Rural Roads

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises a very good point. I will come on to the preventive measures and what can actually be returned to the economy to help the Department fix this major issue.

Potholes are one of the biggest issues raised with me since I have been an MP, and I am sure the same will be true for many other Members. Obviously when we get bad weather, we see them increase more and more, and that causes a major issue.

There are multiple areas that I would like to cover today. I am not raising one or two anecdotal concerns or bits of evidence; I am raising the more than 2,100 road defects reported to Shropshire council in January alone—that is, in one month. That is almost triple the number of reports in the previous month and double the number in January 2025. I have been told that potholes are not getting fixed quickly enough, which is causing roads to deteriorate and some to become impassable.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I want to highlight the fact that in Scotland we have a particular challenge. Scottish Borders council is responsible for maintaining 1,900 miles of road, which must be one of the biggest distances in the whole of the UK, but in Scotland, because of the decisions that the SNP Government are making, rural local authorities such as Scottish Borders council are being neglected for the sake of the central belt. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities need to be funded properly to allow them to fix these many miles of roads?

[Stuart Anderson]

I do. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is more money being spent by councils than it costs to fix the roads. I will come on to that in detail in a minute. These are serious issues. I have one constituent that people have stopped visiting because their road is now impassable—talk about remoteness and being cut off in rural areas!

Finance (No. 2) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that, like me, he has received many emails and letters from farmers over the last few days, given that the price of red diesel, heating oil and fertiliser has gone up in the light of recent uncertain events. Does that not demonstrate and remind us all how fragile farming businesses are? The idea that farmers will have sufficient money sitting in the bank to pay this tax bill is for the birds.

[Robbie Moore]

It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities.

This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government.

Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million.

We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates.

I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the energy-intensive industries, and for manufacturing more widely. The supercharger is being extended from April this year. That will help 500 of the most energy-intensive businesses, and increase their discount from 60% to 90%—and next year, the BIC scheme comes in. Given what is happening in the middle east, we will continue to look closely at what we can do to help our energy-intensive industries.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Over 50% of properties in the Scottish Borders are not on the mains gas grid and are completely dependent on heating oil. They are being hammered by the increase to the price of heating oil over the last week or so, and they need to see concrete action from this Government to stop the excessive prices and the profiteering. What are the Government going to do?

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to de-escalate the conflict in the middle east, because if we can get vessels moving again through the strait of Hormuz, we will deal with a lot of these problems. I am working closely with both Lloyd’s of London—I met its representatives yesterday—and my G7 colleagues to ensure that those vessels can get moving again. At the same time, I think that everybody has heard the stories in this Chamber and from our constituents about the problems of price gouging. We have to address that, and I have asked the CMA to look at it. Members across the House will have a chance tomorrow to set out their case to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in more detail, so that we have all the information needed to make the case.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

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

[Gareth Snell]

There is a danger here of getting into the inevitable jokes about champagne socialism, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is right: there needs to be fair play. If we even out the taxation across the sector, that means that we can have targeted support in other areas where we know that there should be an unfair advantage for certain things. For instance, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire said, we should encourage and support making greater use of the draught relief for those selling alcohol in a pub.

Currently, 61% of cider producers produce less than five hectolitres of alcohol, which means they get a 100% reduction in the duty they pay. That is why we could increase or level out the rate of alcohol duty on cider and beer producers without impacting the small cider producers in this country. It would only impact the global manufacturers which, frankly, are taking a profit and making, I would argue, a substandard product, or trying to hide a mass-produced product behind a local label, which is often the case.

Under the Government’s proposal, the duty will be £10.39 per litre for cider and £22.58 for beer, and that differential grows every year. Because it is uprated by an inflation percentage, over the past few years the rate between the two in cash terms has just got bigger and bigger. It is a disadvantage to small brewers, who produce good quality beer, that they pay a rate of alcohol duty equivalent to the global cider manufacturers. SIBA estimates that the levelling of that figure could generate £360 million per year. That money could either go towards reducing the rate overall for all levels of duty, or it could further reduce the draught relief so that there is a clear and meaningful differential between those selling alcohol in pubs and those selling it in supermarkets.

