of farmers”. Well, yippidy-doo, well done for that. But should they not increase the profitability of farmers before imposing a tax that, mathematically, arithmetically—whatever other word you want to use—they cannot pay? The truth is that farmers cannot pay it.

More than half of farmers literally do not have the profits to allow them to pay that tax. That simple truth sits at the heart of this. These businesses are prepared to do it because of their lifestyle, personal commitment and love of farming. They do it in order to put food on our plates that is among the highest quality in the world and at costs that are among the lowest in Europe.

The Government could think about this from a public policy point of view too. There are businesses that are prepared to do that—unlike any other business sector I can think of or have ever experienced, or would certainly ever have entertained being part of myself. There are businesses that would take such low returns, work all the hours God gives and bring brilliant food to the tables of people up and down this country at low cost. Why on earth would the Government want to drive the people running those businesses out so that the people they say they want to attack—namely, huge billionaires and vast trust-based businesses—can gobble up those very farms, which are currently run by decent people in our communities who do all that good and ask for very little in return?

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

The right hon. Member is making an impassioned speech that certainly represents the feeling of farmers in my rural constituency. Does he agree that farmers are also up in arms at these billionaire companies that are ripping small farms out of the system and building their empires? Any time the small family farms do make a profit, they reinvest it straight back into the farm so that they can farm the following year.

[Graham Stuart]

Yes, indeed—and they did. We have seen it. All the evidence is there, and it is happening now, regardless of the argument from Ministers as to what percentage of farms will be affected. We can see it in all the stats. Those stats are available—particularly, I would have hoped, to Treasury Ministers to find out what the real-world impact of this policy is. The real-world impact is that we have seen a drop in investment in the farming industry. That is a disaster.

It may be that the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway is standing alone, but let us look at the enthusiasm on the Labour Benches for the Second Reading of this major Finance Bill that is supposed to be doing such good for the country. There are more than 400 Labour Members, but they are not exactly here to cheer it on. I think they—and, I hope, the Minister—are realising just how counterproductive this is. The one thought I will try to implant above all is those numbers, which mean that it is absurd.

Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine generally being a business owner today, and not necessarily in farming. You hike your way up the mountain to get to success, wading through an eternal shower of tax rises and hacking your way through a jungle of red tape. Then, on your death bed, you are met not first by the grim reaper but by the Chancellor, armed with one final sting: a double tax bill for your children. This is the reality facing family businesses: if the Government cut business property relief next year, that will lead to a double tax bill.

I asked the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who opened the debate, to comment on how that double taxation works. He was unable to respond off the top of his head to my specific numbers, which is entirely understandable, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, armed and perhaps refreshed by the brilliant people in the Box behind her, will be able in summing up to address the specifics of the tax reality for a business faced by the double tax bill that thousands of sons and daughters will receive when their entrepreneurial mum or dad passes away.

From April, the 100% inheritance tax relief that family businesses rely on will be capped at just £1 million; anything above that will be taxed at 20%. Take a small company worth £11 million: the inheritance tax bill alone will be £2 million. But as far as I am aware, the sons and daughters of most entrepreneurs in Beverley and Holderness do not have £2 million tucked away down the back of the sofa. To pay that bill, which is a tax not on the business but on the people who inherit the business, as they are outside the business—I am not sure whether people have focused on this enough—they will be forced to extract that money from the business itself, usually in the form of dividends, and those dividends are taxed at rates approaching 40%. So a £2 million inheritance tax bill becomes a £3.3 million hit on the business, with £2 million to pay the Chancellor and another £1.3 million to pay—oh yes—the Chancellor, simply because the money was invested in jobs, equipment or the business overall rather than left idle.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that this is a spreadsheet Budget concerned with little more than the number in the bottom right-hand corner? That is why everything is unravelling so catastrophically. On his BPR point, I have nothing against PLCs, but does he agree further that businesses that are owned by families and rooted in communities spend their investments locally, support local organisations and charities, employ locally and have their profits going back in locally, and that this is devastating jeopardy for those businesses?

[Graham Stuart]

As so often, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Again, the talk is of hitting the fat cats and big businesses, but it is the huge corporates that will benefit. They will snap up the farmland and the small business. This is not fair taxation; it is irrational double taxation.

The consequences of this policy are real. If the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—I will call him my hon. Friend, if I may—is right about the Treasury being obsessed with the bottom right-hand corner, I hope that if no other argument weighs with the Minister, this might. A report by the CBI suggests that far from raising the welcome £1.4 billion forecast by the Treasury, the changes are likely to reduce tax revenues from family-owned businesses by £1.8 billion by 2030. That is yet another example of this innumerate Government having the exact opposite outcome from the one they wished, as investment falls, businesses restructure and growth is choked off. Instead of supporting the Government’s claim to be pro-business and pro-worker, this change could cost more than 200,000 jobs, on top of the 200,000 that the Chancellor has already cost the country. That is money sucked out of the economy and into Labour’s bottomless black hole. The impact will be felt directly in Beverley and Holderness, where it is expected to put 237 local jobs at risk, according to the CBI. Those are apprentices—

[Dr Savage]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I had better not.

