Inheritance Tax

John Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Nothing illustrates the great divide between rural Britain and this urban-centric Labour Government quite like the family farm tax. This was a comprehensive failure to grasp how intergenerational farming works and a wilful failure to understand that asset-rich does not equate to cash-rich, as evidenced by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who is sadly not in her place.

A chill was sent through rural Dumfries and Galloway by changes to agricultural property relief, for this was not just about farmers but the wider community and the many jobs intertwined with dairy and beef, pigs and sheep, arable and horticulture. Since my election to this place, I have seen military veterans—some of the toughest people I have ever had the privilege to meet—well up, recalling comrades lost and maimed in the service of this country, and a woman in tears because duff pension advice had robbed her. I have had farmers weeping, too—men in their 80s, with hard knocks enough for many lifetimes under their belts. Those proud old men were crying not for themselves and what they thought they might lose in what little time lay ahead, but about what future generations would lose.

Many families realise that no child will now take on the stark new financial reality of farming. How incredible was it to sit in this place and watch Ministers giving advice on how to mitigate the damage their own policies were doing? Labour likes to roar about the 14 years we Conservatives had in power, but what were they doing in their 14 years in opposition? Clearly precious little proper planning, because the inheritance tax changes, which were so toxic that no one else would touch them, were dusted off in jig time amid a scramble to be seen to be doing something—anything—in that first 100 days.

Inheritance tax is invidious in all its forms: it is the state exacting a last drop from estates, which is gathered despite the taxman’s previous depredations. It is double taxation, for anything in the purview of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on death has already come through the storm of income tax, capital gains tax and VAT. That is why we Conservatives have pledged to reverse the cuts to agricultural property relief, abolish inheritance tax on the family home and raise the individual threshold to £500,000. That would mean that a couple could pass on their main home to direct descendants free from inheritance tax, plus a further £1 million without any inheritance tax liability.

[Dr Hudson]

These are people who are doing the right thing: farmers who feed us and look after our precious environment, family businesses supporting their local economy and families who work hard to provide a family home. Is not their being able to pass on their farms, family businesses and family homes to the next generation free from inheritance tax, about fairness?

[John Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks to farmers far more than Labour Front-Bench Members ever do. Indeed, he knows that this is about fairness. We Conservatives believe in rewarding those who have done the right thing: those who have strived and who have saved.

There is further positive news from our plan, as highlighted by the TaxPayers’ Alliance. In October 2024, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase in the interest rate on the late payment of taxes. The rate had been calculated on the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%, but the Budget saw an increase in the surcharge to 4% above base, so the interest rate on late payment of tax is currently a usurious 7.75%. Asset-heavy, cash-light taxpayers such as farmers are particularly vulnerable to that change as it takes time to convert assets into a form that allows them to pay that balance.

Inheritance tax is due six months after death, after which interest is charged daily on unpaid tax. However, executors may struggle to meet the deadline because properties are illiquid assets that can take considerable time to sell, particularly when probate is required. Selling properties quickly may mean accepting a lower price, while waiting for a better offer can result in additional punitive interest charges. The probate process creates further difficulties as executors often need probate to sell inherited properties, yet generally inheritance tax must be paid before probate is granted.

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member is making a set of technical and important points. Does he not accept that for businesses of the size and scale he is talking about, whether family owned or not, succession planning and perhaps even life insurance are important tools that should be considered to mitigate some of the things he is describing? [Interruption.] I do not think that is unreasonable.

[John Cooper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is talking about adding yet more costs on to businesses. I have heard from farmers who tried inheritance planning but were told that the bank would not pass on the working overdraft to young members of the family. It is much more complicated than he pretends.

Although HMRC may allow payments in instalments over 10 years or grant credit in certain circumstances, interest can still accrue after six months. That leaves taxpayers with higher bills through no fault of their own. The Conservatives’ allowing family homes to be excluded from inheritance tax, plus the additional £1 million allowance, would restrict the effect of that pernicious interest.

Meanwhile, we need to see agriculture not as a dripping roast on which the Treasury may feast, but as a rural powerhouse helping to feed the nation. If this Government were serious about their mantra “food security is national security”, they would halt the family farm tax right now and stop turning the human drama of a death into a financial crisis for the living.