There are some brilliant pubs in my constituency, the Greyhound in Hartshill being the one that I frequent the most. It is a community venue, and if it has to pay greater levels of duty on alcohol as a result of this Budget, I am sure it will find a way of doing so, but if there was a way of encouraging more people to go to that pub because the rate of duty on that pint was lower and it was subsidised by the big cider producers selling to the supermarkets, it seems to me that that would be a fair thing to do.

There is also a non-tax measure that the Government could introduce to support small brewers across the country, and it would cost the Government nothing. The market access review is currently sitting on a desk in the Department for Business and Trade, and it would guarantee that small brewers could have access to pubs in their locality to guarantee guest ales. I believe that Scotland already has this mechanism and that it is working well—unless someone can tell me otherwise. If we could replicate that in England and Wales, it would mean that those small independent brewers would have an opportunity to sell more beer in pubs, where a lower rate of duty would be applied to the product. That would help them with their business. It would give publicans an opportunity to increase the range of beers they sell, which would then help to attract more people into those pubs. It would mean that we would have more small independent brewers in this country selling more pints of beer, which supports them as employers and as good companies, such as Titanic in my own city.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I want to speak about the pub and hospitality sector in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, but also more broadly about the impact of these changes on an important industry that is the lifeblood of the Scottish economy. We are debating the hike in alcohol duty, which the Treasury has described merely as “uprating”, but for Scotland this technical change will have a real impact on our iconic industry. It will be a hammer blow to the Scottish whisky industry as well as to the pub and hospitality sector.

The Treasury is hiking these taxes to fill the black hole in its balance sheet, but the Scottish whisky industry is a global brand that not only supports the Scottish economy but is very important to the UK economy, and it is really important that the Treasury and the Government understand the impact that these changes will have on this global brand.

It is important to remember the numbers associated with the Scottish whisky industry. It contributes £7.1 billion to the UK economy. It also supports 41,000 jobs in Scotland, some of them in our most fragile and vulnerable communities in the highlands, in Moray, in the Borders and all over Scotland. The whisky industry has a footprint and an impact. Whether it is the distilleries or the farmers who are growing the crops that go to be distilled, the whisky industry is a key part of the Scottish economy as well as the key part of many local economies, in that it provides local jobs in remote communities and supports local events and, often, local services such as the local school, the village shop and many other key parts of the community.

The Minister and the Chancellor claim that the rise in alcohol duty will boost revenue, but history says something very different. Indeed, the Treasury’s own data says something very different, because when duty was hiked by 10.1% in 2023, spirits revenue did not go up; it actually plummeted. Before colleagues seek to intervene, I appreciate that it was a Conservative Chancellor who made that change, but Scottish Conservative MPs argued strongly for it not to happen. We accepted the representations that the Scottish whisky industry, the Scotch Whisky Association and many of our constituents were making against the tax rise.

The evidence has backed up what the industry was saying. When we put up taxes, the revenue generated actually falls. According to the Scotch Whisky Association, that tax hike actually cost the Treasury £150 million as consumers pull back and stop spending as much as they did. By doubling down, the Labour Government will compound the situation. The Chancellor and this Government are trapped in a doom loop where higher taxes lead to lower sales, which lead to lower tax receipts, which lead to—you guessed it—even higher taxes from elsewhere as they scramble around to try to fill the gap. It is not possible to tax a sector into prosperity.

