Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 80, page 96, line 28, at end insert— “(2A) The Treasury must, each year, amend by order the applicable limit set under section 5A(2)(a) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.” This amendment would provide for the £200 applicable limit to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index.
Having debated so many clauses that tighten the rules and put up taxes on individuals and businesses, we finally reach something unusual for the Chancellor: a tax break. I will speak to the amendment—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—and to the clause. The clause addresses a long-standing phenomenon in the VAT rules governing the donations of goods to charity. In the present situation, when a VAT-registered business donates stock, those goods can sometimes be treated as if they were sold, triggering a VAT bill on a notional supply that never took place. Sensibly, the clause corrects that anomaly. It provides that qualifying charitable donations of goods will no longer count as taxable supplies for VAT purposes. In practical terms, that means that no output VAT charge will be liable simply because a business chooses to donate stock to a charity, provided that it meets the conditions and value limits set out in the legislation. I acknowledge that the change has been warmly welcomed across the charity sector, unlike some of the other provisions about which concerns have been raised. It represents a small but meaningful step towards encouraging more corporate donations. The Opposition, however, have tabled amendment 43, which would ensure that the £200 cap set out in the legislation would increase by the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year—as with amendment 41, that would mean that the measure would retain its value over time. The Opposition support the principle behind the measure. It is right to remove a barrier that discourages generosity and adds unnecessary complexity to charitable giving, but the Association of Taxation Technicians has already cited concerns. In its view, the changes do not fully match the existing relief for goods donated for resale. Businesses will still face different VAT treatments, depending on how a charity uses the donated items. Clause 80 adds yet another outcome, meaning that the system remains complex for what is, in simple terms, the same act of giving goods to charities—the charities across our constituencies. Practical guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will therefore be vital, because businesses need to understand exactly when the new relief applies, how the value limits work and what evidence they must keep to stick on the right side of the rules. Without that clarity, many could decide that donating just is not worth the administrative hassle. Will the Minister commit to providing such guidance and working with the sector to produce it? According to the Budget documents, the measure will cost around £10 million to the Exchequer, which is a small price to pay for allowing more goods to reach charities and the communities they serve. However, amendment 43 would ensure that the measure retains its value over time. The current £200 limit risks eroding year by year as inflation drives up the cost of goods. Our amendment would simply link that cap to CPI, so that it keeps pace with prices, rather than becoming less generous each year. I think the Minister would have to agree that this is a modest and practical suggestion that would ensure the relief continues to operate as intended, so I hope he might agree to accept the amendment. To conclude, I will ask the Minister three things. What estimate has the Treasury made of the additional volume and value of goods expected to be donated following the change? Secondly, will HMRC commit to publishing clear and accessible guidance for small and medium-sized businesses so that they can use the relief with confidence? Finally, if the Government will not support our amendment, will they at least agree to review the £200 limit within a year or so, listening to evidence from charities and donors about how the policy is working in practice? In the end, the change is about making generosity easier, not harder. If we can make the tax system work just a little better for those who give and those who do so much vital work on the ground in our constituencies and communities, that is something that all members of the Committee would want to support. I look forward to the Minister’s response to what is a very modest and helpful amendment.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead makes a reasonable point about the £200 limit. The Minister said that there had been a lot of discussion to arrive at that threshold, but I do not think he exposed the entire rationale underpinning it—he talked about washing machines and their prices, which was an interesting diversion. The point remains that if we have a £200 limit and we think that is the right limit now, why do we not just automatically uprate it? Then the Minister will not have to come back with regulations or put other clauses in future Finance Bills. It would save us all a lot of hassle and palaver, and would mean that people and charities know where they stand. Our amendment is a modest measure, which I am surprised that the Minister has not simply accepted, so I will test the will of the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I thank the Minister for that very succinct description of the clause. He will be pleased to hear that I have only a few points to make—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley says, “That’s good.” The clause allows newly created combined county authorities to reclaim VAT incurred on non-business activities, such as statutory public functions. At present, established local authorities can recover VAT on such activities under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act, but the definition does not explicitly include combined county authorities. We understand that that change took effect last year. The explanatory notes make it clear that the clause is intended to ensure fiscal neutrality for the new governance arrangements. Combined county authorities should be no worse off than traditional counties because of their form, but of course the beneficiaries are the combined authorities that are being formed under the Government’s local government reorganisation plans. My own county of Norfolk is set to be joined with Suffolk in one of these combined county authorities, with a mayor sitting across the two counties. People in Norfolk and Suffolk were looking forward to that mayor being elected in May, until the Government cancelled our election as a late Christmas present in December. As a result, we will not have a combined county authority mayor in place and we will lose out on the £40 million that the mayor was meant to have through the investment fund. The county council elections for the authority that will make way for the combined county authority, which will then benefit from this VAT exemption, were also cancelled. So there is more delay and uncertainty, and a loss of funding, as people look at the creation of these combined county authorities, which are the subject of the clause, and the refund that they will be able to get. The clause is sensible, but the Government’s wider plans that sit behind it are somewhat chaotic, and cancelling elections is undemocratic.