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

John Cooper Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 General Committees

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will oppose this legislation, but not because of the detail we have heard today, complex though it is, and which has been a long time coming, emerging inch by painful inch. Rather, we oppose this legislation in the round. The Conservatives’ intention is to scrap the carbon border adjustment mechanism as well as the emissions trading scheme. Committing to fully scrapping the carbon tax regime, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was “madness” to pursue the goal of preserving the environment by

“killing British industry and fatally weakening our national resilience.”

We are not alone. Many industry voices agree. Steel is one of the sectors most affected by CBAM. Frank Aaskov, the director of climate change policy at UK Steel, has said:

“The UK Government is knowingly driving towards deindustrialisation with its carbon border policy, while ignoring repeated, evidence-based warnings from industry.

As currently structured, the policy will favour overseas competitors over domestic steel producers, undermining investment decisions being taken now on decarbonisation.”

The Government’s ruinously expensive steel strategy—apparently keeping blast furnaces alight with bundles of taxpayers’ £20 notes—is in meltdown. CBAM is another hammer blow for this foundational industry, as with cement, chemicals and aluminium. Reindustrialisation is simply not possible while this Government inflict punitive energy costs on business and pursue a net zero agenda that is more concerned with green dogma than real-world practicality.

There is much talk from Government about food security being national security, but our pivotal agricultural industry is alarmed by CBAM and, as we have heard, by its impact on fertiliser. The umbrella body, the Agricultural Industries Confederation, warns that the fertiliser market operates across highly integrated European supply chains. The current lack of clarity risks creating unnecessary administrative burdens, pricing uncertainty and potential distortions between UK, EU and third-country suppliers. Industry estimates show that CBAM could add between £70 and £100 a tonne to the cost of fertiliser. That is a huge additional burden on an industry in which margins are already tight.

[John Lamont]

The shadow Minister’s excellent speech is making it very clear why farmers and other part of industry are concerned about the regulations. In response to my earlier intervention, the Minister said that he would be telling farmers the rates “very shortly”. Frankly, that is not good enough. Does the shadow Minister agree that farmers need that certainty now? They might not be able to get a definitive figure, but they need to know the date by which the rate will be announced.

[John Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All businesses need certainty, and farmers are no different. They need to buy things in advance, so they need to know how much things will cost. It is about going back to the foundations. The additional cost of fertiliser is likely to link directly to higher food prices, which will affect all our constituents in a cost of living crisis.

What will be the impact of the measure on businesses? The explanatory memorandum to the regulations says that CBAM

“will have a significant impact on...10,000 businesses importing CBAM goods into the UK.”

As with every regulation, small businesses will face higher administrative costs relative to their turnover. However, the Government have not published a new impact assessment alongside the instrument. Could the Minister tell us why not? How can the Government claim that the tax information and impact note from November 2025 remains accurate, when we all know how much more precarious the situation for business is now than it was a year ago? Across industry and businesses big and small, warning lights are flashing on dashboards.

CBAM is a wrong-headed attempt at a solution to the failures of the carbon tax. The solution cannot be to add yet more burdens on Britain’s businesses to try to balance out the damage already done. The solution is to tackle the problem at source: to axe the carbon tax entirely, and the emissions trading scheme and CBAM with it, and to end the deindustrialisation of our country. This is the time to drive industry forward, not to hamstring it with additional costs that are deleterious and damaging to its very survival. The Government should think again.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Fuel duty is catnip for a Chancellor desperate for revenue, but it is no sin tax, because for millions of Britons, vehicles are lifelines not luxuries. The imminent rise in fuel duty comes as tankers are ablaze in the strait of Hormuz. Must family budgets also go up in flames?

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

John Cooper Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and engagement. This is one of the largest parts of the Bill, and sets out a significant change to taxation and the treatment of imports in order, as he says, to support domestic businesses that may face higher prices than companies seeking to export to the UK that have cheaper prices and higher emissions.

To go through some of the questions that were asked, the criteria that were looked at internally—over many years and starting under the previous Government; it has taken five years of work to determine which sectors will be in scope—were whether sectors were already in scope of the UK emissions trading scheme, because it is important that those are aligned; whether there was real risk of carbon leakage; and whether it was feasible to implement in 2027. That is why these five sectors were chosen, after significant engagement across Government and with stakeholders. The sectoral scope will be kept under review, and there are some sectors that the Government will continue to have conversations with in the coming weeks to understand their concerns and the benefits that there may be to widening the scope in future. We will keep it under review because, at the moment, the focus is on making sure that we can implement this significant change. It is a long piece of legislation and there are lots of good questions, but we want to get this in as drafted first.

