Inheritance Tax

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

If the hon. Member had been listening to my speech, he would know that this is not people’s fault. If someone works hard and buys a family home, they have no idea what the value of that family home is going to be when they die. That is why we are exempting the family home from inheritance tax.

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

My hon. Friend will remember that the centre-left Social Democratic party in Sweden abolished inheritance tax years ago, because it had gone down the route of this envy-filled, left-wing, socialist approach, and found that it was counterproductive, led to complexity and reduced wealth in the country. Afterwards, business thrived, and even the Communist party in Sweden, in the face of the facts 20 years ago, could see how wrong it was. It is a shame that the modern Labour party does not understand that.

[Lewis Cocking]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a tax on aspiration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks up very strongly for his local area. He is right about the importance of pubs, social clubs and live venues, and about the importance of the 20% cut that we announced in July. These are the things that make the places where we live the places that we also love. Later this year the Government will produce our high street strategy, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in that regard. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said a few moments ago: he should see the move that we made in July as a down payment on further reform.

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

The Conservatives will save our high streets, and may I explain to the Chancellor why that is important? Donna, who ran the Beverly Card Company, saw this Labour Government increase her business rates from £135 a month to £840 a month. That is why in February, after 30 years of her running it and having won national awards, the business closed. She will have to make payments for the next four years for those business rates. Will the Chancellor stop trimming, support the Conservative plan and abolish business rates altogether for the 250,000 high street businesses? He needs to stop talking and sounding sympathetic, and actually do something that makes a difference to our high streets.

[John Healey]

What an extraordinary claim! It is hard to take seriously the idea that somehow the Conservatives will save our high streets. We are, of course, concerned about the impact of business taxation. As a Government, we have put in £4.3 billion to help cushion the changes, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s area. We are in the process of taking further steps to review and reform the business rates system, and I will be able to set out more details at the Budget.

Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. The timing is fantastic: we have a dynamic Minister at the Dispatch Box, we have an imminent Government review from Richard Lloyd in response to this and we have the opportunity to listen to this cross-party call for change.

After a review, the Conservative Government recognised the need for cash and legislated for it; the introduction of banking hubs, and eventually cash hubs, was all part of that. I am very proud of what the Conservative Government did there, but, as the hon. Member for South Devon set out and other Members have supported, face-to-face banking is an important part too. I hope and expect that we can move forward in the right way and get the balance right between being overly prescriptive to the banking industry and setting a clear sense of direction to make sure that no one is left behind, as so many Members have set out.

It is a happy coincidence that we are having this debate today, because it is the day that Lloyds customers can once again deposit a cheque at a post office or banking hub. Mr and Mrs Proctor came to see me in Withernsea with a simple problem: they could not pay a cheque into their Lloyds account at their local banking hub, which surprised me. I wrote to Lloyds about it, but nothing came about. I then raised it with the Chancellor, and colleagues from right across the House signed a joint letter to the chief executive of Lloyds Bank. I am pleased to say that Lloyds listened and, as of this morning, people can deposit cheques at those places.

These issues being raised by Members across the House today are important. I trust that given the timing of the Richard Lloyd report, the Minister in her seat will make sure that they are be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. I recognise that she has been a consistent advocate for her constituency on this matter.

I was going to make the point that access to banking attracts considerable interest from across the House. However, I hardly need to say that, given the number of hon. Members who have attended today, or who have personally raised this issue with me while I have been in this role—or indeed who raised it with the former Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, as the hon. Member for South Devon did recently.

I shall endeavour to respond to all the points that have been raised today. I am, I fear, under pressure to do so in a dynamic fashion—following the remarks of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—so I will do my best.

I am particularly grateful to all those Members who have shared the practical and, in some cases, very personal circumstances of their constituents—that is especially important. I recognise that in rural communities—the subject matter of this debate—the loss of a branch can make everyday banking much harder. That was recognised by the hon. Member for South Devon, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), and plenty more besides—too many to name.

It is right to acknowledge, as many hon. Members have, that the way people bank has changed significantly in recent years. Many customers now benefit from the convenience and flexibility of online and mobile banking. For many people, those changes have made managing their finances easier, more convenient and also more accessible. However, it is important that we recognise that while digital services work well for many customers, many people still need to access banking services in person—a point that has been set out thoughtfully and, in some cases, very movingly by hon. Members today. Those include some members of our communities who are older or may be more vulnerable, and those who face barriers to digital banking, not least because of connectivity—a point well made by the hon. Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Many small businesses also continue to rely on face-to-face support and cash services.

Around 3.3 million current account holders did not bank online or through a mobile app in 2024. That is a significant number. As has been detailed in this debate, branch closures can have a significant impact on communities, especially where transport links are limited—even on a good run, as the hon. Member for South Devon put it—and where towns provide essential services for a much wider rural area. That is exactly why access to banking services remains important. As a Government, we are committed to ensuring that people who need in-person banking can continue to access essential services.

