Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

   I met the Minister some weeks ago and suggested that he might have to come back to the House if Royal Mail had not improved its services. May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the Westminster Hall debate next week, which was secured by another Member? I raised this issue on the 13 January as a point of order, as you will know, Mr Speaker, and clearly the problem has got worse rather than better. I put on record my thanks to all posties. I think the whole House would like to thank them for all their work in our constituencies. This situation has had a huge social and economic impact on people throughout our constituencies, but what concerns me is that the Minister has referred to being unable to intervene in a private company, and the regulator is of course independent. So what can he do? If there is nothing he can do, perhaps he will come back in a few weeks’ time to repeat that there is nothing he can do, but how does that help people who are waiting for medical results and other important information?

   Hansard source
2. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Finance (No. 2) Bill

   They’ve gone up in smoke! [Laughter.]

   Hansard source
3. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Finance (No. 2) Bill

   Could the Minister tell us when he last met a farmer?

   Hansard source
4. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

   Finance (No. 2) Bill

   Since the Government announced their tax raid on family farms, they have made numerous false claims about the policy and what it will mean for farmers. Raising the threshold, as the Government propose today, does not fix the fundamental wrongs at the heart of this awful policy. I will speak in favour of amendment 6, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), which would remove those problems altogether by doing away with this pernicious tax. What are the claims? The Government have claimed that farmers are rich and so can afford to bear the cost of tax increases. To the surprise of nobody who actually works on a farm, that myth is born of a fundamental misunderstanding of how agriculture works. A farm is not simply another asset like a share portfolio where we can sell a little today and buy a little tomorrow. The assets of a farm—primarily its land, its crops or livestock, and its equipment—are huge long-term investments, completely inseparable from the ability to produce whatever it makes. There is often little relationship between the value of the land held by a farmer and the profitability of that farm. That is particularly true at a time when, to sell their produce at all, farmers must abide by a seemingly endless list of regulations, all of which drive up costs and reduce profit margins. Farmers tolerate a rock-bottom level of return on investment that most businesses would never consider.

   Hansard source
5. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Julia Lopez