That means apprentices not taken on, machinery not upgraded and businesses downsizing. The changes will leave us all poorer, so I ask the Minister and the Chancellor a simple and constructive question: if the Chancellor will not reverse these changes to business property relief, will she at least consider a targeted mechanism so that when these dividends are necessarily extracted, solely to pay the inheritance tax bill, those dividends are not taxed again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

As an eight-year-old girl sheltering in the little library at my primary school, I was able to escape my bullies by using my imagination. Later, I harnessed my love of reading to build a successful career as a screenwriter, so I am delighted that the Finance Bill extends the Libraries for Primaries scheme to secondary schools. The Government have already committed £10 million to create libraries in the 1,700 primaries across the country that do not have one, and now we are giving £1,400 to every secondary school to purchase new library books. This £5 million investment is targeted at getting more children reading for pleasure, and is part of the Government’s aim to make 2026 the national year of reading.

Feeding a child’s imagination is wonderful, but making sure they do not go hungry is essential. The Chancellor’s choice to lift the two-child benefit cap will lift around 1,850 children in Scarborough and Whitby out of poverty, and next year, up to 4,000 children in my constituency will benefit from the expansion of free school meals. I have visited some of my local primary schools with fully funded breakfast clubs and seen for myself how incredibly popular they are with both children and parents. All these measures are expected to lead to the largest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. The choices that the Chancellor has made in this Finance Bill and previously will endure for generations. In my constituency, children will be helped to fulfil their potential. These are the barriers to opportunity that we promised in our manifesto to break down, and they are the barriers that this Finance Bill is breaking down—promise made, promise kept.

One of the projects I loved at my primary school was “My Breakfast Table”, where we looked at where our food and drink came from. Tea from Sri Lanka was incredibly exotic; bacon from a local pig farm was decidedly less exotic, as the aromas from said pig farm often wafted as far as the school playground. Growing up surrounded by farms, I learned to value their contribution, not just through the food they produced but through the difference they made to our community. I was reminded of their practical, altruistic attitude this summer during the wildfire that centred on Langdale forest and Fylingdales moor. At its terrifying height, that wildfire covered an area 10 miles square, ripping mercilessly through shallow peat, deep peat, forest, grassland and heather moor. The farming community reacted immediately by cutting fire breaks, back-burning, bringing water in tankers, and generally assisting the firefighters from North Yorkshire fire and rescue. The farming community did not think about anything other than putting the fires out—they were all heroes, and we must value them.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Alison Hume]

I will just make some progress, thank you.

I started my speech with children at the start of their lives, and I end it with people coming towards the end of their lives. I owe it to the farming families who I represent to raise my concerns about the anti-forestalling clause in the Bill. That measure means that any elderly or terminally ill farmer who transfers their ownership of their farm to a descendant, but dies within seven years, will be liable to pay inheritance tax under the new system. If they do not live seven years after the gift, that could also trigger capital gains tax.

If a farmer does not make a transfer but dies before April 2026, the agricultural estate will pass inheritance tax free. I have met several families in Scarborough and Whitby who told me that they are having heartbreaking conversations with their parents, who talk about ending their own lives before April next year. I ask my hon. Friends in the Treasury to please look at removing the anti-forestalling clause from the Bill, or at the very least introducing a transition to protect the most elderly, and those with a terminal medical diagnosis. We have shown before that we can listen and amend our policies; please can we listen again? It is my hope that we can show the same compassion for our farmers in the winter of their lives as we have for our children in the spring of theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening. The increase to the block grant is spread over the entire spending review period—five years—and it does not cover more than half of the cost faced by the Scottish Government as a result of the increase in employers national insurance imposed by the same Chancellor. I am glad that I got the opportunity to say that twice.

Energy bills have gone up by £340 under this Government, despite the fact that they were supposed to fall by £300. That is what people voted for—that is the prospectus that Labour gave them—and the Government are not taking it seriously. They are coming back with a £150 reduction to energy bills, which is coming out of general taxation. As sleight of hand goes, that is not very slick. The money comes out of people’s standing charge, but goes directly on their general taxation.

In the interests of time, I will not dwell on agricultural property relief; I have said a fair bit during interventions, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) will contribute on that issue.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way while he is on the subject of energy. Of course, what should have been in the Bill was an end to the additional tax levy, because there are no sky-high profits any more, there are no excess taxes that need to be paid, and 1,000 people a month are losing their job in the oil and gas industry.

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. The energy profits levy should be coming to an end, but it has been extended by this Labour Government until 2030. That has caused 100 job losses from Harbour Energy, and it is causing 1,000 job losses every month, according to Offshore Energies UK. We are in this situation because the Prime Minister lacks the mettle to get rid of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is one job getting protected in Whitehall, but it is costing 1,000 jobs a month in Scotland. That is the Labour way, and it always will be.