As the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak)—who is no longer here—recognised, access to cash is protected by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, but access to banking services is currently not. That is why in May the Government announced an independent review into access to banking services chaired by Richard Lloyd. That review will assess whether changes in access to in-person banking services are causing detriment. It will gather evidence on the extent of that detriment, and look into which groups are affected and which of those are most affected. As hon. Members know, that review has been gathering evidence from consumers, businesses, charities, community organisations, local authorities and industry right across the UK. It will consider whether current arrangements are meeting the needs of customers and communities. That includes banking hubs and other alternative banking services.

I know that many Members—not least those in this Chamber—would like immediate answers to these questions, but it is important that interventions in this space are based on robust data and evidence, and a clear understanding of where the problems are and who they affect. That is why the Government’s review matters. I am not making a case for it to be a substitute for action; it is the evidence base that will enable the Government to act in the right way. Importantly, as Members have said, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is currently in the other place, includes a power that will allow the Government to take action to protect access to banking services. Together, the review and the Bill will enable the Government to respond swiftly and proportionately to the results and evidence from the review.

[Graham Stuart]

Banking hubs themselves came out of an industry response from the NatWest executive. Does the Minister agree that we must present the information from the Lloyd review to the banking groups, be clear about what we want, and give them the opportunity to respond and provide a solution, as they did with banking hubs, so that we can perhaps avoid a more heavy-handed governmental approach?

[Lucy Rigby]

I do not want to prejudge the way that we will deal with the conclusions of the review. In response to one of the questions that I was asked, I can say that the Lloyd review’s results and report will be published next month. We can expect it in that timeframe.

The Government’s commitment is further reflected in our support for the roll-out of 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. I am pleased to report that we continue to make real progress against that target. More than 280 banking hubs have been announced, and 240 are already open. As hon. Members know, they provide assisted cash services and allow customers to receive face-to-face support from community bankers representing individual banks. I very much welcome the progress that has been made on the roll-out and on expanding the services available via the hubs. Community banker services now more closely resemble those of traditional branches.

Rail Freight

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call Lisa Smart to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If that has not been secured, you should not speak. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of rail freight in the transport network.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Compared with many other aspects of the transport network, rail freight rarely gets the attention I feel it deserves, yet it can help us to achieve so much of what so many of us say we want for our communities, our economy and our planet. From cleaner air and less congested roads to building new homes and a more resilient economy, rail freight is not a niche industry concern but a national infrastructure priority.

The Tarmac site at Bredbury in my Hazel Grove constituency receives daily freight trains carrying construction materials from the Peak district, North Yorkshire and south Wales. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit last year and don my hi-vis. What struck me was how tangible the benefits were. I was joined by Huw Merriman from the Rail Freight Group and Chris Swan, among others, from the great team at the Tarmac facility. A single train delivery to that site can provide enough materials to build up to 30 new homes and, in doing so, removes around 60 HGV movements from the A6 and the surrounding residential streets. That is 60 fewer lorries on roads that my constituents use every day to get to work, school or the shops.

The north-west is one of the busiest regions in the country for rail freight. Aggregates move daily from Peak district quarries through my constituency and beyond. Container trains run on the west coast main line bound for Scotland, Trafford Park and Seaforth in Merseyside. Those flows matter not just to the industries that depend on them, but to every driver who would otherwise be sharing a road with the lorries that would replace them.

Banking Hubs

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

After the election, the Government said they were working closely with industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the UK, which is very welcome, and that the banking sector was committed to deliver those hubs by the end of this Parliament. But that is not far off just one for every two constituencies, and we need more and much better targets than that.

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

The banking and cash hubs in Hornsea, Withernsea and now Hedon in my constituency are fantastic and really work well, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lloyds is the only major bank that does not allow the deposit of cheques at post offices and cash and banking hubs, and that that is damaging to the most vulnerable in our society and to the bank’s customers. Will he join me in calling on Lloyds to look at that again, to ensure that people can deposit those cheques? Apps and other approaches do not always meet people’s needs, particularly those of elderly people.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Absolutely. I would consider those to be basic services that people should be able to access as close to their own community as they possibly can.

I was perplexed to read, in response to a written question from November last year, that the Government do not hold any bank closure data at all, despite the figures that I have quoted from Link. That is concerning when it is considered alongside the policy of 350 banking hubs, as neither the Government nor we who provide scrutiny can determine definitively how many closures have occurred and, by extension, how much damage requires to be mitigated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Rigby]

I warmly congratulate Pete, Amanda and the wider team—and the goats—on their success. In inviting me to do so, my hon. Friend shows that he is indeed a true champion for the businesses in his constituency. The support that this Government are giving to businesses will enable more of our fantastic British companies to export globally and to emulate Cosy Direct’s success.

