Finance (No. 2) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

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

[Laurence Turner]

I sit on the same Select Committee as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), and I know better than to speak for him. I have a degree of personal sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) sets out. I also think there is something to be said for giving more powers to our councils, because these decisions—particularly when they relate to areas at risk of complex interactions between homelessness, lack of mental health provision and the sales of these at times dangerous products—are best made locally, in addition to national policy setting.

My final point is that there have been calls outside this place for uprating to be moved to a different inflation index, principally the consumer prices index or the consumer prices index with housing. That important matter has not been raised in this debate, so I will touch on it briefly. Although CPI and CPIH are both of use as macroeconomic indicators, RPI remains the only measure that is in general circulation and is updated regularly that actively seeks to measure the cost of living as it is experienced by working people. Criticisms can be made of the retail prices index, but it is important to place on record that in the early 2010s, regular changes to the methodology for RPI were discontinued. That is behind the formula gap that has led to the widening between the headline rates of RPI and CPI. I am not convinced that moving to a different rate at this time is appropriate, given some of the limitations of CPI and its twin CPIH, which we can discuss on another occasion.

The Office for National Statistics has been developing the alternative household costs indices measure. That is particularly useful, because it captures the different rates of inflation experienced by households of different income levels. I hope that in future we can look at the HCIs as an alternative means of uprating the various charges, levies and escalators that the Government apply. We are not in that place yet, and it is important that the ONS makes progress in this area.

On the whole, I welcome the Minister’s statement. Compared with some of the other debates we have had in this Parliament—particularly on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, where it was suggested that there was some secretive and sinister plot to change sales of the pint to some metric measure—this has in contrast been a sober debate. I look forward to voting for the Finance Bill tonight.

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

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Clause 1

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 10 stand part.

Clause 69 stand part.

New clause 3—Notification of taxpayers affected by frozen thresholds—

“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must take reasonable steps to identify individuals who, as a result of—

(a) the freezing of the starting rate limit for savings under section 9 of this Act, or

(b) the freezing of the personal allowance or the basic rate limit under section 10 of this Act, will—

(i) become liable to income tax for the first time, or

(ii) become liable to income tax at a higher rate than in the previous tax year.

(2) HM Revenue and Customs must ensure that each individual identified under subsection (1) is provided with a written notification before the start of the relevant tax year.

(3) A notification under subsection (2) must—

(a) explain that the individual’s tax liability is affected by the freezing of income tax thresholds,

(b) state whether the individual will pay income tax for the first time or move into a higher tax band, and

(c) provide information on where the individual can obtain further guidance about their tax position.

(4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish, no later than six months after the end of each affected tax year, a report setting out—

(a) the number of individuals notified under this section,

(b) the number of individuals who became income taxpayers for the first time as a result of sections 9 and 10, and

(c) the number of individuals who moved into a higher tax band as a result of those sections.

(5) In this section ‘written notification’ includes electronic communication.”

This new clause would require HM Revenue and Customs to notify individuals who, as a result of the freezing of income tax thresholds in the Act, will pay income tax for the first time or move into a higher tax band.

New clause 4—Review of the impact of tax changes on household finances—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of changes introduced by sections 9,10 and 69 on household finances.

(2) The assessment must evaluate how households across different income levels are affected by these changes.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and publish a report on how the freezing of tax thresholds to 2030-31 impacts households at various income levels.

New clause 5—Report on impact of sections 9, 10 and 69—

“Within three months of this Act being passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out—

(a) the number of taxpayers who will pay income tax at each rate during each tax year between 2026-27 and 2030-31 under sections 9, 10 and 69,

(b) the number of those taxpayers who are pensioners or are of State Pension Age,

(c) comparative figures for each tax year since 2020-21,

(d) comparative projected figures for each tax year to 2034-35, and

(e) comparative figures with a scenario under which normal uprating policy had been implemented for financial years 2020-21 through 2030-31.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess how many people will be in each income tax bracket from 2026-27 through to 2030-31, together with comparative figures before and after that period.

New clause 13—Assessment of the impact of changes to the basic rate limit and personal allowance for tax years 2028-29 to 2030-31—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the expected impact on an average earner of the provisions of section 10.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact on the average earner of extending the freeze on the basic rate limit and personal allowance for the tax years 2028-29, 2029-30, and 2030-31.

New clause 14—Assessment of the impact of the freezing of the personal allowance on those in receipt of the state pension for the tax years 2027-28 to 2030-31—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before the start of the tax year 2027-28, publish an assessment of the impact of the freezing of the personal allowance on those in receipt of the state pension for the tax years 2027-28 to 2030-31.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must include details on the estimated total income from tax receipts received in each tax year from individuals whose only income is the state pension.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the personal allowance on those pensioners whose only income is the state pension for the tax years 2027-28, 2028-29, 2029-30, and 2030-31.