The shadow Minister made several points regarding the sectors that are already in and the extent to which, in his words, they might be made “worse off”. It is important to note that they will be better off than without a CBAM in terms of competition and fairness in imports. At the moment, there is no CBAM, so the imports that come to the UK in these five sectors are, in a sense, undercutting domestic production if we have higher costs. With the introduction of CBAM, that undercutting will be significantly reduced. The prices faced by importers will be brought into line with those faced by those companies in the UK. There is a valid point to make about the detail and specificity with which the carbon prices that are used within CBAM are set, and that is something that I certainly want to keep under review, but it is good and it is right that we make progress with CBAM as set out in the legislation.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The Minister talks about people being better off, but my farmers are very concerned about the fertiliser impact. Four or five years ago, fertiliser was around £180 a tonne; today it is about £400 a tonne, and the introduction of CBAM might put another £100 on top of that. Farmers’ margins are so narrow that they simply have to pass that on, which will have a direct effect on food prices in this country. The Minister says that there will be talks about that. Farmers should be front and centre of those talks, because this is really worrying.

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will engage, and have engaged, with the industries that are directly affected by this change, including the fertiliser industry, and those for whom there will be knock-on effects from higher import prices. With fertiliser in particular, it is worth noting that UK-based fertiliser manufacturers have received more free allowances in recent years than they needed to surrender to be able to cover their emissions. As such, they are not, in practice, paying a carbon price at the moment. The CBAM rate will therefore be set at a low level to reflect that. It is something that I have been looking at as Minster because of these issues, and we expect the initial impact of CBAM on the fertiliser sector to be very modest. None the less I take the point that the hon. Member raises, and the Government will continue to look at it.

On the point around groupings and EORI numbers, that is not a phrase that I have come across before, but I am glad that I have heard it. I will make sure to remind myself of the torturous Brexit process and will, I am sure, understand the context there in more detail. We engaged with businesses in advance of making the proposal and feedback indicated that group treatment would confer relatively minimal benefits, so we chose not to implement it at this time. We will, of course, keep that under review though.

CBAM is a significant change that has been welcomed by many of the industries in the UK and should go a long way to levelling the playing field for those firms that are producing in these five sectors.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

John Cooper Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

This Government have our farming road map. We have also published the Batters review, and we will be taking forward many of the proposals and the recommendations in it, so that we can continue to support profitability and sustainability for farmers and our farming communities.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

A guid new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff of the House.

The past 14 months have been hell for the farmers of Dumfries and Galloway, and the Minister has made it clear that he will not apologise for that. Will he stop fantasising, like the wealthfinder general, about the money he can take out of agriculture and instead concentrate on helping British farmers to put British food on British tables?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We need to continue to do all we can to support British farming so that we can have more British produce on our shelves and so that countries overseas can have more British produce, too. That is why we have been working hard on our trade deals to secure more access for British farmers to markets overseas.

Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross]

Exactly—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. On that point, I will skip forward a little bit to my first question to the Minister, which is when the Treasury will publish its consultation outcome on the future fiscal regime for the North sea, and whether the Government will wait until 2030 to implement that new regime, or whether they will implement it straightaway. Investment decisions worth billions are being put on hold waiting for that answer. They need to know a month, or ideally a week—not just a vague “in due course”.

Capital investment forecasts for the North sea have fallen by 84%, from over £14 billion to £2.3 billion for the period 2025 to 2029, and Offshore Energies UK calculates that £26 billion of economic value will be lost under Labour’s EPL extension. Some 90% of OEUK’s member companies are now seeking opportunities overseas, and Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce agrees, warning that the EPL is

“eroding investor confidence and driving capital to rival overseas regions.”

Shell’s finance chief has called for certainty and a “stable environment”, noting that the UK’s 78% tax rate is “larger than most” other countries and makes it difficult to have confidence in long-term investments.