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

Integrated industrial clusters such as Saltend in my constituency provide fundamental chemicals and other inputs into defence and wider industries right across the country. Yet higher energy costs and global events mean that they are under unprecedented pressure. Will the Minister look at establishing an industrial support fund, so that rather than having an ad hoc approach, such as that seen when supporting Grangemouth, we have something strategic to ensure that we do not lose the industrial base upon which so much of this country depends?

[Lucy Rigby]

I believe the right hon. Member mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is being expanded. He will also be aware of the British industry supercharger package, which provides additional price relief from April 2026 as well.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The president of the National Farmers Union mentioned in his speech to the farmers’ conference just a few weeks ago that he was glad of my engagement with farmers—he personally called out that engagement. I took a trip to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), after being invited there by him, and I was glad to meet farmers there and learn about their experiences.

Amendments 89 to 94 seek to exclude the value of any joint interest in certain agricultural business tenancies from the £2.5 million allowance for 100% relief. It is worth pointing out that the drafting of the amendments risks those tenancies falling outside the allowance entirely so that, rather than providing 100% relief, the Government are concerned that the drafting would mean that the relief might well be capped at 50% for those with joint tenancies. That is certainly a reason to reject those amendments.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

If the right hon. Member will forgive me, I will make progress, having spoken for eight minutes already.

Amendments 102 to 107 would mean that unlimited 100% agricultural property relief would be available on agricultural land rented out for at least 10 years. The Government’s position is that the House should reject these amendments.

The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) also spoke to new clause 11. The Government have decided on a range of thresholds that will continue to be frozen until the end of the decade. We have made the decision across the piece, as was mentioned earlier, to sustainably and fairly raise revenue to fund our public services and get borrowing down. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 102 to 107. I will not address in detail new clause 12 or amendments 67 to 87, 95 to 100 and 108 to 111, as the Government have set out their position on those amendments at previous stages, and I urge the House to reject them.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), both made important contributions on the amendments relating to gambling duty. I have twice met the Minister from Gibraltar mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and have been in correspondence with him. I understand that there are significant impacts on the economy in Gibraltar, and I hope to keep engaging on and discussing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will, of course, continue to engage with Ministers in Gibraltar. It would not be appropriate for me to write future Budgets at this Dispatch Box today, but we have made a significant change when it comes to gambling taxation. Rather than make further changes, the Government will monitor the impact of that change. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen for his contributions and representations.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a helpful speech— with not much notice, I understand. She raised the matter of alcohol duty. It is worth pointing out that the uprating in alcohol duty just keeps the revenue in line with inflation. We have seen reductions in alcohol consumption, driven not by the tax staying in line with inflation, but changes in consumers’ consumption habits. I therefore urge the House to reject amendment 101 and new clause 20.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Okay.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister has overcome his natural reluctance, and I am grateful to him. A lot of people get confused about the BPR tax changes. If there was £10 million in a company that someone inherited, and it was subject to those changes, the claim is that they would only have to pay £2 million in tax, but in fact the money to pay that tax has to be extracted from the company, so the person who inherits it, rather than the company, pays it. Will the Minister confirm that? In other words, if the money was taken out in the form of dividends, it would be £3.3 million, instead of £2 million, and that would have a very real impact on a small company. In fact, it could be existential.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will not get into specific worked examples. The general point is that the Government have made changes both to business property relief and to agricultural property relief, in order to raise additional revenue from the very wealthiest estates. We have sought to do that because we want to put fairness into our tax system.

The CBAM was mentioned by the Opposition, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). I thank him for his strong advocacy for his constituency, and the thousand people who work in the refinery there. The Government said at the Budget that we recognise the important role that refineries play in our energy security, and we are now considering the feasibility and impact of including refined products in the CBAM in future. It is very complicated, and there would be knock-on impacts on other sectors if the Government were to proceed with that. I have met representatives from the sector recently, and I will continue to engage with them.

Finally, I turn to new clause 4, which requires the Chancellor to report on how the regulations in the prohibition address the harm to individuals and businesses from online tax avoidance promotion, and the steps that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs should take to inform the public of the risk posed by online tax avoidance. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for raising the important issue of avoidance promotion. I agree with her that it is appalling that these individuals promote tax avoidance schemes and get away with it. It causes misery to those caught up in the schemes, and deprives our public services of vital revenue. The Government are taking action via this Finance Bill to crack down on them.

I confirm to the House that the measures introduced in clauses 156 to 162 apply equally to those promoting avoidance schemes online, including on social media, and to those promoting them through more traditional routes. I can also confirm that the promoter action notice in clauses 163 to 173 will also apply.