New clause 15—Assessment of the impact of exempting from income tax pensioners whose sole income is the basic or new State Pension—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the fiscal impacts of exempting pensioners whose sole income is the basic or new State Pension (without any increments) from paying small amounts of income tax.”

[Dan Tomlinson]

In opening debate on this second group of clauses, I want to reflect on why we are making changes to the tax system. I am looking forward to no interventions at all on this speech from Opposition Members—their interventions seemed to dry up in my last speech, so maybe they have now finished with them. Of course, we make these changes to modernise the tax system, to make it fair and fit for purpose and to adapt to a changing world, but we also make these changes so that we can raise the revenue to fund our public services. Yes, the Bill holds thresholds constant till the end of the decade, but in doing so contributes to our being able to renew our public services while maintaining the highest levels of public investment in four decades to stimulate economic growth and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Member mentions the change to student loan thresholds that was announced at the Budget. The Government have looked at our taxation system in the round, and at our benefits system—for example, there are the changes to Motability—to ensure that we are raising the revenue that we need in a proportionate and reasonable way, and the measures that we are debating tonight enable us to do that. I will not let Opposition Members, who repeatedly voted to freeze thresholds until 2028 when they were in government, try to rewrite history as we debate these clauses.

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

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

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

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

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 42, in schedule 12, page 443, line 13, leave out from “and” to end of line 16 and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”

This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.

Amendment 45, page 443, line 13, leave out from “and” to end of line 16, and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property acquired before 31 March 2026, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”

This amendment would apply 100% business property trust relief where the property was acquired before 31 March 2026.

Amendment 43, page 443, line 22, leave out from “and” to end of line 25 and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% trust relief allowance available in relation to that occasion (see sections 124G to 124K),”

This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.

Amendment 46, page 443, line 22, leave out from “and” to end of line 25 and insert—

“(c) either—

(i) is attributable to property acquired before 31 March 2026, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% trust relief allowance available in relation to that occasion (see sections 124G to 124K),”

This amendment would apply 100% business property trust relief where the property was acquired before 31 March 2026.

Amendment 44, page 443, line 37, leave out from “and” to end of line 3 on page 444 and insert—

“(b) either—

(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”

This amendment would apply 100% agricultural property trust relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.

Amendment 47, page 443, line 37, leave out from “and” to end of line 3 on page 444 and insert—

“(b) either—

(i) is attributable to property acquired before 31 March 2026, or

(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),””

This amendment would apply 100% business property trust relief where the property was acquired before 31 March 2026.

Amendment 48, page 444, line 15, at end insert—

“(1D) Where the whole or part of the value transferred is treated as reduced by 50% under subsection (1), the resulting inheritance tax liability is chargeable only if, within 10 years of the relevant transfer, the agricultural land giving rise to the charge is either—

(a) sold (and the owner has not purchased agricultural land elsewhere), or

(b) ceased to be used for farming.”

Government amendments 24 to 26.

Amendment 3, in schedule 12, page 451, line 22, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.

This amendment, along with amendments 4 to 23 would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief and delay the implementation date so that the changes would take effect for transfers made after 1 March 2027.

Amendment 31, page 451, line 22, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.

This amendment, with Amendments 32 to 36, would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief so that the changes take effect for transfers made from 6 April 2026.

Amendment 4, page 452, line 3, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 32, page 452, line 3, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Government amendments 27 to 29.

Amendment 5, in schedule 12, page 454, line 17, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 33, page 454, line 17, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 40, page 455, line 31, leave out “2031” and insert “2027”

This amendment would begin indexation in 2027 rather than 2031.

Amendment 41, page 455, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) If the Treasury estimates that the value of agricultural land has increased by more than the percentage increase in the consumer prices index during the same period, then it must instead make an order by statutory instrument amending each relief allowance amount relating to agricultural property by the percentage increase in the value of agricultural land.”

Amendment 6, page 461, line 2, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 7, page 461, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 34, page 461, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4)

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 8, page 461, line 17, leave out “sub-paragraph (3) will not apply” and insert

“the transfer will prove to be an exempt transfer”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 9, page 461, line 21, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert

“comes into force on 1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 35, page 461, line 21, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert

“comes into force on 6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 10, page 461, line 28, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 36, page 461, line 28, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 31.

Amendment 11, page 461, line 31, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 12, page 461, line 33, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 13, page 461, line 36, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert "1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 14, page 461, line 38, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 15, page 462, line 3, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 16, page 462, line 7, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 17, page 462, line 15, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 18, page 462, line 19, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 19, page 462, line 30, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 20, page 462, line 35, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 21, page 464, line 14, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 22, page 464, line 21, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 23, page 464, line 27, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Schedule 12.