   UK-based Tech Companies

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this incredibly important debate. He brings a unique blend of glamour and tech nerdery to the House. Frankly, it is something Parliament could do with much more of. I am grateful for the valuable contributions from the hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Caerphilly (Chris Evans). There is a real showing of strength for the tech sector across the country, which I welcome. As we are debating Government support for UK-based tech companies, I would like to do a bit of scene-setting. Before 2010, Britain’s digital economy was fragmented and under-developed; London’s emergence as Europe’s tech capital was not destiny; the Silicon Roundabout was only nascent; Government digital services were scattered across thousands of outdated websites; and the connection between our world-class universities and a thriving start-up ecosystem had not yet been fully realised. In Government, the Conservatives deliberately worked with the tech sector to create an environment in which it could grow—the hon. Member for West Dorset made a point about how we need to do that—which included targeted measures on start-ups, such as the seed enterprise investment scheme. Scale-up has been mentioned as a real challenge that remains today, as has inflation in relation to the SEIS. We supported Tech City, which turned east London into a global hub for start-ups and innovation; we modernised Government services through the creation of the Government Digital Service and platforms like gov.uk; and we invested heavily in digital infrastructure, substantially expanding gigabit broadband coverage. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about how our parties like to help each other to help every corner of the United Kingdom. I remember that particular help on gigabit broadband was given to the DUP when a particular political deal was done a few years ago. Over the following decade, that strategy paid off. Entire sectors, from fintech to artificial intelligence and from cyber-security to digital health, took root and expanded. Today, the UK digital sector generates well over £200 billion in GVA and employs 2.6 million people in its digital companies. In 2025, the combined market valuation was $1.2 trillion. It is the largest tech ecosystem in Europe, and among the largest outside the US and China. I confess that when Labour wangs on about 14 years, I say, “Yes, 14 years in which Britain built Europe’s most dynamic tech sector and the economic output of our digital sector more than doubled.” We were also alive to the risks that a strong tech sector could pose if it was not managed correctly. That is why we introduced major legislation to shape the digital economy, and promoted competition and consumer choice. Principally, that was the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which addressed the market powers of the largest digital platforms. The principle behind that legislation was simple and profoundly Conservative. We believe that in a strong, competitive, capitalist economy, success should come from innovation, talent and providing a great product to the customer, not from gatekeeping power or monopoly control. That brings us to the challenge at the heart of this debate, which is that in digital markets, power has been concentrated in a handful of global firms. Those firms are brilliant; they bring many tools and skills, and they bring scale. However, that scale has consequences. If we are to prevent it from being used to steamroller other businesses that may be more innovative or provide a better product to the consumer, and if we are to generate more growth and retain more value in this country rather than see it taken abroad, we need digital markets to be open and competitive. One obvious place for intervention is the mobile app ecosystem. For many digital businesses today, the app stores operated by Apple and Google provide incredibly useful and efficient distribution platforms. However, that value comes with a toll, because it creates huge gatekeeping power for those companies. Consumers may not realise it, but that risks costing them and our economy significantly. Developers are often required to use the platform’s payment systems and to pay commissions of up to 30% on digital purchases. That is a gigantic revenue stream generated from not doing an awful lot. Those companies may argue that they provide security and maintenance and so on, but app store commissions for Google and Apple are thought to generate up to £2 billion each in net revenue from their UK operations. That means higher prices for consumers, fewer resources for innovation, greater entrenchment and platform dominance. Then we throw up our hands and ask, “What can realistically be done? What is the alternative to those companies?” It becomes a downward spiral where we have less power to deal with these challenges. Google and Apple’s power extends far beyond simply running app stores. They can control direct communications and what developers can say to customers, insist on particular payment platforms, prevent developers from informing users when products are cheaper elsewhere, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill listed some critical examples, but he also mentioned companies such as Amazon. We are all familiar with the sheer power of Amazon, but if it cannot sufficiently challenge app store market power, what chance does a smaller British tech company have? The legislative framework to address this exists in the DMCC Act, which gave the Competition and Markets Authority conduct requirement powers and allowed it to mandate specific behaviours. However, developers, competition lawyers and tech businesses tell me that they worry the CMA has gone soft, with long investigations and voluntary remedies. They believe it reflects political direction. This exposes a wider problem with the Labour Government. We left them with the strongest tech ecosystem in Europe, but I fear they have no real plan for growth. As a result, they have a troubling reliance on big tech companies, because they are telling them they will give them big investment headlines—but that risks entrenching dependency and stifling home-grown innovation. In their first set of returns, Labour Ministers had met big tech firms roughly 70% more often than their Conservative predecessors. That culminated in the US-UK tech deal, where there were a lot of big headlines, but I am not entirely sure what the substance was. There were interesting articles in The Guardian this week about some of those deals and I think there was a lot of circular investment going on. There was also a very interesting debate yesterday in this Chamber in which Labour MPs began to question some of what was going on; they were worrying about the dependency being created, along with the security and economic implications that brings. Last year, the Government asked the competition watchdog to support “the overriding national priority of…economic growth.” However, if growth is defined as just bringing in big tech, it is predictable how the regulator will act. In February, the CMA approved voluntary commitments from Apple and Google. In fairness—I have spoken to it about this directly—it contends that this could deliver faster results. However, smaller tech firms worry that it will delay action on the substantive issue of fees. As we highlighted in yesterday’s debate on tech sovereignty, the UK risks drifting into a position of high dependency and low resilience, where too much of our digital economy relies on infrastructure and platforms that we simply do not have any control over. That matters not just for innovation but for economic strength, consumer protection and national security. I must stress that this is not an argument against American companies; it is an argument about competition and the dangers of its absence. In fact, courts in the US have already upheld these principles to the benefit of smaller US tech firms. We must ensure an open digital market that rewards innovation from wherever it comes and gives UK consumers and developers the same freedoms that American developers can now enjoy because of that court ruling. The same problem exists with the CMA’s cloud inquiry, which is examining the extraordinarily important issue of market concentration. We expect a determination this month. Amazon Web Services and Microsoft dominate the cloud market, and the Government recognise this as a chronic risk. It is a red light that will be flashing more urgently after the three recent global cloud outages, not to mention the destruction of AWS data centres in the Gulf. The answer to our chronic dependency must surely come through robust competition measures. We await the CMA’s strategic market status decision with bated breath. The rapid development of AI could, in the best-case scenario, inject real competition into these markets, with AI agents empowering the consumer. Or—this is my real worry—it could entrench the market dominance and power consolidation that we have seen in other parts of the digital economy. Will the Government and the regulator start to think about the power of agentic AI in particular? What happens when an AI starts to curate products for the consumer in ways that shut out smaller vendors from the picture, or necessitate expensive deals with the AI giants to get products into the agent’s selection? What kind of digital economy do we want? Do we want one that is dominated by a handful of global gatekeepers, or one where a broad range of innovative companies can compete, innovate and grow on merit, delivering a diverse economy and benefits to the consumer? As Conservatives, our view is very simple: we have to give UK tech firms the tools to win. Those are: low taxes, so that innovators can invest and scale; cheap, abundant energy and high-quality digital infrastructure; access to the best global talent; and the celebration of successful people, not taxing them out of the country with envy-driven politics. It is about public procurement that backs British innovation, deeper pools of investable capital and, critically, strong competition policy that ensures that no company, no matter how large or powerful, can use its market position to drive up prices and crowd out competition. That was our approach in office, and it remains our vision for the future of Britain’s tech economy. I hope that the Minister can set out some specifics about how he, too, recognises the importance of competition in the digital sphere.

   Hansard source
6. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   Finance (No. 2) Bill

   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.