I want to touch briefly on the impact on our high streets and pubs, because it is not just the distilleries that will suffer as a consequence of this tax hike. From the highlands to the Borders, our hospitality is screaming out for “breathing room” because all it is getting from this Government is a tightening of the noose. The Scottish Government are compounding matters in Scotland with their anti-job policies. Taken with the UK Government’s policies, that is making things even worse.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member refers to his belief that the Scottish Government are engaged in anti-jobs policies. Can he therefore explain why unemployment in Scotland is substantially lower than it is in England?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, but by any measure the Scottish economy is not doing well. Scotland is, by any definition, the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. While paying all this extra tax, none of my constituents—I am sure his constituents would agree—feel that they are getting any extra benefit from it. Our NHS and our education system are not performing well; there are potholes on all our roads; and our local authorities are underfunded. Taxes are going up in Scotland, but public services are going down. But of course we have an opportunity in a few weeks in Scotland to replace a failing nationalist Government with a pro-UK Scottish Conservative Government.

The hospitality and pub sector in Scotland is having to deal not just with these higher rates of alcohol duty, but with national insurance hikes, the jobs tax and the national living wage hike, as well as all the other red tape being imposed on it. Pubs are finding it more and more difficult to do business, which is why numbers are falling as a direct consequence of decisions that this Government have taken. In fact, in 2025 we saw a record number of licensed premises handing back their keys because they could no longer make their balance sheets work.

As colleagues have mentioned, pubs are more than just where people go to have a drink and more than just the value of a drink; they provide social value to the local community. I represent 90 to 100 different communities in my constituency. Not all of them have a pub, but for those that still do, the pub is a focal point. It is where people go not just to have a drink, but to meet friends and chat to neighbours. It might be the only conversation and contact someone has that day, over a social pint or a can of cola.

I want to mention a couple of the excellent pubs in my constituency: the Black Bull in Duns, the Cobbles in Kelso, the Ship Inn in Melrose, the Plough Hotel in Yetholm and the Office Bar in Hawick. One pub I must mention that has bucked the trend—I said earlier that lots of pubs are closing—is the Blackadder in Greenlaw, which has just reopened and is going from strength to strength. But the pub highlights the huge challenges that the Government are imposing on it. Despite the fact that it has made this effort to open and get people back in the pub, the challenges being imposed on it—largely, I have to say, by the UK Government—are clear, and it is finding it so difficult to continue the service it is providing and keep the business running.

We are fast approaching the point when people in Scotland and across the UK will no longer be able to go down to their local to enjoy a drink, and when the only people who can afford Scotland’s national drink—a glass of whisky—will be those living outside Scotland, as opposed to those living in Scotland.

I just wish that the Chancellor, the Minister and the Government would reflect on all the voices highlighting these issues and crying out for help, and that they would recognise the service that these important local businesses are providing to their communities. They should listen to all the publicans who have decided to ban Labour MPs from their premises because they do not agree with the policies that they are proposing. They feel so strongly about this issue that they have decided to make a stand. I encourage the Government to think again. If they cannot think again tonight, they should at least recognise that a cumulative assessment of all these changes would allow them to come back to the Chamber better informed and justify the choices that they are making in this Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

I have heard a range of cases from right hon. and hon. Members about that differential, and I would certainly like to see nothing happen that would jeopardise the drinks, hospitality or agricultural sectors in the west country, but I will leave that to be divined by others with a more material interest, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Pubs are revered institutions, and they are under threat as never before across these islands, so let me put the situation in simple terms. Let us not forget that before the election hospitality was already struggling with the post-covid recovery, the highest taxes since the war, a punitive and unrelenting business rates regime, the disastrous misadventure of Brexit and labour shortages, and 16 years of the UK without any meaningful economic growth. On top of all that, we had the highest energy costs in the developed world.