I would also like to reassure my hon. Friend that we are publishing guidance on these matters, and I will ensure that it is clear throughout that the Government’s intention is to capture anyone who is promoting tax avoidance. This includes social media influencers who are making a monetary gain through clicks, as highlighted by my hon. Friend, and I would welcome her engagement in developing the guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We absolutely recognise the pressures facing families. Bringing stability back to the economy is the No. 1 thing that we can do for working families. There have been six cuts in interest rates since the general election, which has seen the average cost of servicing a mortgage come down by about £1,300 a year. The Renters’ Rights Act will come into force shortly to give greater rights to people in the private rented sector. The free childcare offer, which is now fully funded, ensures that parents with children aged between nine months and five years get free childcare if they are in work. From next month, the end of the two-child benefit limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty.

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

Richard from Beverley tells me that he paid £304 for his last tank of heating oil, yet if he orders it again now—and he needs to do so within four weeks—it will cost him £862. Families across rural areas such as Beverley and Holderness rely on heating oil to keep warm, yet because they are off-grid, they get no protection from the energy price cap. Some 1.5 million people across the country are affected, so what steps can the Chancellor take to alleviate the situation for rural families such as Richard’s, who are facing a huge spike in the cost of living through no fault of their own?

[Rachel Reeves]

First, everybody gets support with their electricity bill, regardless of how they heat their home. However, I do recognise the unique issues around heating oil; we had representations from the Labour group of rural MPs over the weekend, and my colleague the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is going to meet all MPs with an interest in this area tomorrow. I very much urge the right hon. Gentleman to come to that meeting, but the most important thing this Government are doing is trying to de-escalate the crisis in the middle east, because that is the way to get prices down for all our constituents, whether for heating oil or at the pumps.

Spring Forecast

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

To be honest, when the SNP gets involved in infrastructure projects like trying to build a couple of ferries, it all seems to go horribly wrong. That is why, despite the fact that the SNP Government have had a record settlement from us, NHS waiting lists in Scotland continue to increase, while in England and Wales, under Labour Governments, they are falling.

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

Business has been crushed by the taxes brought in by this Chancellor. Just a year ago, in a fairly gloomy forecast by the OBR, it was suggesting 1.8% GDP growth over the forecast period. That has now been reduced to 1.5%. If the central mission of this Chancellor—and supposedly this Government—is economic growth, how can she stand there today and say it is working, when it has been marked by the OBR that she is going in exactly the wrong direction, making all our constituents poorer? Can she please explain that to the House?

[Rachel Reeves]

That is just completely wrong. What the OBR says today is that people will be £1,000 a year better off by the end of the forecast period and that GDP per capita will increase by 5.6% after having fallen under the previous Government. Yes, productivity growth was revised down at the Budget, because of the policies of the previous Government. It has not been revised today.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

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

[Dr Luke Evans]

I have come here to talk about duty, but not duty in the conventional sense. I feel that I owe a duty to the cafés, restaurants and pubs in my constituency to tell the Government just how poor their impact is and to hold them accountable. That is why I support new clauses 9 and 26.

Let me start with new clause 9, on the review of the cumulative impact. I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that there is a cumulative impact, but I would go further, as I have done, and call it a toxic concoction. It is true that the Conservative Government raised taxes, and I can imagine that in the future another Conservative Government may need to do the same, but the toxic concoction that this Government have set out on, with the Employment Rights Bill, raising the minimum wage and the reduction in support on hospitality exemption all at the same time, is compounding the problem. I am here to use my voice and do my duty to ask the Government to be accountable and able to show their workings, and these two new clauses are an attempt to do that.

We saw the Government come forward in their first Budget and say that they did not need to raise any further taxes, yet the subsequent Budget in 2025, which we are debating now, brought taxes further forward by £26 billion. The Chancellor said that the slate was wiped clean, by her own admission, but it seems that she has hospitality in her sights, and it is not clear why. What does she have against cafés, hotels and restaurants? She seems to be softening, because she has heard from her Back Benchers about the impact that all this is having on pubs.

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

To come to the rescue of the Chancellor, it turns out that she simply did not understand the impact, according to the Business Secretary. Perhaps the Minister, in her winding-up speech, will be able to confirm that the Chancellor literally did not know what the impact of her own policies would be on hospitality businesses. The Minister may be able to tell us whether the Business Secretary was right to identify that failing of understanding by the Chancellor.

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is very charitable, because the Chancellor has said that she does not know. However, we also know that the documentation released in the Budget says that the Treasury did know. What has gone wrong?

As we have heard today in Committee, the rateable value of 5,100 pubs will double, but the Lib Dem spokesman missed the other point: one in eight pubs will see an increase of more than 100% in their rateable value. The Government have a question to answer. Did they wilfully ignore that and choose to impact hospitality, or were they mistaken and not competent in seeing that there was a problem?