On electric vehicles, this thruppence a mile probably does not sound that much to those who live in Chelsea or Kensington, but it will cost an awful lot more to those who live in Angus and Perthshire Glens. I get the politics of it: half of the entire Labour membership lives within Greater London, and the other half lives in other English cities, and in Glasgow and Cardiff. They probably think it is a tremendous wheeze to make people in my constituency subsidise the tax on the Labour membership’s electric vehicles, but people are smarter than that. People who live in the countryside can add up, and they know that this Government’s attack on their electric vehicle taxes does not add up. They are being swindled by a Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I was elected to this House to be a voice for working people, and the thousands of families in Erewash who, in 2022, saw their mortgages skyrocket because the Conservatives sent markets spiralling with billions in unfunded tax cuts. The people who I represent did not vote for Liz Truss—most of them did not know who she was. It was hard-working families up and down the country and in Erewash who paid the price for her failures all the same. That should never happen again.

What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did last month in the Budget—made actionable by this Bill—was take the necessary decisions to ensure that there will never be another Liz Truss moment. The Bill will, by the end of the decade, deliver the fiscal headroom that we require to withstand shocks and help pay down the national debt. It does so while we deliver record levels of public investment, and without a return to the brutal, crippling austerity that gave this country 14 wasted years under the previous Government.

Change is already under way. The economy is now forecast to grow faster this year than previously expected, and as record investments and trade deals made and secured by this Government pay off, and reforms to stifling planning rules finally come through and deepen, it can grow further. In the first year of this Government, average wages grew more than they did in the entire lost decade of the 2010s, and what happens when workers have more money? They do not sequester it in Dubai or the Cayman Islands; they spend it—on housing, on food, on our high streets, in the pub, and on their children, the greatest investment of all. Rewarded properly for their labour, they fuel our economy.

[Graham Stuart]

I wonder when the people of this country will catch up with the hon. Gentleman and start to express the appropriate gratitude for all that has been bestowed on them by this Government.

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his amusing intervention. I am sure that time will tell.

We must all contribute to Britain’s renewal, and there are things that only Government can do to secure that renewal. If we want to get the NHS back on its feet, fix our crumbling schools, cut waiting lists and truly invest in Britain’s future, we must pay for it. We know that the alternatives proposed by the Opposition parties lead only to calamity. Liz Truss showed us that when Governments cut taxes for the wealthy, it is working people who end up paying. Nor should we want infinite borrowing, however; I do not want to spend £1 in every £10 serving debt interest. It should go to our schools, our hospitals, and our country.



So yes, in the Budget and in the Bill, the tax burden has increased, but it is those with the broadest shoulders who will bear the greatest weight—those with property to let, those with shares to sell, those paid not through wages but through dividends, those with such vast savings that they pay tax on the interest alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was in Dumfries and Galloway just last week to speak to farming businesses that will be impacted by the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in. He hits on a very important point, because the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers have over the past year continually tried to put forward progressive options for this Government to listen to and engage with, but they have not listened. That just shows the naivety associated with this Government. Indeed, at the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that he was aware of farmers who have worked all their lives within the farming community and who are considering taking their own lives. Despite that knowledge, he wanted to crack on with this policy regardless. It is callous and heartless, and it just shows what this Government are about.

[Graham Stuart]

I am reminded again of Shakespeare, who I believe said:

“Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.”

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. All I advocate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, is that this Government simply engage with and listen to our farming community. It is not just our farming community that is hit by the IHT changes; it is family businesses more widely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make a bit of progress. Our choices are different: they seek to rebuild and repair our country and our economy. They are choices to renew our public services and reform our welfare system; we are rebuilding our NHS, helping to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and investing in getting more people into work. They are choices to strengthen our economy; we are maintaining the highest level of public investment for 40 years, backing British aspiration and, importantly, cutting borrowing and doubling the headroom against our fiscal rules.

[Graham Stuart]

If we look at employment over time, we see that employment was growing every month until a certain thing happened in July last year: Labour came to power. As of this morning, unemployment has officially gone up 5.1%. As it stands today, there is a 25% increase in the number of people who are not in employment. How can that possibly correspond with a mission for growth?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am afraid to tell the right hon. Gentleman that employment is rising in every single year of the forecast.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) raised the importance of getting debt and borrowing down. I could not agree more. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about spending over £100 billion a year on servicing our debt. That is more than five times our annual policing budget. It is money that could be spent on schools, hospitals and the urgent public service renewal that this country so desperately needs. That is exactly why, under this autumn Budget, borrowing falls in every year of the forecast, and we are bringing the national debt under control. The Chancellor is putting in place the fastest rate of fiscal consolidation in the G7, and she is doubling the headroom to £21.7 billion.