Since the election, Labour has added to that. At the outset of the debate, I expressed my concern and the Minister was kind enough to take my intervention on the compound effect, which many other Members have mentioned. She should really take cognisance of that, because since the election, Labour has added to the hospitality sector’s pain with a massive rise in employer national insurance contributions, even higher energy bills, even greater economic despondency pervading across society, an entrenched cost of living crisis keeping people at home, an increase to the minimum wage with no increase in revenue to support the payment of that wage, and no respite or consideration for the VAT millstone around hospitality’s neck. Labour should really listen, because on top of all that, there is now a 25% increase in unemployment, with 352,000 people now unemployed who were not before Labour came to power.

[John Lamont]

As the hon. Member will know, the Scottish Government announced their Budget today. I am sure he is aware of the comments from UKHospitality Scotland’s executive director, who said that the Scottish Government Budget had

“not sufficiently addressed the challenges that hospitality businesses in Scotland face”,

and that the majority

“will still be paying higher business rates bills in April”.

How does he reflect on those comments in the light of what he was just saying?

[Dave Doogan]

I reflect on the fact that, following the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government’s Budget today in Scotland, 93% of hospitality, retail and leisure businesses in Scotland will be paying no rates or reduced rates. That is because the SNP is responsive and closer to people in Scotland.

Further to that, not wishing to shoot the hon. Gentleman’s fox again, he spoke about the taxation rates for people in work in Scotland. I am sure his constituents will be grateful to know that 55% of taxpayers in Scotland are paying less tax than they would if they were part of the fiscal regime in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The problem with the figure for unemployment, which is a scandal—352,000 people are unemployed who were not unemployed before Labour came into power—is that unemployed people cannot afford to go to the pub or go out for a meal. It is against that backdrop that the Minister seeks to defend this latest hike in alcohol duty. That is totally unforgiveable.

I do not think the Minister believes a word that I am saying, and she certainly will not refer to anything I say in her winding-up speech, which I take as a kind of contrarian compliment. I do not know whether she has a local that she goes to; if she does, she can take my list of 12 life-threatening headwinds for pubs, all caused by the UK Government—mostly by Labour—and see if the landlord and landlady in her pub disagree with my analysis. She should do that before she introduces the 13th headwind—unlucky for pubs—with clause 86.

The SNP will back new clause 9, because, as many Members have said, we really need to review the way in which alcohol is purchased and consumed in the United Kingdom and the fiscal burden that follows that. Off-sales are getting far too easy a run of it, and on-sales will disappear before our eyes. I also support new clause 26.

It is too late today, as we have not been able to stop Labour coming to assault our pubs, but I look forward to standing up for Scotland’s hospitality sector again on Report. I hope the Minister will then have had a change of heart, or at the very least be in possession of a revised cost-benefit analysis that stacks up for hospitality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make some progress.

On the impacts on the public finances, HMRC publishes data on alcohol duty receipts quarterly. That data is reviewed alongside other evidence by the OBR when it produces its forecasts of alcohol duty receipts, as it did most recently alongside the November Budget. The Government’s view, as is evident from OBR-certified policy costings in recent years, remains that freezing or cutting alcohol duty rates reduces duty receipts.

The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens raised the importance of producers of Scottish whisky, and I agree with him about that. This Government are supporting key Scottish industries, including whisky, such as through our free trade agreement with India, which will boost exports of whisky and add £190 million a year to the Scottish economy.

[John Lamont]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

No, I will make some progress.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—he represents a wonderful place in the world, which is where I was between Christmas and new year—referred to the difference between CPI and RPI. As he knows, we are uprating alcohol duty by RPI, as with many other taxes expressed in cash terms. He will know that RPI is widely used, and moving away from it is fraught with difficulty.

I want to address the important points about business rates and employer national insurance contributions. We have discussed this already and, as Members will know, the Bill does not contain measures on either of those subjects, so I will not accept an amendment relating to them. I reiterate, however, that pubs are at the heart of our communities and we want them to thrive. As I have said, today we have heard some heartfelt references to particular pubs and the role that they have played in each of our lives. I could tell my own stories in that regard, but none of us would get home in time.