Although Norway, which the Government love to use as a comparison, has a similar tax rate, the Government know that this is a false comparison, because Norway also offers full capital cost deductions. It refunds almost 72% of losses to companies and gives a 24% uplift on investment over four years. The result is that Norway attracts 3.8 times more investment than the UK into the same mature North sea basin. Norway’s North sea will see around £35 billion in exploration and production investment through to 2030; ours will see just £10 billion.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I am from the south-west of Scotland, which is as far from the north-east as one can get in Scotland. None the less, this is a huge issue for the whole country. My hon. Friend is making a point about the North sea basin being mature. We always hear that—it is mature, it is declining—but the Norwegian investment is exploiting areas of gas and oil that previously would not have been accessible. New techniques such as horizontal drilling are delivering huge benefits for the Norwegian economy; we are denying ourselves those benefits. Is that not the case?

[Harriet Cross]

It is absolutely the case—my hon. Friend is completely correct. We are forgoing so many opportunities in the North sea to secure energy for our country and safeguard the skills and jobs that we will need for the transition. There are endless opportunities that, for some reason, we are willing to leave under the North sea.

That brings me to my second question for the Minister. Does the Treasury recognise the damage that the EPL is doing to the North sea? We know that the decline in the North sea did not start with the EPL—it is a mature basin—but the EPL is accelerating that decline. Its ripple effects go far beyond the energy producers themselves. The supply chain is haemorrhaging jobs. Hunting in Aberdeenshire laid off 143 employees; Wood Group cut 200 jobs last year; Belmar Engineering entered liquidation this year, with 48 redundancies; Beam in Westhill collapsed, with 100 jobs lost; Well-Safe Solutions cut about 45 jobs; and Harbour Energy has cut 250 jobs, which is 25% of its onshore workforce. I keep coming back to the words that the Chancellor said when Harbour Energy announced its job cuts earlier this year and cited the EPL as a principal factor. She said that this was just

“a commercial decision by one company”,

but the list I have given—which is not exhaustive—is evidence that that is not the case. It shows that the Chancellor either does not understand, or does not want to understand, the impact the EPL is having.

As I am sure other Members do, I regularly visit companies in the north-east of Scotland whose order books for offshore work have completely dried up, forcing them to adapt their business models to other sectors just to keep afloat. Many of those companies do not know whether they will be here in 12 months’ time. They are not hiring, they are struggling to justify investments, and in many cases, they can do nothing more than hope for a change in Government policy. These companies are owned, grown and run by some of the most innovative and entrepreneurial people I have ever met. They are not afraid of branching out or trying new things—they have done so for their whole business careers—but they are being backed into a corner and are running out of options.

The irony is that this policy is failing on its own terms, in shrinking the very economic activity that it seeks to tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility originally forecast that the energy profits levy would raise more than £65 billion between 2023 and 2028, but the revised forecast is £21.1 billion. We are on track to miss the target by £44 billion, and revenue from the EPL fell from £4.2 billion to £2.7 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures show that revenues from oil and gas production were down 27% last year.

When did the Treasury last carry out an impact assessment of the EPL’s impacts on production, jobs, economic activity and tax receipts? Have those assessments been revisited following those recent HMRC figures showing the downgraded forecast? Forecasts show that the policy could ultimately cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue by 2050. We have reached the point where the level of taxation means less money. The Government are taxing the North sea so heavily that tax revenues are being lost. We cannot tax jobs that no longer exist, we cannot tax production that no longer exists and we cannot tax businesses that no longer operate in the UK.

There is something else that the Government are ignoring. From the early 2030s, the Treasury will face a £2 billion to £3 billion cost each year in decommissioning rebates, a decade earlier than expected. The premature shutdown of fields, driven by the EPL making them too unviable to continue, makes that liability ever more imminent.

The policy is also undermining our energy security at a time of global instability, suppressing domestic oil and gas production and increasing our dependence on foreign imports. We are now 42% dependent on energy imports. By 2030, it is projected that our reliance on imported gas will increase to 80%, and our liquefied natural gas imports have increased by 40% in the past year alone. Those changes are partly down to geology, but the decline is accentuated by the punitive tax regime for companies operating out of the North sea.

Estimates suggest that there could be 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining in the North sea that could be recovered with the right investment. We could cover half our energy needs to 2050 with North sea reserves. If we drive investment away, we will leave that resource untapped, only for imports from elsewhere to cover them. That is a huge loss of economic opportunity for the north-east of Scotland and the UK as a whole.