New clause 1—Section 62: application in Northern Ireland—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the effects of the measures in section 62 as they apply in Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment must consider—

(a) the number of estates in Northern Ireland expected to be subject to the reduction in agricultural property relief made under this Act,

(b) the potential benefits to farmers in Northern Ireland of exempting land used for agricultural purposes from the changes to agricultural property relief made under this Act,

(c) the potential costs to the Exchequer of exempting land used for agricultural purposes from the changes to agricultural property relief made under this Act,

(d) the impact of the measures on farm succession, land retention, and the viability of agricultural businesses in Northern Ireland, including any potential implications for the resilience and security of the UK’s food supply, and

(e) any other matters that the Chancellor of Exchequer deems appropriate.

(3) In subsection (2), “land used for agricultural purposes” does not include land that falls within the Financial Conduct Authority’s definition of a land-banking investment scheme.

(4) In carrying out the assessment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to—

(a) the average farm size and land valuation profile in Northern Ireland,

(b) the prevalence of intergenerational family farming in Northern Ireland,

(c) the interaction between agricultural property relief and devolved agricultural support schemes, and

(d) any disproportionate impact on rural communities in Northern Ireland.

(5) The assessment must be carried out following meaningful consultation with—

(a) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland,

(b) representatives of farmers and land-based businesses in Northern Ireland, and

(c) such other persons as the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers appropriate.

(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of publishing the assessment, lay before Parliament a statement setting out the steps the Government intends to take in response to the assessment’s findings.

(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must keep the operation of the measures in section 62 under review in light of the assessment and publish a further assessment within 18 months of this Act coming into force.”

New clause 6—Impact assessment of section 62 prior to implementation—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of implementation of section 62 on family-owned farms and businesses.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider potential impacts on—

(a) business continuity,

(b) land use, and

(c) rural employment.”

New clause 7—Uprating of allowance amounts for agricultural property—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential merits of uprating annually the relief allowance amount for agricultural property by the change in the value of agricultural land.”

New clause 17—Review of anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief—

“(1) The Treasury must conduct a review of the effects of the anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief.

(2) The review must, in particular, consider the effects of those provisions on—

(a) succession planning and intergenerational transfer of agricultural land and businesses,

(b) the viability and continuity of family-run farms,

(c) food security and domestic agricultural production,

(d) land management, environmental stewardship, and the condition of the countryside, and

(e) the availability of agricultural land for active farming.

(3) In conducting the review, the Treasury must consult such persons as it considers appropriate, including representatives of the agricultural sector.

(4) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a copy of the report within 12 months of the coming into force of the anti-forestalling provisions under this Act.”

[Dan Tomlinson]

As we come to the final group in today’s Committee stage on the Bill, I am pleased to open this important debate on clause 62, schedule 12 and the many associated amendments. As reiterated throughout the day, the Bill delivers on the choices made at this Government’s two Budgets. It delivers fair and necessary reforms that strengthen the foundations of our economy and provide a secure future for our country. The choice at those two Budgets was austerity and decline or investment and renewal, and on both occasions the Labour Government rejected austerity and chose renewal.

Clause 62, schedule 12 and Government amendments 24 to 29 make changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in order to target them more fairly, contribute to the sustainability of public finances and fund public services. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to HMRC data for 2021-22, 40% of agricultural property relief across the UK was claimed by just 7% of the estates making claims. That is £219 million in tax relieved from just 117 of the largest estates in the country, and it is a similar picture for business property relief: more than 50% of BPR was claimed by just 4% of the estates making claims. That is a striking £558 million in tax relieved from just 158 estates.

That contributes to the very largest estates paying lower average effective inheritance tax rates than the smaller estates, and significantly lower average effective inheritance tax rates than most people who end up paying IHT will pay. That is the status quo that those seeking to reverse the Government’s reforms in full wish to perpetuate. It is not sustainable and, in the Government’s view, it is certainly not fair to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, especially in the context of the wider pressures on the public finances and public services.

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the OBR’s report contains a series of recommendations. It was, in fact, published within a few days of the premature publication. We are acting on its recommendations, including the recommendation that we should determine whether this has happened before, at previous fiscal events. While the OBR indicated that it might have happened earlier this year, at the time of the spring statement, it did not look into previous fiscal events, either under this Chancellor or under Chancellors in the last Government. We are looking into that to find out what happened.

More widely, beyond the EFO and the OBR, we put the utmost weight on Budget security, as I told the House last week. That is why, as I have told the House, a leak inquiry is under way, with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole team at the Treasury. In addition, the permanent secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of its security processes, which will inform future fiscal events. The Budget security review will happen in the new year, and we will publish the outcome once it has concluded. More immediately, however, while recognising the seriousness of what happened with the OBR’s forecast, we remain fully committed to working with an independent OBR, and we recognise its vital role as a core part of our fiscal framework. The Government will soon launch a competitive external recruitment process to appoint a new chair, subject to the consent of the Treasury Committee. In the meantime, Professor David Miles and Tom Josephs will jointly lead the OBR until the new chair is in place.