As Members know, in the Budget the Chancellor introduced a £4.3 billion support package to give relief to those seeing increases in their business rates bills. As I said earlier, we have made it clear that we are continuing to work with and talk to the sector about that support, and about what further support we can provide and what action we can take.

Clause 1

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Smith]

As I will go on to say, I can confirm that I have had many messages of support for this change in policy. It has been a pleasure to work with the Labour rural research group and other colleagues on this matter, as my hon. Friend mentioned. As I thank farmers, I also want to thank the Government for listening, learning and acting. It is the hallmark of a mature Government and of a healthy parliamentary debate that we have got to this point.

A multitude of structural factors contribute to the sustainability of intergenerational farming. There are many similarities between Britain’s blue-collar workers in the factories and what we might call green-collar workers in the fields. Both are squeezed by commercial interests and a globalised race to the bottom in pricing, costs and wages, which is why the laissez-faire approach to farming economics, such as in the imbalanced trade deals of the Conservative party, work against the sustainability of farming.

We have to plough a new furrow that will make farming genuinely sustainable in an intergenerational way. Protecting farming will require Government to form a new covenant with farming and green-collar workers more generally. The implementation of the Batters review will be very important here, particularly the farming and food partnership board, so that the whole supply chain can be examined and improved. It is high time the supermarkets in particular gave a fair price for the produce of our famers. Despite what the Liberal Democrats spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), said, the Secretary of State announced last week the plan for the SFI application process later this year. I particularly welcome the fact that there will be ringfenced support for smaller farms within that.

As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I will just mention that some larger farms will be impacted even after the changes to APR and BPR. For those just above the threshold, I encourage the Government to consider addressing the potential time and capacity challenges for accurate estate valuation and speedy probate, which must dovetail with the expectation of inheritance tax payments, so that estates that need to pay have clarity and are not penalised for blockages in the wider system.

I know that the Government are totally committed to the success of farming. That is vital, because the country needs a flourishing farming sector.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman’s constituency neighbour, representing a similarly rural constituency, I know how strongly farmers on my side of the border feel—like farmers on his side. The word “betrayal” comes up time and again among my local farmers. The Labour party said that it would not introduce this tax, and then it did. Does he now regret not following the lead of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who did the right thing by rebelling against the policy?

[David Smith]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his intervention. Rather than go down the route of his question, let me respond with the words of one of my local farmers. She wrote to me on 23 December and said:

“As you know, we have been very vocal in opposing the earlier proposals, so it is equally important to state how strongly we welcome this change in policy. Increasing the threshold, together with the ability to retrospectively transfer unused APR and BPR allowances from my late mother to my father, will make a huge difference to our family and the viability of our farm business.

I will leave my remarks there.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

Having grown up in rural west Oxfordshire, I know the importance of farming and rural communities in the fantastic county of Oxfordshire, which thankfully now does not have a single Conservative MP—long may that continue. It is a very good thing that we have strong Labour representatives in north Oxfordshire who are continuing to fight the good fight for their communities.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

This partial U-turn on the family farm tax is undoubtedly welcome, but does the Minister understand the hell that he has put farmers through during the past 14 months, not just in my constituency but across the United Kingdom? He should do the right thing and scrap this dreadful, dreadful tax.

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will not be going ahead with the hon. Member’s proposal of scrapping this change entirely.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The value of farming goes above and beyond successful businesses simply contributing to the economy in the traditional way. Farming also underpins our food security as a nation.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers in Parliament Square this afternoon, blasting their horns about the family farm tax. The shadow Chancellor and many other colleagues from the Opposition Benches have been out to meet the farmers to understand their concerns. Has he heard, like I have, their frustration at the Government’s failure to listen and understand the impact that the family farm tax will have on farm viability?