   Hansard source
7. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

   Lord Advocate

   I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the role and functions of the Lord Advocate; and for connected purposes. Chaos and decay are priced into the lives of people in Scotland as they suffer under the yoke of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood. However, the latest crisis there strikes at the integrity of Scots law, and so demands action this day—and not mere indifference. The Lord Advocate is the most senior law officer in Scotland, in ultimate charge of all criminal proceedings, sitting at the pinnacle of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That same Lord Advocate also sits in Cabinet as a pivotal adviser to the Scottish Executive, who style themselves the Scottish Government. Just saying it out loud is alarming: the head of criminal prosecutions sits cheek-by-jowl with the politicians who are supposed to run Scotland—she sits at the Cabinet table with the very people who appointed her. Although it is a situation created by the advent of devolution, this cannot be right, for there ought not to be even the merest suggestion of a conflict of interests. It is not the stuff of a 21st-century democracy, let alone the country of the enlightenment. “Ah,” say apologists, “the Lord Advocate simply recuses herself in certain cases and is merely the titular head of some prosecutions.” This is meant to be high-minded—an elegant solution concocted by the legal hierarchy in the salons of Edinburgh—but it is cloyingly cosy and has for years been the subject of disquiet. Now this comfortable nostrum has been shattered by recent revelations made possible only by a vigorous free press. Newspapers broke the news that the present Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, provided briefings to First Minister John Swinney about a court case involving Peter Murrell, former chief executive of the SNP and, further, the estranged husband of ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It was reported that the details and timelines for the case, none of which was public knowledge, were presented to Mr Swinney. The court case will reportedly not now come to trial before next year, conveniently after Holyrood’s elections this May. Of course, given that proceedings are active, I must be extremely circumspect about that case. Regardless, we in this place must concern ourselves with the dual role of the Lord Advocate: the twin hats of prosecutor and Government adviser on one learned head. The dual role is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, and so this Bill is designed to allow for the separation of roles such that the head of Scotland’s prosecution service is, in future, entirely separate from that of Government adviser. That situation is best practice in modern democracies and pertains here in England where the head of the Crown Prosecution Service sits entirely apart from the Cabinet and Government. We often discuss contentious matters in this House, but this is an issue on which there is surprising unanimity. Almost exactly a year ago, the Prime Minister agreed with me when I raised the Lord Advocate’s two jobs that it was an important matter and indicated that Scottish Labour supported splitting the roles. At the Conservative and Unionist conference in Edinburgh last month, the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition joined Scottish party leader Russell Findlay in calling for robust action in this House. Even the SNP committed in its manifesto to looking at the dual role disaster. Yet under the divisive hand of John Swinney, Scotland is a land where the inevitable never happens and the improbable always does. Mr Swinney has belatedly published a report into the mechanics of separating the Lord Advocate from the Cabinet so that Scotland can have a conspicuously independent prosecutor and the Scottish Administration can still have sound legal advice. Yet there is no indication of any move actually to separate the roles and, indeed, the Scottish Executive yesterday put out a statement lauding the “strengths” of the current arrangement. The public are entitled to question those supposed strengths and whether they are trumped by the perception of a conflict of interest when the role of legal adviser to the Scottish Government is concentrated in one person who is also chief prosecutor. Politicians legislate; lawyers enact the laws. When prosecutors are, or are even perceived to be, too close to politicians, like moths drawn too close to the flame of power, the public may rightly fear that the law is compromised, and so we must act. Some will claim that this is overweening Westminster bullying pawky Holyrood—not so. Holyrood itself could drain this quagmire now by seeking a section 30 order to vary the Scotland Act, clearing the way for separation of the Law Officers’ roles. That would be internal to the Edinburgh Parliament—a move to restore public faith in the law by its own elected Members. Albeit belated and tardy, such a move would, I contend, be welcomed as an attempt to lift the cloud that hangs over Scots law. Will Mr Swinney at this eleventh hour—and against the run of play, for he has been at the heart of every wrong-headed decision by the SNP for almost two decades—do the correct thing? That is unlikely, and so on behalf of the right-thinking public in Scotland, I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That John Cooper, John Lamont, David Mundell, Harriet Cross, Andrew Bowie, David Davis, Jamie Stone, Christine Jardine, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Elaine Stewart, Torcuil Crichton and John Grady present the Bill. John Cooper accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 403).

   Hansard source
8. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·James Wild