I am happy to come here every day to explain the decisions that we took in the Budget in the interests of the British people. It is clear that the Conservatives do not want to talk about £150 off energy bills, freezes in prescription charges and rail fares, our investment in our NHS, and the fact that we are cutting debt. They do not want to confront the fact that this is a Budget that not only delivers for Britain, but does so in challenging times. It is a Budget that invests in Britain, supports the NHS, helps people with the cost of living, and gets our debt and borrowing down. It is a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who takes challenges head-on, makes the right decisions for our country, and meets the priorities of the British people. It is a Budget from a Government who will not let Britain’s future be defined by the failures of Governments past. This is a Budget that we are proud of, and we reject the Opposition motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OBR was very confident that the Chancellor did not mislead in the statement she put out, and I am confident about that.

The Chancellor was consistent in her priorities for this Budget: tackling the cost of living crisis, bringing down waiting times and cutting borrowing. It cannot be right that £1 in every £10 is being spent on interest payments alone. We cannot go back to the austerity we have seen, with schools and hospitals that would literally fall apart.

I would like to finish with two quotes. The first is from Margaret Thatcher:

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means that they have not a single political argument left.”

And finally, to quote Dickens:

“charity begins at home, but justice begins next door”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Harriett Baldwin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. We will start the winding-up speeches at 6.40 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I have very limited time, so forgive me but I will not.

It matters because the Chancellor has a nearly £3 trillion debt to service, and because trust is everything. Because the policies that are being implemented and the promises that were made by the Chancellor are at such variance, the markets—unlike in any other western nation, I believe —have put a higher and higher cost on borrowing for this country. That has very real-world impacts. Investors from Beverley to Berlin need to believe what the Chancellor says. After all, “credit” comes from the Latin “credo”, meaning “I believe”. If that belief falters, borrowing costs rise and more of our taxes go to paying lenders instead of funding the priorities of the British people. When trust goes, growth goes. Investors hesitate, businesses hold back and families feel the pinch.

The Chancellor appears to have learnt nothing from last year’s Budget of broken promises. It was a Budget that brought higher unemployment, fewer businesses and lower growth. She did not learn from that first exercise. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) pointed out, the weakness of the jobs tax is not just that it will hurt growth; it does not even raise much money. It was peculiarly poorly thought through.

This year’s Budget repeated more of the same. The British people know that the way to tackle the cost of living is by getting people into work, not increasing the number of people on welfare; and by creating opportunity, not dependency. But Britain has a Chancellor who talks about helping working people while making it harder to work, to save and to succeed—and throwing the OBR under the bus while she is at it. That is not a vision for the future, and it is certainly not leadership; it is fantasy dressed up as policy, and the people of Beverley and Holderness can see right through it.

Labour came to power promising change. Unfortunately, change has been delivered, but it is not what we were promised. We have 280,000 more people on the unemployment register, more than 200,000 businesses have closed, and 5,000 people are signing off sick every single day, because of the decisions made by this Labour Government. People are angry about the impact of Labour policy, but my constituents tell me that they are particularly angry about feeling misled. I hope I have shown my own candour in addressing my earlier error, for which I apologise again. Can we Members of this House try to speak honestly and accurately, and not gaslight or mislead?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call James Wild to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last time I checked, this debate was supposed to be about the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know the Minister is relatively new to the Dispatch Box; perhaps he may need a little guidance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the Minister has heard it and will return to his speech.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Indeed; I heard the point of order loud and clear. It is worth remembering that this is an Opposition day debate—I think it is within the remit to talk about the Opposition and the fact that they have lost all their players to the other team.

I also think it is time to move on from talking about process, because on this side of the House, we have a country to run, an economy to build and public services to mend. Instead of this subject, we could have talked about whether it is right to raise wages for those on the lowest incomes, but the Opposition did not want to bring that up. Maybe that is because wages have risen faster in the first 10 months of this Government than they did in the first decade of the Conservative Government, or maybe it is because it turns out that their latest policy is a real-terms cut to the living wage. We could have talked about the cost of living, but again, the Conservatives did not choose that as a topic because its mini-Budget crashed the economy and added thousands of pounds to mortgages, and since this Government have come to power, the Bank of England has cut interest rates.

Taxes

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected either of the amendments tabled. I call the shadow Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

He has only just walked in!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I do expect Members to be here for slightly longer before intervening.

[Sir Mel Stride]

Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a great shame. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for any of the debate, but that does not mean that he might not have given the best possible intervention from the Labour Benches so far. Perhaps he may like to come in a little later.