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is right. I was out there this morning speaking to farmers, including a group up from Newbury, who have taken the trouble to come here to make exactly that case powerfully to us on the day of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree, because the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is far greater than the average rate per acre in England or, dare I say, anywhere else in Great Britain. That is why Northern Ireland farmers are going to be absolutely decimated as a result of the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he aware of some research done by the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland, which shows that, under the current inheritance tax rules, farmers in Scotland typically pay a £20,000 inheritance tax bill, whereas under Labour’s current proposals the figure goes up to a staggering £775,000, which will kill off most farming businesses?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Since we came to office last year, we have reset our relationship with the EU, which is why last May we agreed with the EU an expansive set of changes to our relationship, including on food and farming, on electricity and energy trading, and on youth mobility and Erasmus. We are taking all that forward, but at the same time we are taking opportunities to trade more with fast-growing economies around the world, including India, and we also got the first, and the best, trade deal that anybody has secured with the US. That is how we are going for growth, alongside passing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last night in this place.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of extending the freeze on income tax thresholds on working people.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

18. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of extending freezes on income tax and national insurance thresholds on working people.

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

The Chancellor was clear at the Budget that we are taking the fair and necessary decisions on tax to do all we can to ensure that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible. We have reduced the gap between taxes on income from assets and on income from work, stopped the unfairness that meant people could pay less council tax for a £10 million property than for a typical terraced house in much of England, and done much more.

[John Lamont]

There seems to be only one word that the Chancellor understands: tax. Her decision to continue the freeze on income tax thresholds is a hammer blow to working people. In fact, even one of the Chancellor’s favourite unions, Unison, has said:

“Freezing personal income tax thresholds disproportionately impacts lower and middle-income workers.”

Does the Chancellor agree with the Labour party’s union paymaster?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am a bit confused by that question. The hon. Member said there was one word that was important. Let me give him one figure: £150. That is the amount we are taking off energy bills next year to help people to deal with the cost of living in the here and now. We are supporting people because of the mistakes that previous Governments made by not investing in our energy infrastructure and not investing in our future. We are picking up the pieces after the Conservatives did not take the necessary decisions.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

Long-term stability is at the heart of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at the Budget last year, which were met at the spring statement earlier this year and were met again at the Budget last week. As many hon. Members have mentioned today, the fact that we are meeting those fiscal rules with far greater headroom—£21.7 billion in this Budget—gives us greater stability, helps to bring down the costs of Government borrowing and protects us from future shocks.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist, has said that the Government’s “repeated mistakes” and misinformation about the public finances have sucked all the energy from the economy. Chief Secretary, the former chief economist is correct, isn’t he?

[James Murray]

As we said at the Budget, not only were we setting out to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing; we were also focusing on growth through public investment in transport, energy, roads, railways and all the infrastructure that businesses need to invest to boost jobs and growth across the country. We invested in every part of the country, with a focus on Wylfa in Wales, Grangemouth in Scotland, the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the northern growth corridor, because we know that growth has to happen right across the country to benefit people in every part of the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

The Government are delivering on the priorities of the British people. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that the UK was the fastest-growing G7 nation in the first quarter of this year. Since the election, this Labour Government have brought £120 billion of private investment into our economy. There have been four interest rate cuts, lowering the cost of mortgages, and 384,000 new jobs—more than 1,000 jobs a day—since this Government were elected. Real wages increased more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than they did in the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government, and we have a £1,400 pay rise for a full-time worker on the national living wage. That is the difference that this Government are making after 14 years of mismanagement by the Conservatives.

[John Lamont]

The award-winning bookshop and deli Mainstreet Trading Company in St Boswells has been forced to reduce its operating hours because

“increases to employer national insurance mean that our operating cost base has increased significantly.”

What advice does the Chancellor have for small businesses suffering because of this Labour Government’s reckless decisions?

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, and that means 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all. Indeed, half of employers will either gain or see no change. It was also welcome that the Lloyds business barometer showed business confidence at a nine-year high, with a particular uptick in retail. I cannot comment on an individual business, but that is the system nationwide.