I rise to speak to clause 82 and new clause 15 tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As we have heard, clause 82 introduces a time-limited relief from stamp duty reserve tax for companies listed on a UK-regulated market. The Committee will know that stamp duty is charged at 0.5% on trades in chargeable securities such as shares. This form of transaction tax is among the most economically inefficient, in the same way stamp duty is on homes: it dampens the market, prevents people from moving and undermines labour market flexibility. As a result, we have committed to abolishing stamp duty on house sales—not stamp duty on shares—and that has been very warmly welcomed. Under clause 82, trades in a newly listed company’s securities will be exempt from that 0.5% charge for the first three years after the company lists, provided specified conditions are met. The relief will apply to new listings from November last year, with the detail on the qualifying markets and securities set out in the clause, with which hon. Members will, I am sure, have familiarised themselves. We on this side of the Committee support the principle behind the clause. Some Opposition Members have highlighted the potential benefits of scrapping this transaction tax entirely. We all want to see more companies listing and raising capital in the UK, and steps to lower frictional trading costs can contribute to that ambition. However, my new clause 15 seeks to go further by requiring the Government to publish a report on the potential benefits of extending the stamp duty relief beyond three years. Specifically, I am asking Ministers to assess how a longer relief period could affect the attractiveness of UK markets for new and returning listings, and the impact on capital raising, investment and Exchequer revenues. According to the “Budget 2025 Policy Costings” document, historical listing activity has raised between £14 billion and £17 billion of capital each year. The same document shows that the relief is expected to cost the Exchequer £25 million in the first year, rising to about £50 million a year once fully implemented.
I am surprised that the Minister has brought up business rates. This is very important. We look with sympathy at having to reverse the Chancellor’s mess, although the Minister will be coming back in a few months, I am sure, with a further U-turn. Just to clarify on business rates, did the Government choose to scrap the 40% relief that was in place when they came into office?
I rise to speak to clauses 87 and 88, as well as new clause 31 tabled by the Conservatives. As the Minister said, clause 87 increases tobacco duty and the minimum excise tax with effect from Budget day, as is traditional. As he also outlined, tobacco duty is clearly charged on cigarettes and other tobacco products, while the minimum excise tax ensures that cheaper cigarettes do not escape the appropriate levels of taxation. Clause 88 sets out a further increase from October this year, introducing an additional uplift in line with RPI, alongside a one-off increase of £2.20 per 100 cigarettes and a similar rise for hand-rolled tobacco. The one-off increase coincides with the introduction of the new vaping products duty, which we may get to talk about later in Committee. As the Committee discussed last year, in the autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced that the measure was intended to preserve the price gap between tobacco and vaping products, with the same £2.20 rate applying across both categories. These measures will result in a sharp rise in the duty per pack and per pouch. While we broadly support these measures, there are concerns about the implications for illicit trade and enforcement. As we discussed in the Committee of the whole House on the Budget and the Finance Bill in relation to the Government’s almost doubling of gambling taxes, the risk, as always, is that such steep increases widen the price gap between legal and illegal products, making it more profitable for criminal networks, and more tempting for consumers to turn to the black market. The tobacco duty has been around for a long time, and in recent years successive increases have sought to maintain the financial incentive for people to switch to vaping or to give up entirely. The OBR forecasts that tobacco duty will raise around £8 billion in the current financial year, a modest rise of 0.8% from the previous year, before receipts fall steadily to £7 billion by 2031. The tax information and impact note suggests that the Exchequer impact from this measure will peak at about £130 million before tailing off, consistent with those forecasts. In economic terms, it would appear that tobacco duty is pushing beyond the point of maximum returns—beyond the Laffer curve peak. As Members of this House, our focus should be on ensuring that further increases in gambling taxes, or the tobacco taxes that we are debating here, do not simply fuel illegal trade. Raising prices on tobacco inevitably risks boosting demand for illicit