   Finance (No. 2) Bill

   We are grateful to the Minister for running through the plethora of Government amendments that are being added to this already stonkingly large Finance Bill. The sheer number of amendments is an admission that Ministers did not get this right the first time—or even the second time, in Committee, which we enjoyed. Let me turn to amendments 1, 2 and 8 and 67 to 94, as well as new clause 10 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. This Bill embodies Labour’s approach of ever-higher taxes, spending and borrowing, for which hard-working families and businesses are paying the price. The measures in the Budget and in this Bill add a further £26 billion-worth of tax rises, bringing the cumulative total from the Chancellor’s first two Budgets to £66 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, that did not feature anywhere in the Government’s manifesto. Those further tax rises are despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Debt interest is forecast to hit £140 billion by 2030. Unemployment is set to increase to 1.9 million, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.1%. Meanwhile, welfare spending is set to hit £406 billion, and living standards are expected to slow towards the end of this Parliament. Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its growth forecast once again and warned that the Chancellor’s plan, far from working, could “constrain economic activity”. Instead of backing the risk takers and the wealth creators, this Bill delivers slower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes. Let me turn to the freeze in income tax thresholds set out in clause 10. The Chancellor said at the Dispatch Box that there would be no extension of the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it would “hurt working people” and “take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] That promise has been broken by the measures in the Bill that do exactly the opposite, putting in place a £23 billion-a-year tax rise and bringing nearly 1 million more people into paying higher-rate tax. It is not just working people who will pay the price. During this period, the state pension is forecast to be higher than the personal allowance. In the spring forecast, the OBR warned that an additional 1 million pensioners will find themselves liable for income tax by 2030-31 because of the Chancellor’s freeze. In anyone’s book, that is a retirement tax. The Government have promised to protect people who rely solely on the state pension, but where is the detail? There is nothing in this legislation to do that. The public out there will rightly be sceptical, given that the Chancellor has already broken the promise not to freeze this threshold. Amendment 5 offers the House a very simple choice to stand by working people and pensioners and end the freeze. Let me turn to the Government’s damaging family farm and family business tax. I know that Labour Members are going around their constituencies saying that they got a great win from the Chancellor just before Christmas, but let us be honest: that win was purely a fig leaf. The Government could have actually corrected their mistake, but the partial reversal that the Chancellor was forced into falls short of what is needed. The Country Land and Business Association has said that it only limits the damage—yet another broken promise from a Prime Minister who pledged not to impose an inheritance tax on farms. That measure epitomises Labour’s apparent hostility towards family farms, tenant farmers and our rural communities. I have spoken to farmers, as I am sure other hon. Members have, who are desperate about this situation. That is why we continue to strongly oppose the family farm and family business tax, and amendment 6 would scrap them. Our further amendments seek to mitigate the worst effects of those taxes. Amendments 67 to 87 would remove the transition period for changes to the reliefs, and would delay implementation until after March 2027, lifting the unfair anti-forestalling rules that have tied the hands of farmers and business owners. The Chartered Institute of Taxation—which provided a lot of support in Committee and at earlier stages of the Bill, for which I am grateful—has warned that the measures particularly affect older farmers, robbing them of the ability to plan properly. Amendment 88 would defer the deadline for inheritance tax instalments by a further 12 months. This reflects the conclusion of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that the six-month deadline proposed for the first payment “does not appear to be realistic”. As we know, farming estates and family business are often asset-rich but cash-poor, which makes it difficult to raise the funds quickly. The National Farmers Union has warned that expecting probate to be granted within six months is “completely unrealistic, especially given the complexity of valuing an agricultural business”. Does the Minister recognise the strain that such unrealistic deadlines place on family farms and family businesses, and will he therefore accept our amendment and extend the payment deadline by 12 months? If he will not, will he explain to family farms and family businesses why not? Amendments 89 to 94 would exclude from inheritance tax the value of any jointly held tenancy on the death of a joint tenant. This issue is causing concern across the sector, and has been raised by the Tenant Farmers Association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Exempting genuine arm’s length tenancies between unconnected parties from inheritance tax is simply the fair thing to do. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what engagement he has had with the Tenant Farmers Association on that point, what his response is, and how he intends to rectify this injustice. Of course, this is not just about farms; family businesses, which make up 90% of our firms and employ well over half the workforce, are firmly in the Chancellor’s crosshairs as well. These are firms that focus on the long term, yet according to Family Business UK, over half of affected businesses have already paused or cancelled investment as a result of the threatened tax. It would be remiss of me to not mention that the Government’s claims do not seem to add up. Will this tax actually end up raising money? While the OBR forecasts a £500 million gain, analysis by the Confederation of British Industry suggests a net loss of nearly £2 billion, once the wider damage to the economy is considered. The family farm and family business tax does nothing to promote growth or fairness. It targets those who anchor our rural economy and communities—the family businesses committed to long-term growth. It is already having a chilling effect on investment, and now there is a prospect that companies that would otherwise thrive under family stewardship will break up. Again, I urge hon. Members to support amendment 6, which would remove this damaging measure from the Bill. Savers and investors are not safe from the Chancellor, either. Amendments 1 to 4 deal with the introduction of increases in income tax on dividends, savings, and property income in the years ahead. Increases to the dividend tax will hit 4 million people by 2029-30, while the savings tax rate increase will hit a further 3.8 million individuals, and 2.4 million landlords will now face higher bills, making it less attractive to provide the rental properties that our constituents want. These measures are targeted at entrepreneurs, investors, pensioners and hard-working families. Rather than supporting growth, the Government seem determined to stifle it. The Government are also scrapping the long-standing inheritance tax exemption for pensions. Some 10,500 estates will be targeted under this measure, costing savers £1.5 billion by 2029. We oppose this extension of inheritance tax, which seems predicated on the Government’s belief that people’s money belongs to the Government, rather than being their own. We should be rewarding saving and people who do the right thing, but extending inheritance tax in this way does exactly the opposite. As we discussed previously, there is also a concern about the burden being placed on personal representatives, and I have mentioned the unintended consequences for unmarried couples. In some cases, a surviving partner could lose up to 40% of a pension fund built up over a lifetime. Again, this is manifestly unfair, and amendment 7 would remove this damaging new tax from the Bill.