We have a Government who are engaged in serial breaches, who have no backbone to take the right decisions, and who will always fold to pressure, including from their own Back Benchers—and all at the expense of businesses and hard-working people up and down our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Minister has said that he is unwilling to discuss what might be in the Budget with the House. He did not, however, deny that he may have done so with journalists, or that he may have authorised others to brief to the media what may or may not be in the Budget. In the absence of that denial, are we within our rights to demand that the House be privy to what those conversations contained, in the same way that the business pages of The Times may have been?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I can calm Members’ nerves by saying that it is not many more sleeps until Budget day.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

It is for the Health Department to set out the details in response to any questions that the hon. Gentleman has tabled. The point about the merger between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is that it is a way of cutting costs and ensuring that that money is reinvested in frontline services. Rather than having duplicative structures within our system, we want to ensure that we are merging NHS England and the Department of Health to make those savings, which we can reinvest in patient care.

As I said, there are still many challenges ahead and we are impatient to see things improve. Globally, inflation remains high and confidence is low, deterring investment and hindering growth. As geopolitical uncertainty grows, we are also faced with a critical need to invest in our defence spending. Domestically, we must continue to cut NHS waiting lists, lower the cost of living and improve our country’s productivity. We must invest in our roads, transport, housing, infrastructure, public services, towns and cities and the businesses for which the last Government failed so completely to provide.

Conservative Members will see the Budget two weeks from today. They will have plenty of opportunity to scrutinise it and participate in a serious debate about it later this month. We will, of course, oppose today’s motion, which speculates on what the Budget might contain. The effort of rebuilding a country requires the contributions of everyone in that country. Together, we can renew the UK and build an economy that is fair and thriving. That is what this Government were elected to do and that is what the Budget in two weeks’ time will play its crucial part in achieving.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Rebecca Paul.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

My hon. Friend is spot-on. That is incredibly short-sighted, and I think it will prove to be a false economy.

I urge the Government to embrace good design to provide a justification to my constituents for why they are pursuing the current house building targets in such a disproportionate way across the country. Most of all, I implore the Government to put at the centre of their fiscal plans the scale of ambition that hard-working people have every single day when they set their alarms and go out to work—they want to do the right thing for their families. The Government must realise that pulling the right fiscal levers and cutting the right taxes will stimulate the very activity that will drive the growth they are so desperate to achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Spending Review 2025

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I need to be able to hear, and I am sure our constituents also want to hear.

[Rachel Reeves]

The shadow Chancellor said:

“The credibility of the UK’s economic framework was undermined by spending billions…with no proper plan for how this would be paid for.”

I could not put it better myself. He could have gone a lot further. For example, he could not even bring himself to mention Liz Truss by name—Stride by name, baby steps by nature—but at least he has made a start. He also spoke about

“the death of what we might call the Age of Thoughtfulness.”

Speaking of the death of thoughtfulness, let me turn to the shadow Chancellor’s response to the spending review. He welcomed our nuclear investment of £30 billion, but he said it is not enough. He welcomed our defence investment of £11 billion, but he said it was not enough. He and his party opposed the decisions that this Government have taken to make those announcements possible by voting against the Budget in October. You cannot spend the money if you will not raise the money. That is a lesson from Liz Truss that he has already forgotten.

The shadow Chancellor complained about the level of investment that I have announced, ignoring the fact that the reason this investment is so important is because his party oversaw 14 years of cratering investment, stagnating wages and public service collapse. Let me remind him of what I said: the Tories’ fiscal rules guaranteed neither stability nor investment, and that is why I changed them, so we can get stability and investment. All their fiscal rules enabled was them to crash the economy, and the working people of Britain will never forgive them for doing that.

The Conservatives set themselves against investment in the renewal of Britain. They set themselves against NHS investment, free school meals, investment in skills, investment in carbon capture and storage, investment in transport in our towns and cities—investment in everything that we have set out today—and yet the British people voted for that investment. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Home Office budget involves an increase in asylum costs. It does not. Asylum costs are coming down under this Labour Government because we are deporting more people and getting them out of hotels. He says we are cutting police spending; we are increasing it by 2.3% a year in real terms. We have had no apology for the damage the Conservatives did to our economy and our public services.

Interest rates have been cut four times in the past 11 months; GDP was the fastest growing of all G7 economies in the first quarter of the year; business confidence is rising; 500,000 more people are in work; record investment has been made in Britain; real wages have increased more in 10 months than they did in 10 years of a Conservative Government; the national living wage has increased, giving 3 million working people a pay rise; and we have done all that without increasing taxes on working people. Those are the choices we have made. That is the difference we are making.

In the spending review today, we set out the spending that we announced in the Budget last year and in the spring statement—not a penny more, not a penny less. I said in the Budget and in the spring statement that public services must now live within the means that we have set, and we have achieved that. There will be a Budget later this year, and in that Budget we will set out all the fiscal plans in the round. But we have already drawn a line under the Tory mismanagement, with tax rises last year, and we will never have to repeat a Budget like that again because we will never have to clean up after the mess that the Conservatives made again.