products, with the associated criminality that blights our communities and fuels organised crime gangs. Even the TIIN acknowledges that some consumers may switch to cross-border or illicit purchases. HMRC says that it will “monitor and respond” as part of its anti-fraud strategy, but frankly, more clarity and more action are needed. Will the Minister outline specific measures that HMRC will use to counter any shift towards the black market? What assessment has been made of the risk to consumers who buy illicit products, both in terms of the health impacts and the costs to public services such as our NHS? Mrs Harris, you are probably wondering what the scale of this problem is. According to HMRC, 10% of cigarettes and 35% of hand-rolling tobacco consumed in the UK are from illegal or non-UK duty-paid sources. However, industry data suggests—I of course recognise that the companies have an interest, and I do not take their figures at face value—that the problem may be far worse, with up to 30% of cigarettes and over 50% of hand-rolling tobacco now being sourced illicitly. If accurate, those are levels that have not been seen the mid-2000s. I cited similar data in Committee during the passage of the Finance Act 2025, when similar provisions were brought forward. Can the Minister update me and the Committee on what discussions have taken place with HMRC about the discrepancy in the estimates? We have one estimate of 10% and another of 30%; that is a huge difference, and we have to get to the actualité. HMRC’s own director of indirect tax—I want to see that on a business card—has said that illicit tobacco costs the taxpayer around £1.8 billion a year in lost revenue. That is a lot of tax being avoided that could be collected, were this legislation properly implemented. Is that the Government’s estimate? If not, can the Minister provide more up-to-date figures on the gap between legal and illegal sales? It would also be helpful to know whether the Government have assessed the cumulative impact on retailers and enforcement bodies, if the illegal market continues to expand. That is precisely the purpose of new clause 31, which would require “an assessment of the impact of the provisions made under sections 87 and 88 on the illicit tobacco market.” HMRC launched its first strategy to tackle illicit tobacco back in 2000. I will not go through them all, but subsequent updates, working closely with Border Force, have delivered progress. They have reduced the duty gap on cigarettes by a third and on hand-rolling tobacco by half, which is a welcome success. The previous Conservative Government launched a strategy in March 2024, building on that record. I am pleased to see that the trading standards powers we introduced in July 2023 are producing results. By early January this year, over £1.4 million in civil penalties had been issued for illicit tobacco sales. When in government, we recognised the importance of enforcement. The Public Accounts Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire serves and I had the pleasure of serving for two years, estimated that every £1 spent by HMRC on compliance recovers £18— a fine rate of return.
I am very happy to share my views with the Committee on each and every clause as we go through; that is part of what we are here to do. I am also happy for the Minister to expand on the merits or otherwise of his legislation at will. If he prefers to keep it brief, we can read into that what we wish. Clause 89 increases vehicle excise duty, the annual charge for keeping a car, van or motorcycle on the roads, in line with the retail prices index. Those changes take effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April. Let us be clear: in practice, that means higher costs for almost every driver. New clause 17 seeks to make sure that those impacts are assessed. It specifically looks at the impact on the automotive sector, household incomes and the UK economy. We will not vote against clause 89, but the Government should not take our position as an endorsement of their wider approach to motorists. Vehicle excise duty flows straight into the Treasury’s general fund, and the amount that a driver pays depends on the vehicle type, registration date and emissions, with rates adjusted. According to the OBR, vehicle excise duty is forecast to raise getting on for £12 billion by the end of the decade, due in no small part to the RPI increases. It is interesting that the Minister is keen to increase people’s taxes by RPI on a regular basis but will not give such a commitment on a fairly minor charitable threshold. We will leave that there, though, as we have debated that clause. Ministers like to describe these increases as modest. On their own they may be, but we have to look at all these things in the round, and the impact of these clauses on individuals. If we look at all the costs—the hike in fuel duty and the new mileage-based charge planned for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which will cost the average driver £255 a year—the