   Hansard source
9. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·James Wild

   Finance (No. 2) Bill

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right, despite the chuntering that we hear from the Minister. The welfare bill is predicted to rise to £406 billion over the forecast period. The Chancellor keeps saying that she is fixing welfare. Where? What is she doing? She had to back away from very modest savings. We have identified £23 billion-worth of welfare savings, and the Minister could make those if he wished, but he does not, and that is why growth has once again been downgraded. The Chancellor boasts about beating the forecast last year. Well, the forecast at the beginning of the year was 2%, and the Government failed to get anywhere near 2%. They beat the downgraded forecast, so let us not hear any more about that. We want to hear what the Government will do to drive growth, and taxing the people generating it is precisely the wrong thing to do. New clause 10 requires the Chancellor to review the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. We debated CBAM extensively in Committee, and it is dealt with in a great swathe of the Bill—in the schedules—but there is plenty more to come. Given the complexity of the policy, many industries believe that the absence from the Bill of a formal oversight and review process is a serious mis-step that needs to be addressed. There are many potential pitfalls in this new mechanism. First, the measure fails to consider several sectors that are at significant risk of carbon leakage, such as chemicals and refining. Secondly, the Government have decided to link the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. Following the announcement of that alignment, the price of carbon in the UK more than doubled, which cost our economy about £5 billion. We should be reducing the burden of carbon taxes on business, not increasing them. The EU has yet to publish its benchmark beyond 2030, which means that the UK would be signing up to a system that would effectively give Brussels a blank cheque. Moreover, CBAM does not address issues with carbon leakage in export markets. There are proposals to exempt our manufacturing exports from UK ETS costs and CBAM to make the industry more competitive, putting it on a level playing field internationally. Has the Minister considered maintaining long-term free allowances for products destined for the export markets? Given those complexities—I could go on about them more, but the Minister gets the gist—[Hon. Members: “More!”] It seems that other Members may want to come in on this issue. I think that the Minister should recognise the value of regular reviews. I know he will say that the Government keep all taxes under review, but let us have an actual review that is published, so that we can see what is happening. I encourage Members to support new clause 10. This is a Finance Bill full of tax increases that break trust with the British people. The Labour Government have introduced the family farm and business tax, frozen personal thresholds, hiked taxes on savers and investors, cut relief on employee ownership trusts, taxed inheritance pensions, taxed taxis—we discussed that in Committee—and increased gambling, alcohol and other duties and environmental levies. The list goes on and on. There is 534 pages-worth, which I could read out if there were any appetite for it. Our amendments and new clause would back the taxpayers, and the investors and businesses trying to drive growth in our economy, and I urge Members to support them.

   Hansard source
10. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

    I join the Minister in thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate—there are rather more of them here than there have been throughout our proceedings. I also thank the parliamentary staff, and the hon. Members who chaired the Committee. In this 534-page Bill, the Government have chosen to impose a raft of tax-raising measures that hit work, enterprise and investment, and which add significantly to the regulatory costs on UK businesses. They have extended the freeze on income tax thresholds, dragging hundreds of thousands more working people into higher tax bands; they have introduced a family farm and family business tax, targeting rural communities and family firms; and they have increased taxes on savings, property income and long-term investment. Taken together, these measures amount to billions of pounds-worth of extra taxation, pushing the overall tax burden to record levels. Ultimately, the Chancellor has chosen to make the UK a less attractive place for businesses and for the investors who we need to grow the economy. Just last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility cut growth projects again. At a time of global uncertainty, the Government are taking the wrong course, and it shows. Unemployment is up, taxes are up, welfare spending is going up, and living standards will fall over the course of this Parliament. This Government have led the country into a high-tax, low-growth doom loop. There is a long list of voices sounding the alarm over the economy, but the Chancellor is still not listening. Rather than change course, she is sticking to her failing plan of higher taxes, higher spending and borrowing. This Bill breaks the promises to the British people, and we will oppose it this evening.

    Hansard source
11. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

    When will the Government release Mandelson’s declaration of interest, and why is it not included in the documents released today?

    Hansard source
12. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Cabinet Office questions on 5 March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new director general of the propriety and ethics team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now received a copy of the civil service recruitment framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior civil service, must require ministerial authorisation either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition. Given the importance of the transparency and confidence in this Government’s propriety and ethics system, can you please advise the House how Members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a Minister’s statement to the House and the provisions set out in the civil service recruitment framework 2022?

    Hansard source
13. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Protest Policing

    I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, this speaks to a much wider problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a safe haven for the wealth, influence networks or political activity of senior figures connected to the Iranian regime, with specific regard to recent reports that the new so-called supreme leader of the Iranian regime is linked to a network of high-value London properties acquired through associates or shell companies? What steps will she take to close any loopholes or strengthen such sanctions?

    Hansard source
14. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Engagements

    Q9. Rural residents in Beverley and Holderness are reeling from the impact of higher fuel prices, yet two days ago, the Chancellor said that in September fuel duty would go up. My constituents want to know, as the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly asked: will that fuel duty go up in September and add to the misery of my constituents—or not? Will the Prime Minister, for once in this place, give the House and the people of this country an answer? Yes or no?

    Hansard source
15. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
16. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
17. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

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

    Hansard source
18. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Commonwealth Day 2026

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
19. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Commonwealth Day 2026

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being typically gracious and generous. Last year I met Darren England, who goes out quietly and cleans and maintains and lovingly looks after the Commonwealth war graves in Withernsea. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating all those who go quietly about that business, looking after the graves and showing due respect to those who have lost their lives in protecting this country and the values that the whole Commonwealth shares?