The reason that this Labour Government have spent their first year fixing the foundations of our economy and stabilising our public finances is because it is what we had to do. The Government of which the shadow Chancellor was a part of left an unenviable legacy, which is why his party is, in his own words, “in a difficult place.”

We have made our choices. We are removing barriers to growth, which were untouched by the Conservatives in their 14 years in office; strengthening Britain’s security with the biggest real-terms increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, which the Conservatives did not do in their 14 years in office; bringing our health service into the 21st century after 14 years of Conservative neglect; investing in Britain’s renewal to repair the damage done by the Conservatives in their 14 years in office; and, in stark contrast to the Conservatives’ 14 years of chaos, waste and decline, we are delivering on the priorities of the British people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering this spending review—the first zero-based review in a very long time. It is vital that as taxpayers—the citizens—are looking carefully at their spending in this cost of living crisis, that Government do that too. We look forward to having the Chief Secretary to the Treasury before the Committee in two weeks’ time to consider the review in more detail.

I note from the figures that the Chancellor has made a good fist of ensuring that Departments have more than they did under the Conservatives in many cases, and I welcome her work to deliver on tackling child poverty, a scourge on our society. I note from my brief glimpse, however, that there is a smaller increase for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government than there would have been—there is the £39 billion over a decade for affordable social housing. Children living in poverty also face poverty of situation in many cases. Will she expand on how she and the Deputy Prime Minister will deliver that money to provide the social housing that so many children in poverty desperately need?

[Rachel Reeves]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s welcoming of the breakfast clubs, free school meals and the capping of school uniform costs, which will help families living in poverty. The free school meals will, as she knows, lift 100,000 children out of poverty. She mentions the affordable homes grant, which will have its biggest ever increase. We have set that budget for 10 years to give certainty to the sector, so that it understands what is available. In addition, we have set out some social rent changes to give certainty to the sector to invest for the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

We as a Government were proud to be able to step in and save British Steel at Scunthorpe, and again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, but it is not just Scunthorpe. There are also opportunities in Sheffield and Port Talbot, because as we build this infrastructure—whether it is trams and trains, nuclear power or submarines—we want to use steel made in Britain. That is a really exciting opportunity, and the investments we are making in small modular reactors and fusion in Nottinghamshire and Derby create great opportunities for jobs. That is why we are also making a record investment in skills through the spending review, so that young people in North East Derbyshire and beyond can get access to the jobs that are being created.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. The announcement of just £44.5 million a year for the next 10 years for Welsh rail is Labour’s flimsy fig leaf of an excuse for the multibillion and multi-decade scandal that is HS2. The money announced today is only significant if it matches what Wales will continue to lose from all England-only rail projects, up to now and in the future. Can the Chancellor guarantee that from now on, Wales will receive the full £4 billion HS2 consequential funding, or will she admit that her announcement on Welsh rail funding is nothing but smoke and mirrors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those representations to me and to the Secretary of State for Transport on the importance of better rail connections so that people in Bangor Aberconwy and across north Wales can better access good jobs and public services. That is why we have put in £445 million at the spending review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Gregor Poynton.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

Regional Growth

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant lobbying on behalf of his constituents and the east midlands, and for welcoming the historic level of funding for transport announced today. He is right to point out that this is about not just transport infrastructure but the communities in which people live, livelihoods and the opportunities for them and their families. I know that he will continue to work hard with our brilliant Mayor Claire Ward in the east midlands to turn these numbers into stories that matter for people in his constituency and across the east midlands.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jayne Kirkham to ask the last question on the statement.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the transport investment, which is needed in those city regions and spreads the wealth out. Cornwall also has ambitious transport plans, but does not have a large city region for 175 miles. It is very difficult to get public transport to our airport or a direct bus to our one acute hospital. I am also campaigning for a freight rail link for Falmouth, so I am heartened to hear that there will be more transport announcements in the spending review. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that that investment will go further down into the south-west? On investment more widely, he has talked about the National Wealth Fund, which we know is dealing in early-stage project development support in areas of the country. Will he confirm that those talks will also go wider than the city regions, so that places such as Cornwall that have political and business partnerships and a strong growth plan will be considered by the National Wealth Fund?

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Bank of England must not require the scheme manager to make a recapitalisation payment if it has directed the financial institution to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements.”

This amendment seeks to prohibit the use of FSCS funds to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which have reached end-state MREL.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

“(3A) No application to the scheme manager for recapitalisation payments may be considered by the Bank of England for a financial institution which has been directed to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements, unless permission has been given, through regulations, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(3B) Regulations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, subject to subsection (4), shall be made through Statutory Instrument under the negative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure financial institutions that maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities exceeding minimum capital requirements are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, unless permission has been given through regulations.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(5A) As a further objective to the special resolution objectives in section 4 of the Banking Act 2009, when discharging its functions in respect of the exercise of recapitalisation payments under this section, the Bank of England must observe the competitiveness and growth objective.