cumulative impact begins to bite. That is why the new clause looks at the impact of this measure. That all comes on top of rising insurance premiums, servicing costs and of course the wider pressure on household budgets. Everyone’s bills are going up, and there seems to be no end in sight. Let us not forget that it was this Government who decided to end the 5p fuel duty cut that the last Conservative Government introduced—a decision that will cost the average family around £100 a year from September. Then, from next April, the long-standing fuel duty freeze that was in place for 16 years will also be scrapped, replaced by inflation-linked rises. That freeze has saved motorists £120 billion since 2010, but once again, drivers are being asked, through this measure, to pay the price for the Government’s failure to get a grip on the economy. Motorists and motoring organisations including the RAC have rightly warned that these charges come at a time when the cost of living remains high and public transport options are patchy—particularly outside our major cities, as we discussed in the context of private hire vehicles and taxis. For many in rural areas like my own, a car is not a luxury but a necessity to get around, get to work and see family. Many people do not have an alternative to their car. Drivers are paying more, yet the Prime Minister boasts about things like his £3 bus fare cap, which he quietly increased by 50%. That is why new clause 17 would require an assessment of the impact of the increase in vehicle excise duty. Although we will not vote against the clause, we expect some answers from the Minister. Will he confirm whether the Treasury has modelled the combined impact of these motoring costs—VED, fuel duty, the upcoming road pricing charges—on household budgets, particularly in rural areas where public transport is limited? What assessment has been made of the impact on small businesses that depend on vans and light goods vehicles to operate in each of our constituencies every day? Those are the people we should think of when we consider clauses such as this. New clause 17 would help to deliver the clarity that Britain’s 50 million motorists deserve.
The clauses deal with changes to vehicle excise duty for heavy goods vehicles, rigid good vehicles with and without trailers, vehicles with exceptional loads, and haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles. I welcome the exemption for showman’s vehicles as we look forward to the King’s Lynn Mart, which has been going for 800 years. On 14 February, I will be joining in the civic procession through the middle of King’s Lynn, before getting on the dodgems for the traditional dodgem ride, with other civic figures. Hon. Members should feel free to come along—it is on a Saturday. It is always cold for the Mart, but it is well worth coming along to. Together, these provisions will uprate the VED and the road user levy by RPI. We have concerns about the timing of the increases, and the absence of meaningful backing for the most affected industries, especially the logistics sector, which keeps Britain moving. HGV vehicle excise duty is already complex, with more than 80 different rates, varying based on the characteristics of weight, emissions, class and configuration. Of course, as the Minister referred to, HGVs are also subject to the road user levy, which was introduced in 2014 as a charge for using the network. That levy was rightly suspended in August 2020 during the pandemic, and the reformed levy that the Minister referred to was reintroduced in August 2023, but it was frozen in the autumn statement that year.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effect of these clauses on putting up costs and potentially adding to inflation, which as we know has almost doubled from the rate that the Government inherited. Of course, that is partly due to the decisions that the Chancellor has taken and the huge amount she is borrowing and spending, which was not mentioned in her party’s manifesto. To my hon. Friend’s point, the Minister must tell us what assessment has been made of the knock-on impact on consumer prices, particularly for essentials such as food that depend on road freight to get to our supermarkets and local stores. This is a time when we should be backing British logistics, not burdening it. I therefore hope that, on reflection, the Minister will accept new clause 18 as a sensible one that will help him provide that information to our constituents, to the public, and—importantly—to the logistics sector, transport operators and supermarkets.
Is the Minister therefore ruling out any further support for hospitality, leisure and retail businesses in the Chancellor’s spring statement?
The Minister is a fair man, so he will recognise the impact that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had on inflation and energy prices. Could he confirm what the inflation rate was on the day the Government came into office and what it is today? That is an important context for his comments.