That brings me to my final question, and I will soon conclude. Will the Treasury please commit to de-linking oil and gas pricing in the energy security investment mechanism so that both commodities are assessed on their individual market conditions? Time is running out, and that is not an exaggeration. Every month of inaction means another thousand jobs gone. Every delayed investment decision means less energy security for Britain. Every skilled worker who leaves to go overseas is one we will struggle to get back when we need them for the energy transition.

I and, more importantly, the oil and gas sector have four questions for the Minister. First, when will the consultation outcome be published? Secondly, does the Treasury recognise the damage it is inflicting? Thirdly, when was the last impact assessment carried out by the Government? Fourthly, will the Government de-link oil and gas in the energy security investment mechanism? The north-east of Scotland has powered Britain for 50 years. We have contributed hundreds of billions in tax revenues. We developed expertise that is renowned around the world. We have so much more to offer to meet the UK’s current and future energy needs, but only if we are given the chance. Scrapping the EPL is a vital part of that chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

As I said just a few moments ago, 100,000 jobs are directly or indirectly linked to the work and activities in this sector, and it is vital that we support people with that transition. In the long-term, carbon capture and storage alone is expected to support 50,000 skilled jobs by 2050 as we move towards a clean energy transition. I am acutely aware—I have heard it from Opposition Members, and I am sure that I will hear it from my hon. Friends in a second—that we must get the balance right between the timing of phasing out and winding down production in the North sea, and ramping up the clean energy and good jobs that we need for the future. We have to do all we can to protect the sector.

[John Cooper]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will first take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).

[Dan Tomlinson]

I believe the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was slightly quicker in standing up than my hon. Friend.

I do understand my hon. Friend’s points. It is very important not to be cowardly in politics, which is why I will make sure that we come forward as fast as we can to set out the approach after the EPL is set to end. This Government, under the leadership of a whole range of Cabinet Ministers, is making sure that we can provide that long-term certainty, not chopping and changing when it comes to our policies on net zero.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan mentioned energy security, which links to the challenge we have with energy bills. It is worth recognising the truth that, even if we extracted every single drop of oil and gas in the North sea, that would not make any material difference to people’s energy bills or the prices that people pay at the pump. Oil and gas are traded on international markets, and given the declining basin on the UK continental shelf, domestically produced oil and gas do not do anything to reduce prices. In fact, it is our reliance on oil and gas that leaves British consumers exposed to unstable fossil fuel markets.

In closing, this Government are determined to provide a balance—

[John Cooper]

rose—

[Dan Tomlinson]

Does the hon. Member really wish to intervene? [Interruption.] Go on.

[John Cooper]

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point: this is about balance. We need to find a balance in the transition of people coming out of oil and gas and moving into renewables. The difficulty is that we cannot say to these highly-skilled people that there is a great job for them in renewables but it is going to be 10 years down the line. That is no use to them at all: they have bills to pay and families to feed. The balance is out of kilter, and I am afraid that the Government are getting this wrong.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I disagree that the Government are getting this wrong. We are doing our best to try to find the right balance to support people, industry and jobs.

We will continue to provide a balanced, responsible and predictable regime for the UK oil and gas industry, which I hope will continue to drive growth, support workers and communities, protect our energy security and ensure a prosperous future for the North sea as we make our way towards net zero. Our commitment, and my commitment as a Minister, to the future of the North sea is clear, and I will continue to engage closely with the industry, workers and Members across the House on this important issue.

I again thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan for securing this important discussion, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

4. If she will meet farming representatives to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on farmers.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

6. If she will meet with representatives of the farming industry to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on that sector.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

22. If she will meet with representatives of the farming industry to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on that sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I have been involved in many debates in this House that the right hon. Gentleman has been a part of as well, and we have set out how the decisions we have taken mean the system coming in from April next year will maintain generous tax reliefs within the agricultural property relief and business property relief system, while also raising revenue in a fair way to support the public finances. That money for the public finances, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have said many times today, is crucial to have economic stability and to get our public services back on their feet.