(5B) The competitiveness and growth objective is facilitating, subject to aligning with relevant international standards—

(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and

(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”

This amendment would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through a levy on the banking sector.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

“(2B) The code must include guidance to the Bank of England on the exercise of its functions in relation to building societies to ensure that, in circumstances where the use of a recapitalisation power may result in demutualisation, due consideration is given to the impact of such demutualisation on members and on the mutuals sector.

(2C) In preparing the guidance required under subsection (2B), the Treasury shall consider the feasibility of selecting a purchaser from the mutuals sector as a means of avoiding demutualisation, provided such a purchaser meets the resolution objectives.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that, where possible, the selection of a purchaser from the mutuals sector is considered to avoid demutualisation, provided this aligns with the Bank's resolution objectives.

[Mark Garnier]

Before speaking to new clause 3 specifically, let me reiterate that the Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to carry over the legislation from the previous Parliament, and that the principles underpinning the Bill continue to enjoy strong cross-party support. We all want and need confidence in our banking sector, yet the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK exposed a gap in our resolution framework for smaller banks. Unlike larger institutions, they do not hold the bail and bond mechanism known as MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—reserves to facilitate recapitalisation in the event of a crisis. By providing the Bank of England with new tools to manage small bank failures, the Bill remains both prudent and necessary to protect financial stability and public funds.

Moving on to the amendments we have tabled on Report, I want to make it clear that our approach is constructive and focused on strengthening the Bill, not obstructing its progress. As the Bill has made progress through both Houses, our intention has been to address a series of smaller but none the less significant issues that we believe require further attention. I appreciate that this might be a conversation we can continue in today’s debate, or beyond it, and I would certainly welcome conversations with the Minister, who has been incredibly open to direct conversations in her usual pragmatic style, to further discuss these matters.

We have three measures selected for discussion today. I will speak first to new clause 3, which addresses a critical gap in the Bill’s scope: the protection of credit unions. These community-focused institutions have seen significant growth in recent years, driven in part by the eradication of predatory payday lenders, and they continue to provide a vital role in delivering affordable finance to those underserved by traditional banks.

Membership of credit unions rose from 1.89 million in 2019 to 2.14 million in 2024—an increase of more than 260,000. However, while their importance has grown, their inclusion in our resolution framework has not kept pace. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid £10.1 million in compensation to credit union depositors over the past three financial years, primarily due to small-scale failures, underscoring their potential vulnerability and the need for a tailored approach as the sector expands.

The growth of credit unions is a success story, but it demands proportional safeguards. The Bill, however, excludes credit unions from its recapitalisation mechanism. While their smaller size and unique nature may differentiate them from banks, questions remain. How does the current resolution regime account for credit union failures as the sector scales up? Is there scope to develop a mechanism that protects members without imposing undue burdens on these community institutions? New clause 3 seeks clarity on this matter, requiring the Minister to produce a report outlining how the resolution framework can be adapted to protect credit unions, ensuring that their growth does not outstrip their regulatory safeguards. The vast amount of legislation for credit unions was written back in the 1970s. The previous Government made significant reforms for credit unions through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act, and I welcome the common bond reform consultation, which closed last month.

I know that the Government are giving the sector serious consideration, and I am sure the Minister will agree that this is not about applying bank-style rules to mutuals, but about recognising their unique role and risks. Credit unions are more than financial institutions; they are engines of financial inclusion. They often serve small, working-class communities, whom I know the Government want to support specifically. As the sector evolves, so too must our approach. We must ensure that our regulatory framework grows. I hope the Government will support this amendment, which simply seeks to look more clearly at the options available when a crisis happens.

Amendment 2 seeks to address a concern that has been raised with me by the mutual and building society sector. These institutions are not relics of the past, but vital components of our financial ecosystem. Although the first known building society was set up in 1775 by ordinary working people helping themselves to build their financial resilience and get a home of their own, they remain current today. Building societies today hold more than £360 billion in assets and provide mortgages for more than 3 million people in the UK. They represent a significant proportion of the housing market and are a trusted source of savings for millions more. They provide a clear and important diversification in our financial markets, offering a clear alternative to shareholder banks.

The Labour party stood on a clear manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, which the Opposition agree is a very good policy. Today presents a good opportunity for Labour Members to demonstrate that commitment to the sector by enshrining in the Bill a requirement that the Bank of England consider the risk of demutualisation when using the mechanisms enshrined therein. There is a genuine fear in the building society sector that, without proper safeguards, the recapitalisation mechanism offered by the Bill could inadvertently become a back door for demutualisation. When a mutual institution faces resolution, the selection of a purchaser from the plc sector risks permanently dismantling its mutual status, undermining the very ethos that makes these institutions unique.