I rise to speak to clause 94 and new clause 19, which stands in my name. Clause 94 makes changes to the expensive car supplement in vehicle excise duty, as the Minister referred to, specifically for zero emission vehicles. This is an extra £425 charge that applies to most cars with a list price above £40,000. Under the clause, the Government propose to increase the threshold to £50,000, but only for zero emission vehicles. That means that buyers of higher-value electric vehicles will avoid paying the charge, while the £40,000 limit still applies to petrol, diesel and hybrid cars. This change is due to take effect from April 2026. Let us recall that, back in the Public Bill Committee on last year’s Finance Bill, one of the Opposition’s “review” new clauses called for an independent assessment of the £40,000 threshold and its impact on consumers, particularly for electric vehicle sales, because we said that it was not at the right level. The Minister’s predecessor rejected that idea, and now here we are: the Ministers have quietly decided to raise the very threshold that we urged them to raise a year ago. They are playing catch-up, but they get there in the end. Is the Minister willing to admit that they have been a bit slow to follow the points that we made? Maybe we will be here in Committee next year, talking about other clauses on which the Minister has rejected things and reversed his position. That brings me to the hybrid point. The Government now seem to have decided that hybrids no longer warrant support, despite the fact that they are critical in bridging the transition to fully electric vehicles. I would be grateful if the Minister expanded at length on the reasoning behind that decision, and on how many jobs in the UK are dependent on the manufacture of hybrid models when a lot of our electric vehicles come from China, where the Prime Minister is now. We are broadly supportive of the measure, having recommended it a year ago, but let us be realistic: it will not do anything for most of the households in our constituencies, who simply cannot afford a new electric vehicle, especially one that costs £50,000. That is completely out of reach for people in my constituency. I do not know whether that is also the case in constituencies nearer to London, but it is certainly the case in mine. How does this increase fit with the wider EV policy and charging infrastructure and its roll-out? To support ordinary people up and down the country, we should be joining countries such as Canada—along with the EU, or so it looks—in scrapping the mandate forcing manufacturers to produce EV vehicles and ending the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. New clause 19 would require a proper review of the policy, its effects on the automative sector and the impact on the sale of hybrid cars and on vehicle excise duties. It would ensure a consideration of whether the threshold remains appropriate as market prices shift. I hope that the Government will accept this accountability and transparency in policymaking, which will benefit everyone. Will the Minister at least commit to reviewing the threshold in future, particularly if it turns out that it needs to be adjusted? Will he also look at the hybrid point?
I think we are on first-name terms now, Mrs Harris.
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I am almost the only one who has said anything in this Committee, so hopefully people know my name. I rise to speak to clause 96 and to my new clauses 20 and 32. As the Minister has set out, clause 96 sets air passenger duty rates for the 2027-28 tax year, uprating them in line with RPI. I believe that APD is one of the few taxes for which rates are set well in advance so that the sector knows of the increases. The clause will also expand the higher rate to all private jets over 5.7 tonnes. This applies to passengers departing from UK airports, with rates determined by distance and travel class. My new clause 20 would require the Government to publish a full impact assessment of the APD changes on the aviation industry, on passengers, on households of all income levels and on the public finances. New clause 32 seeks to bring greater transparency to the travelling public; it would require that the change in the level of APD charge be clearly stated on boarding passes so that every passenger knows how much the rate has gone up as a result of tax imposed by the Government. The Minister says that it is a commercial decision whether airlines pass on the cost, but he will be familiar with how the world works. If a business is taxed more, it is likely to pass on the cost rather than absorbing it into what can be quite thin margins. It may not be able to absorb it, so if it does not pass it on, it will go bust. This could start a wave of transparency. At the petrol pump, we could see how much of the price of a litre is going straight out in tax. In a pub, we could see on a pint glass how much of the pint goes on tax. Those ideas are not included in my new clause, but they have given me inspiration for when we return to the Floor of the House on Report. The new clause would bring greater transparency; I would hope that the Government and Ministers are willing to be more open. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, APD will raise £4.1 billion this year, which is forecast to rise to £6.5 billion by 2030-31, driven by rate increases and passenger growth. While the Government reap the higher revenues, they must also recognise the impact and pressure on families getting away for a holiday—I would say, “Come to Norfolk”—and on regional airports and the wider economy. There are concerns about the impact on people saving up for a family holiday; about the availability of routes that might be slightly marginal and which the increases might make uneconomic; and about affordability for families. The British Airline Pilots Association said that the latest rise is: “Bad news for passengers, especially families going on holiday”. The Business Travel Association put it rather more bluntly: “APD is not simply a passenger charge; it is a tax on global connectivity”. It highlights an economy flight to India, a key trading partner of the UK. For 2027, the APD alone will be over £100 per passenger, and that is of course before any accommodation or other costs. It is a significant additional factor if a family of four is travelling, perhaps to see family or to go to some of the great sights in India. I enjoyed a visit there a few years ago, and I am happy to discuss where I went with colleagues after this sitting, as I fear it may be out of scope. What will this mean for children? What analysis has been done of how it might affect consumer behaviour? Will it put people off flying? New clause 32 is about transparency. Everyone would be able to see on their boarding pass how much has been added as a result of this stealth tax. We are unable to put the full amount, due to resolutions passed by the House, which is why we would put the annual amount. Such taxes should be more visible to consumers. From 2027, all aircraft over 5.7 tonnes will face a higher charge, and that change follows the 50% rise planned for April. When we talk about private jets, people may think of pop stars gadding around, but most private jets are corporate aircraft that are used as capital assets. They are not luxury toys; they are about people flying to trade and secure jobs in our economy. It is about people being internationally connected and going to places such as India—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley is pulling a face, as if that is not the reality, but it is what these jets are. We want people to get on a plane, go and do deals, come back and secure investment into our country. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding. Perhaps that is why he is the Minister and not on the Back Benches. The Prime Minister has just hired a private jet to go to China, because he could not take the Royal Squadron flight due to national security concerns. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much chartering that plane has cost the taxpayer in air passenger duty. We do not oppose clause 96, but we expect the Government to be up front about the impact of the tax rises they are ramming through in this Bill. We want transparency for families going on holiday, who will see prices going up and will have to pay more to get away. Our new clauses simply ask for some transparency and accountability, which are often missing from the Government’s approach to taxation.
Environmental taxes are obviously a very important topic for our constituents and businesses, so it is important that we scrutinise them appropriately. Clause 97 raises the climate change levy—the tax on non-domestic energy use for electricity, gas and solid fuels—while freezing the rate for LPG. As the Minister said, it was first introduced in 2001 to encourage energy efficiency. This uprating will take effect from April 2027. According to the OBR, around £2 billion will come in as a result. We must look at the additional burden being placed on businesses. Again, we need to look at all of these things cumulatively, which is why I welcome the Government’s decision in the autumn to extend the climate change agreements for a further six years—by allowing qualifying businesses to benefit from reductions at a time when businesses are facing significant headwinds, this offers some much-needed respite. Of course, British manufacturers are paying higher prices than the European average—I think it is more than 50% more for electricity—while the gap with the United States is wider, for understandable reasons. However, high energy costs are one of the issues holding back growth and productivity in the country. We should be looking to reduce the burden and cost of energy, rather than increase it, and this measure will obviously put up the rate. New clause 21 would require a report on climate change levy rates, and it would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact on energy-intensive industries and the UK’s international competitors. I am thinking about sectors such as ceramics, glass, data centres and gigafactories. These are the industries that drive innovation, exports and skilled jobs, and we should consider the impact of such measures on their ability to do business in the UK. That is why we have set out a different approach that does not follow the fundamentalism of the Energy Secretary, who is picking arbitrary dates and loading up costs by rushing to meet them, rather than getting the benefits of technology development and innovation. Our plan would bring down the cost of energy, because taxing industrial energy is not a strategy for growth. What assessment has the Minister made of the greater impact of these rates on British manufacturers’ productivity, competitiveness and ability to grow? If he cannot answer that question, perhaps he will support new clause 21 so that we can have a review after the event to see what the impact has been.