[John Cooper]

The Chancellor elicited much public sympathy with her recent tearful appearance on these Benches, but over the summer I have had Dumfries and Galloway farmers in tears at the loss of the next generation of farming. A new Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report says that HMRC’s own figures indicate that these changes to taxes are unfair and unbalanced. Will the Minister please think again?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The CenTax report he refers to is independent analysis demonstrating that, in its opinion, the reforms improve on the current position and are expected largely to meet the Government’s objective. In fact, the report validates the Government’s position.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the challenges that I learned on coming into government is that the last Government did not even ask what the maintenance backlog was in certain Departments. There was not a clear set of data that told us which assets the Government own and the quality or state of them, so we have some pretty basic work to be getting on with through NISTA as we allocate the money, which will go directly to the schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings that have been ignored for many, many years.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The creation of another new authority will be met with an eye-rolling sigh in Scotland, because although it is called the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—a very shiny title—the reality is that it will have little oversight in Scotland. The plan announced today will generate Barnett formula money, which will go to Holyrood and disappear—it will go into ferries that do not float and things like that. In my constituency the A75 road is a piece of critical national infrastructure. It services the ferry ports to Northern Ireland, and it is vital for all the countries that make up the United Kingdom. Will we see any money coming for that road through today’s innovation, or will the money once again disappear into the coffers in Holyrood?

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

At the risk of disappointing the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), I rise not entirely to criticise the banks, which have done tremendous work on apps and the like, and many people—not all of them spring chickens—make great use of them. But as banks retreat from bricks and mortar locations, a problem is that even silver surfers who are comfortable with the technology may simply not be able to get the relevant app to work. In rural Dumfries and Galloway, we have too many notspots, where the mobile phone signal is sketchy at best and non-existent at worst. Similarly, there is a lack of decent broadband. The ground truth is that while it might be easy-PC for some to get online, sclerotic broadband and thick stone walls designed to keep out the Scottish damp make too many computers and smartphones expensive placemats.

The need for access to face-to-face banking services remains high, as we have heard. As we have also heard, there are numerous issues with the current banking hub regime. Take Wigtown in my constituency: it is Scotland’s official book town, yet the current banking hub criteria fail to capture the significance of that. Wigtown is evaluated on its modest resident population, with no account taken of the huge influx of visitors when its famous book festival opens its covers. I have a stream of reports of the town centre cash machine running out of spondulicks outwith the festival and anecdotal reports of people gathering for a trip to the nearest hub in Newton Stewart to lift their pensions. That hub is 12 miles distant, and notwithstanding our positively balmy climate in Dumfries and Galloway—no, really—it is not walkable. As for the public transport system, let us just say that we need a calendar and not a stopwatch to time the buses.

When Dalbeattie, the third biggest town in my constituency with a population of more than 4,000 souls and a slew of thriving businesses, struggles to get a banking hub, surely there is a compelling case for lowering the threshold for hubs. I accept that we cannot have an ethos of “wherever two or three are gathered, there shall be a banking hub”, yet equally, we cannot expect one ATM to carry the banking needs of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

Banking has come on in leaps and bounds since the days of little pens chained to counters and limited opening hours, but on balance, too many people are being left behind in the technological revolution. American banker Felix Rohatyn, who rescued New York from financial disaster, said:

“banking is not simply about profit, but about personal relationships.”

Even in this digital age, we need to capture some of that spirit via our banking hubs.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the £200 million investment in the Grangemouth facility, which has already been spoken about today. I hope he will also support the Government’s decision to restore fiscal responsibility to public finances within the tough fiscal rules that the Chancellor set out at the Budget.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

13. What discussions she has had with businesses on the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on levels of business confidence.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Economic stability and growth are vital to help businesses across the UK to grow. The Lloyds business barometer published last week showed business confidence up 12 points, building on recent surveys by EY and PwC that show that business and investor confidence is rising. The Government are partnering with business to unlock investment and to drive growth.

[John Cooper]

The Chancellor, with her unimpeachable record in the sector, will know that economics is known as the dismal science. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, rather than using second-hand statistics, I have spoken directly with businesses one to one and found that the mood is indeed dismal. After her dud Budget, can she think again and go back on this desperate jobs tax? She is in danger of becoming tough on growth and tough on the causes of growth.

[Rachel Reeves]

Conservative Members welcome the additional money for the NHS, but they never welcome the means to pay for it, which is why we are in the mess that we are with the £22 billion black hole we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Member says that these are backward-looking surveys. The EY survey of UK CEOs found that 82% felt optimistic. PwC’s latest global CEO survey ranked the UK as the second-most attractive global destination for international investment, and last week the Lloyds survey showed a boost in business confidence. Those are the facts. People are choosing Britain as a place to invest and to locate their businesses. On the Government side of the House, we welcome that.