    Hansard source
20. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Disability Equipment Provision

    It is lovely to see such a thoughtful, thought-provoking debate, with cross-party unity on the question of how we can better support our constituents who are suffering. It could be with a stairlift, a shower, a home aid or an adaption. When I was a GP, I saw what difference that can make to people. More recently, I visited Mounts & More in Stoke Golding, a company of specialists who support wheelchair users. Margaret and her family started Mounts & More in Market Bosworth in 1996; it fits mounting systems, such as for augmentative and alternative communication, to wheelchairs. The company’s best example is of Professor Stephen Hawking—it fitted the specialist holding position for such equipment. It also drives innovation and the small business side of things that we so long for in the UK. I am keen to dive straight into some of the questions asked, as time is short, but before I do so, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for being so succinct in his well thought out speech. He is a rare parliamentarian in that he had only a single question for the Minister. I congratulate him on that. He raised a significant point about strategy. The Government say they do not have a plan to bring forward an equipment strategy, and they tend to point towards the ICBs as the commissioners on this. There is going to be some difficulty, though, if the ICBs are cutting their staff by 50%. I do agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who asked whether there is an opportunity to look at what can be done in the forthcoming health Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out whether this is a consideration when it comes to dealing with support for people with disabilities. I have another question for the Minister on the disabled facilities grant. The Government have done a review, which is welcome, and recently published their look at the issue. As more and more people become infirm—the good news is that they are living longer, the bad news that they have more disabilities—the need will go up. It is not clear from the information that has been published just how that will be monitored. How will we ensure that the funding is going to the right place and working? There is a calculator on the website that says how it will be redistributed, but I point out that clarity on accountability will be hugely important. I would welcome input from the Minister on what that will look like.

    Hansard source
21. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Disability Equipment Provision

    My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. This is part of the problem in how we get different parts of the system to work together to get a full understanding of the situation; that is most important for those who are affected, but also for the commissioners who are trying to make the decisions on where the equipment goes. I hope the Minister has heard that and will be able to work it into his response. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the chair of the APPG, raise the very important issue of the insolvency of NRS Healthcare. For those who do not know, NRS Healthcare accounts for about 40% of coverage, covering 15 million people and 21 local authorities across the country. Its insolvency showed a weakness in the way we deliver our supply. I wrote to the Government back in the summer to try to find out what was being done and what lessons had been learnt. I received a generic response early on in August, saying that things are being kept under review. It stated: “The Department continues to monitor the situation closely and will support LAs to learn lessons and consider the implications for future resilience in this market.” I followed up very quickly and wrote back in September to ask more questions, but unfortunately I have not as yet received a response. I have with me a copy of the letter that was sent asking questions, particularly about what lessons have been learnt in this case and, more importantly, what is being done to implement more resilience in the supply chain. I would be grateful if the Minister could take a look. If such a thing were to happen again, given the stark economic situation we are facing, which I appreciate is outside the scope of this debate, it would have knock-on effects for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I would be grateful if the Government would set out exactly what they are doing to make sure the supply chain is secure. Finally, I want to raise concerns about the better care fund. The Government have been clear in the 10-year health plan about their promise to reform the fund, which has been very useful in bringing pooling together. However, we have already noticed that NHS England has already reduced the amount of additional voluntary funding it was putting in by £388 million. The example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) goes to the heart of the question: looking from the top down, how do we make sure these things are all integrated? How do we understand what ICBs, councils, the NHS and charities are doing through their provision? I would be grateful if the Government could set out where they see that better care funding fitting in and when we will actually see the outcome of the changes they propose. It appears that there have been delays in the national neighbourhood health service guidance and delays in the better care fund. Without that structure and without joining it all together, it is very difficult for those scrutinising the system and, more importantly, those working in and using the system to understand exactly what to expect and when. I would be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to set that out. I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions today, because, at the end of the day it is really important to shine a spotlight on those constituents who suffer the most and get on with it the most. They are the most pragmatic, fantastic people, and their support is paramount.

    Hansard source
22. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Disability Equipment Provision

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
23. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Disability Equipment Provision

    It was a different point.

    Hansard source
24. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

    The Minister will know that the Government have a Bill about the duty of accountability and candour going through the House; one of his colleagues on the Front Bench will confirm that that requires Ministers to answer questions with candour. Several weeks ago, three Members of this House asked him what Mandelson’s pay-off was, and he refused to answer. I ask him to reflect on whether he acted with candour. Back to the question of whether Mandelson deserved a pay-out, is it not the truth that the Government know that this tissue—this story or suggestion that they were lied to and that there was no possible way they could have found out the truth—would have been torn apart in an employment tribunal, and that is why they did not want to take the case to one?

    Hansard source
25. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Rough Sleeping: Families with Children

    Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am, so brevity will be a virtue.

    Hansard source
26. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Rough Sleeping: Families with Children

    Order. The hon. Gentleman came into the debate about half an hour in. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Woking whether to allow the intervention, but in general I expect people to be in the debate far sooner. A few minutes late is permissible; 30 minutes is not.