Clause 98 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax from 1 April, uprating them in line with the retail prices index. In practical terms, that means the standard rate will increase to £130.75 per tonne, with the lower rate applying to less polluting materials increasing by the same cash amount. Landfill tax, as the Minister said, is intended to discourage disposal in landfill and promote recycling and recovery, and of course we support that aim. However, it is also right that we scrutinise the real-world effect of these changes on business costs, recycling rates and wider environmental outcomes. That is why we have tabled new clause 22. According to the Budget 2025 costings document, the measure is expected to raise £35 million in 2026-27, increasing to £130 million by the end of the decade. Members will remember the intense speculation ahead of the Budget that the Government might move to a single landfill tax, and the Minister referred to a consultation. The speculation did not come from nowhere; it came from a Government consultation that proposed to do precisely that. As such, the Minister could have been a bit more up front that this is something the Government were consulting on, presumably because they thought it might be a good idea. Indeed, I recall raising this directly with the Chancellor at Treasury questions earlier last year, where she accused me of scaremongering when I spoke about her own consultation, so I am glad that she has dropped her proposal to move to a single rate. Had she gone ahead with it, material such as topsoil could have faced a thirty-onefold increase. The Minister kindly referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne and his video; he led a determined campaign alongside the industry to stop the reckless proposals put forward by the Chancellor. They could have added £28,000 to the cost of a new home and increased road construction costs by up to 25%. When we asked what discussions the Treasury had had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government before coming forward with its proposal for a thirtyfold increase in the tax rate, it was clear that there had not been any. There was then a sudden panic that the 1.5 million new homes target would be sunk by the Treasury’s actions. I welcome the rethinking of this policy—I will be generous to the Minister on that—to spare the sector yet another unnecessary blow that could have worsened house building numbers and jeopardised the key infrastructure upgrades that we all want to see across the country. So far, so good, but—and there is always a “but”—the Government’s retreat on that issue does not mean all is well with these proposals. The long-standing exemption for dredging material and its removal has caused deep concern, if the Committee will accept the pun, in the ports and water sector. The British Ports Association, I believe, has written to the Minister as well as the Chancellor, warning that if these changes proceed unchecked, we may see “the collapse of major industrial and development projects, particularly in ports, rivers and canals”. I declare an interest, as King’s Lynn in my constituency has a fine historical port. Indeed, the wealth of King’s Lynn was built on our trading links with the Hanseatic League in medieval times. The knock-on effects of removing the exemption could be significant; delayed waterway clean-up projects, increased flooding in vulnerable areas, and reduced investment in our ports, which keep our country trading. New clause 22 seeks a proper assessment of how these tax changes will affect construction and infrastructure projects, investment in ports, recycling levels and illegal dumping rates, and progress towards the Government’s environmental objectives. The Minister needs to set out how the Government are responding to address the serious concerns raised by the British Ports Association, which, if correct, could have a very damaging effect on major infrastructure. We welcome that the proposals put forward in the consultation have been ditched, but there are concerns that the Minister now needs to address.
It was not the fact that the Government consulted that we objected to; it was that they were consulting on a crazy idea that would have increased costs for industry 31-fold. Consult away, but do not consult on bad ideas.
The industry’s concerns are urgent, so if it persuades the Minister on certain points, will he table amendments on Report—the Bill will return to the House in the near future—to address them?
Clause 99 will increase the aggregates levy—the tax on commercially exploited rock, sand and gravel—from April. The levy, charged per tonne of primary aggregate, is intended to encourage efficient use of materials. As colleagues will know, aggregates are fundamental to almost every form of infrastructure: they are the foundations of our roads, our concrete structures and our coastal defences. They are the essential components in so many products, from ready-mixed concrete to asphalt, lime, mortar and countless others. As the Mineral Products Association puts it so aptly, “Aggregates provide the backbone of our world”, and in the UK we use around 250 million tonnes every year. New clause 23 would require the Government to assess the impact of clause 99 on the construction industry and key national infrastructure products. Although roughly a quarter of aggregate comes from recycled sources, the overwhelming majority still comes from primary extraction. Around 90% is used by the construction industry itself. While we obviously support the principle of encouraging sustainability that is behind the levy, the construction of a single home requires, on average, around 200 tonnes of aggregate and associated materials, from the foundations to the roof tiles. At a time when the Government are looking to accelerate house building, has the Minister looked at the impact of this measure on housing delivery and cost? We will not oppose clause 99, but new clause 23 would require the Government to assess its impact on construction and infrastructure projects. The Minister set out that clause 100 and schedule 23 will simplify things for the introduction of the new Scottish aggregates tax, reducing the number of businesses that would otherwise need to account for the levy. That is a perfectly good and common-sense measure, so I have no further comment on it.