Our amendment would provide a proportionate solution, requiring the Bank of England to consider the impact of demutualisation on members and the sector as a whole, while also exploring the feasibility of selecting a mutual sector purchaser, if one exists and meets the resolution objectives. This is not about privileging mutuals at the expense of financial stability; it is about ensuring that the Bank’s resolution tools do not inadvertently homogenise our financial landscape. Silicon Valley Bank demonstrated the need for agile resolution frameworks, but it also highlighted the importance of preserving institutional diversity.

Mutuals and building societies often serve communities and demographics that larger banks frequently overlook. Their potential loss would leave gaps in financial inclusion and weaken the resilience of the sector. Importantly, without the millions of mortgages provided by the building society sector, particularly for first-time homeowners, Labour’s house building plans would be simply impossible.

I hope the Minister appreciates that our amendment strikes a careful balance between safeguarding financial stability and honouring our commitment to a pluralistic banking system—one where mutuals continue to thrive as a cornerstone of community-focused finance. I remind Labour Members that it will be much harder to double the size of the mutual sector if, in the event of a failure, recapitalisation defaults towards the banking sector. I hope the Government will therefore demonstrate their manifesto commitment to the mutual and co-operative sector by voting today for new clause 3 and amendment 2.

There remains genuine concern—shared across this House and reflected in the debates in the other place—over the risk of the recapitalisation mechanism being applied too broadly and potentially capturing larger banks that already hold substantial loss-absorbing resources, such as MREL. We continue to believe that the mechanism should be limited in scope and targeted at smaller banks that do not have the same capacity to manage their own failure. Amendment 1 would limit the use of the mechanism to what it was always intended to be: a mechanism for smaller banks outside the MREL regime.

I appreciate that new clauses 1 and 2 have already been ruled out of scope, but it may be worth noting a couple of points on these measures. I wish to place on the record today that the Opposition believe the time has come for a review of how we set the threshold for MREL, as well as the protection ceilings for depositors under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The current static nature of MREL thresholds disproportionately affects smaller and mid-sized banks, particularly challenger banks. By indexing MREL thresholds to inflation, we can ensure that the regulatory framework remains robust over time without stifling competition. These institutions often operate on tighter margins and face significant barriers in meeting rigid capital requirements, hindering their ability to scale and compete effectively with larger incumbents. While we appreciate that the Bank of England’s consultation on MREL closed earlier this year, we hope that the Government will consider these points. Threshold limits should not stay static with time.

Likewise, we welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to review the Financial Services Compensation Scheme deposit limit. The recent announcement of the increase of the deposit protection scheme from £85,000 to £110,000, although very welcome, is certainly overdue. It is worth noting that if the limit had kept pace with inflation, it would be nearly two thirds higher, at around £140,000, according to the Federation of Small Businesses. It is worth noting that only 4.6% of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK deposits were insured by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing what is in scope, rather than what is not in scope and has not been selected?

[Mark Garnier]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are points that we feel are worth noting, but I take your comments.

I will turn to amendment 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Although we share the intent behind the amendment, which mirrors the Conservatives’ amendment on MREL limits for banks, there is a critical difference in its approach that gives us pause. Like us, the Liberal Democrats recognise that end-state MREL banks should not be the primary target of this legislation. However, their amendment introduces a requirement for a statutory instrument under the negative procedure that we believe would create more problems than it solves.

Our concern lies in the potential impracticality of this approach. Banking crises can unfold rapidly, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank UK, where decisions were made in a matter of hours, not days. A statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure becomes law the moment the Minister signs it, which is a good thing, and it remains in law unless either House rejects it within 40 sitting days. That creates a window of uncertainty. If Members were to pray against the statutory instrument, particularly in a hung Parliament, it could trigger market instability, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to avoid, so although we agree with the principle of limiting the Bill’s scope, we worry that the mechanism could tie the hands of a future Chancellor, hindering their ability to respond swiftly and decisively in a crisis. For those reasons, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Spring Statement

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to mention my hon. Friend’s constituency in my statement. As the home of the British Army, on behalf of this Government, we thank the people of Aldershot and Farnborough for the service that they give our country every single day.

My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of companies in the defence sector, whether big or small, being able to access finance. That has never been more important than it is today, when the threats posed by Putin continue to grow. I therefore urge everyone in financial services to do their part to make sure that our fantastic defence start-ups have the money that they need to grow and help defend our country and our values.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Allister.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Chancellor better explain how the civil service cuts will translate into the devolved regions and the impact on future block grant allocations? Are there lessons to be learnt from the fact that in 2015, the Northern Ireland Executive had a voluntary exit scheme, upon which it spent £700 million, and then proceeded to re-engage hundreds of civil servants as agency workers?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Lords amendments 9 to 19 disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendment 20 would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 December 2024. In accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3), Lords amendment 20 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.

After Clause 3

Review of effect on certain sectors

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 21.—(James Murray.)