    Hansard source
27. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Engagements

    Q6. As a result of grant cuts and over-optimistic Treasury assumptions on council tax base growth, eight fire stations and 96 retained firefighters across Wiltshire and Dorset face the axe. Will the Prime Minister please facilitate an urgent ministerial meeting for Wiltshire and Dorset MPs to discuss extending the precept flexibility permitted elsewhere—at no cost to the Treasury—to our fire and rescue service so that its fire stations and dedicated firefighters can continue to serve our community?

    Hansard source
28. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Protest Policing

    I very much welcome the statement and I commend the Home Secretary’s judgment on this occasion. The Islamic Human Rights Commission will seek to exploit the loophole offered up under section 13, around the ability to protest in a static way. Has a likely location yet been identified for the static protest? Does she agree with me that it should be away from where it would discommode the general public and somewhere that will not place undue burdens on our policing resources, which are finite?

    Hansard source
29. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

    I had the opportunity to meet senior management at Royal Mail yesterday, after constituents in Symington and Thankerton in the Clydesdale area of my constituency received no mail at all for more than 10 days. I want to return to the issue of postal voting in the Scottish elections and other elections. I do not think that reassurances from Royal Mail are enough; the Minister and others need to see a plan so that we know postal votes will be delivered, collected and taken to the electoral authorities. Will he reassure us that he will get such a plan?

    Hansard source
30. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing it. We can see from the number of Members who are interested in this topic just how serious it is across all our constituencies. I can testify to the fact that I have had an enormous amount of casework on this issue, which started just before Christmas, involving hospital appointments being missed, and children’s birthday cards, condolence cards for recently widowed individuals and postal voting forms not arriving. This is an absolutely critical issue. I reiterate that the universal service obligation is an obligation. It is an obligation set out in statute, and it is an obligation to every household in this country. We can all testify to the fact that it has been systematically broken, and that the turning point was when the new owner bought Royal Mail, with this Government’s approval, in April 2025. The letter from Royal Mail received by the Business and Trade Committee yesterday revealed that over 200 million letters have been delivered late this year. In addition to the meetings the Minister has listed with Ofcom, what assessments has he made of all the stress being caused to our constituents and the impact on people’s wellbeing? Has he had a critical discussion with Ofcom, because it appears that it is not really doing its job as a regulator? The public are paying more but getting less, and the fines he has listed do not reflect the deterioration we have seen recently. In my discussions with Royal Mail, it has said that parcels overwhelm the service at Christmas, but that situation is carrying on into March. Is it not the reality that parcels are much more—

    Hansard source
31. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

    We can certainly now end by asking for the Minister’s plan in terms of—

    Hansard source
32. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Promoting Equality

    On the Secretary of State’s watch, the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training in Gosport has now reached around 5%—the highest in 15 years. Is that any wonder when so many of the job opportunities that used to be there for our young people, such as in retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty, are being battered by this Government? Surely one of the best ways to tackle inequality and poverty is to give people the right education and the right job opportunities, so what are her Government and her Department going to do?

    Hansard source
33. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026

    For those who do not understand how renewables obligations work, let me bring Members up to speed. Three quarters of our wind and solar power is generated through renewables obligation subsidies. That means that every time electricity is generated, suppliers get the wholesale price plus a massive subsidy on top. Every time the wind blows, some wind farms get up to three times the market price of electricity. If wholesale electricity prices are £80 per MWh—which they roughly were before the crisis—wind farms are getting two renewables obligation certificates on top, at around £70 each. That means they have been getting £220 per MWh, which is almost three times the market price for electricity. For years the public have been told that the energy we get from the wind and the sun is free, but nothing could be further from the truth when we look at the deals. Labour likes to say that gas is the problem, and in the last week the price of gas power has been high, at around £120 per MWH, but here is what they are not telling us: the renewables on the scheme will always get more than the gas price. Right now, there are wind farms getting £270 per MWh, because they get whatever the wholesale price is plus the subsidies on top. The renewables obligations deals last for 20 years, so let me be crystal clear: the wind and solar farms on the scheme are not cheap. They can never be cheap. No matter what the gas price is or the wholesale cost of electricity is, they will always be much, much more expensive—and the subsidy goes up year after year. The Government are trying to address that today, but it is the subsidy itself, not the incremental inflation change, that does the real damage. I am afraid it is the Secretary of State who started all this. Back in 2008, he was the one who effectively doubled the subsidy that got us into this position. It was a bad deal. He was paying through the nose because, ideologically, he thinks renewables are better, even when they are more expensive. At the same time, the public have been told that renewables are cheap, which is a fundamentally dishonest position. That is why our position is simple. If we argue that renewables are cheap, and truly want them to be so, we have to take these eye-watering deals out of the system. Rather than just tinkering around the edges, which is what the Labour party plans to do today, we should end the rip-off subsidies for good. Will the Minister explain why, in the event of an energy crisis, he thinks our constituents should pay wind farms three times the market price for electricity? It has not cost them any more to produce their power, yet they are currently getting a huge increase in profits at the expense of our constituents’ bills. Should we not be doing everything we can to improve the cost of living? When prices are high, as they are now, how can we justify baking in paying some wind and solar farms double or triple the price? How on earth can people who are worried about their constituents paying £120 per MWh for their gas power justify paying three quarters of our wind and solar farms up to £270 for their power? Our cheap power plan would scrap the subsidies and put more money in people’s pockets. Labour have tried to move the costs on to people’s tax bills. Ordinary working people who are facing higher taxes on their income, pensions, small businesses and student loans will be paying for the subsidies. It is in the Minister’s gift to change the subsidy arrangements, as this statutory instrument shows. There is no legal barrier to scrapping them, or we would not be able to make the changes we are making today. If the Government keep the rip-off subsidies in place, they will be making it clear to all their constituents that they are prioritising the profits of wind developers over the energy bills of ordinary people. If the Government want people to use electricity to heat their home or drive their car, they need to make electricity cheap. Instead, as even Martin Lewis has pointed out, the Secretary of State has spent the last two years piling cost after cost on to electricity bills. When it comes to security of supply, the Government are choosing to shut down the North sea, only to import dirtier gas from halfway around the world. We have fewer jobs, higher bills and more carbon in the atmosphere. It is simply mad. The Government have got this backward. They need to maximise UK production from the North sea and make electricity cheap. The British public are not stupid. They can see that the Government’s energy policy is not serious. Although we will support the order, we urge the Government to go much further, end the subsidies for good and put cutting people’s bills first.

    Hansard source
34. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    International Women’s Day

    It has been almost a year since the Supreme Court ruling, and I come here time after time to ask what progress has been made. I was going to ask today if the Government can confirm that every Department is fully compliant with the ruling, but honestly there is almost no point; we know that the answer is no. In the week of International Women’s Day, is it not the truth that the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission had a point when she said that the Labour party seems to have “completely abandoned” women’s rights?

    Hansard source
35. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    Within an hour of the Government’s publication of their Islamophobia definition this week, there were calls from within the Labour party for it to be weaponised to stifle free speech, but we know that there have been multiple cases of our public services being too scared of being called Islamophobic to speak freely to save women and girls from serious harm. Can the Minister explain why the Labour party thought it was worth trading the safety of women and girls for their own narrow political interests?

    Hansard source
36. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Protest Policing

    I fully support a ban on this march. The police assessment of the risk is right, and, in fact, I wrote to the commissioner a week ago urging for exactly this ban. However, the problems with the al-Quds march go beyond simply the risk of serious disorder. In 2024, 10 people were arrested for the assault of an emergency worker, inciting racial hatred, and public order offences. Chants at al-Quds marches in the past have called for intifada and revolution. Calls for intifada and revolution are calls for violence, and calls for violence have no place on our streets. A leading speaker at these marches has been Nazim Ali, a man who has demanded that Israel “be wiped off the map”. Speaking at a previous march, Ali even blamed what he called “Zionists” for the Grenfell fire. He also said: “"We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues.” The reference to rabbis and synagogues shows that when this despicable man says “Zionist”, he means Jews. That is clear antisemitism. Speech inciting violence and speech inciting antisemitism, which we have heard at these marches in the past, has serious consequences. Antisemitism is now rampant. Jews are 10 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims. We saw an Islamist-motivated murder at a synagogue in Manchester just a few months ago. In the past 25 years, 94% of all terror murders in the UK have been committed by Islamist terrorists, who also make up 75% of counterterrorism caseloads. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the fact that that the Prevent caseload is only 10% Islamist in nature, and if she does, what does she propose to do about it? The organiser of the al-Quds march is the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission, which, as the Home Secretary rightly acknowledged, is in essence a front organisation for the Iranian regime. A former Iranian Deputy Minister of Culture, Aliasghar Ramezanpour, has said that there is a network of Islamic charities in the UK which are, in his words, not autonomous but funded and controlled by the regime in Tehran. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about that, and what does she propose to do about it? In opposition, the Labour party—I think, rightly—pledged to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Home Secretary update the House on the implementation of that pledge? I am also deeply concerned about the many events that have been held recently, particularly at universities, lamenting the demise of Ayatollah Khameini—a man who in the last few weeks was directly responsible for the murder of 30,000 of his own people; a man who supported and sponsored terrorism around the world, for instance backing Hamas and the atrocities on 7 October, and who backed various regional wars. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those who mourned his demise and celebrated his evil acts? More generally, the al-Quds marches are a troubling symptom of a growing division in our society, whereby some people define themselves primarily by their religion or their ethnic heritage, and we have seen that spilling over into the conduct of elections. This is deeply troubling and deeply divisive. It undermines the very foundations of our nation, which depend on a shared identity and shared values. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that, and I hope the House will return to the topic. Let me finish with a broader point. Extremism has no place in the UK. Support for terrorism or violence has no place in the UK. Religious and racial hatred, including antisemitism, have no place here. I believe that when someone who is not a British citizen expresses extremist, violent, pro-terror or racist views, they should have their visa revoked and be expelled, as set out in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Home Office’s own guidance makes it clear that support for “extremism or other unacceptable behaviour” meets that statutory test. Will the Home Secretary use those powers to expel extremists who are not British citizens?

    Hansard source
37. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

    I call the Minister to wind up.

    Hansard source
38. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
39. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
40. 11 Mar 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Finance (No. 2) Bill

    Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

    Hansard source