Clauses 101 to 104 amend the plastic packaging tax introduced in 2022 to encourage the use of recycled and reduced plastic. At the end of August last year, around 5,000 businesses were registered for the tax, and 38% of plastic packaging manufactured or imported into the UK was declared as taxable under it. The tax applies to packaging with less than 30% recycled content and is charged per tonne of plastic packaging components. The Opposition believe that the Government must ensure that the policy is working effectively in practice, encouraging the industry to change and delivering genuine environmental benefit, and not simply adding cost. Clause 101 increases the packaging tax rate, this time in line with CPI, not RPI. Could the Minister explain why? In principle, that is reasonable, to maintain its value and sustain the incentive to recycle, but it is a practical reality that many businesses simply cannot get enough high-quality recycled plastic at reasonable prices, so raising the rate without addressing that supply constraint risks making packaging more expensive but not greener. Recycling firms are already facing higher energy bills and rising labour costs as a result of both global pressures and some of the measures that have been introduced. It is often still cheaper to import virgin or recycled plastic from Asia than to buy recycled content from within Europe, and loopholes in legislation may make it more profitable to export plastic waste than to process it here at home. The Guardian, which I confess is not my usual paper of choice—[Interruption.] It is not the Minister’s either; it is good to get that on the record. It recently reported that 21 plastics recycling and processing plants across the UK have shut down in the last two years, which is a direct result of the imbalance between export incentives, cheap virgin plastic and low-cost imports from Asia. How much additional revenue does the Treasury expect this rate increase to bring in, given that I think receipts actually fell in 2024-25? What increases in recycled content are the Government assuming will result from the measure? Has the Treasury assessed whether the costs will simply be passed on to consumers through higher prices for everyday goods? We want a tax that drives genuine behaviour change, not one that just adds to the cost of living. Clause 102 allows chemically recycled plastic to count towards the 30% recycled threshold and introduces a mass balance approach. That is a welcome recognition of innovation and new technology. However, analysis from Pinsent Masons notes that it will introduce significant certification and evidential demands on manufacturers and importers, and many small and medium-sized businesses fear an extra compliance burden in the absence of clear guidance or support. Can the Minister set out to the Committee, and to those companies, what practical support the Government will provide to help businesses adapt to the new rules, and will Ministers commit to reviewing the effectiveness of the measure within a reasonable period to ensure that it is genuinely driving more recycling? Clause 103 excludes pre-consumer plastics, such as factory offcuts, from the definition of recycled content from April next year. The Government say that that is to ensure that the tax incentivises genuine recycling of post-consumer waste, rather than reusing scrap material. That is reasonable as it goes, but Pinsent Masons has warned that some manufacturers will no longer be able to treat their own production offcuts as recycled content. While the overall burden of tax may not have changed, the burden of liability could shift from those gaining relief through mass balance accounting to those losing relief for pre-consumer materials. The Government should be up front about who will bear the costs of the changes. Finally, clause 104 deals with commencement. Businesses need certainty ahead of the changes, and time to adapt their supply chains and get the relevant certification and other measures lined up. Can the Minister confirm that HMRC will be publishing detailed guidance in advance? He may tell me that it is already out there and that I have not seen it yet, but if it is not, can he assure me that it will be published in good time for those companies?
I am surprised that the Minister covered this important clause so briefly, as will become clear in my remarks. Clause 105 increases the soft drinks industry levy—the tax on soft drinks with added sugar, which is charged per litre, with higher rates applied to drinks containing more sugar. The Government propose to uprate the levy by combining one fifth of the CPI inflation from 2018 to 2024 and full CPI inflation between Q2 2025 and 2026. In practice, that all together means a total rise of 27%—I am surprised that the Minister did not want to get that figure on the record; it is a significant increase. The soft drinks industry levy has worked in meeting its objectives, but we had a debate on it last year and, and as I warned then, we have serious concerns about the Government’s decision to backdate an inflation increase over a six-year period. That is an unprecedented move, which raises serious questions about fairness, consistency and confidence in the UK tax system. The soft drinks industry levy was introduced in 2017 by the Conservative Government to help tackle obesity, diabetes and tooth decay, particularly among children. By any reasonable measure, it has been a success. There has been a 46% reduction in sugar in fizzy drinks since the original tax came into force, and 89% of soft drinks sold now in the UK are not subject to the charge due to reformulation. As the British Soft Drinks Association points out, since 2015, more than 1 billion kilograms of sugar have been removed from the UK diet. Soft drinks now account for just 6% of the UK’s total sugar intake. The industry has responded to the incentives that Parliament put in place by investing heavily, innovating and reformulating on a huge scale. That is why the backdated tax rise in clause 105 is so troubling. Imposing, in one go, six years of inflation over a period when it was not imposed represents a 27% retrospective increase, something that I think—unless I am corrected by the Minister—is without precedent in recent UK fiscal policy. It is not simply a technical adjustment; it is a departure from the principles that underpin our tax system, such as clarity and predictability. As we have recently discussed when considering other clauses, inflation uprating is normally applied annually, not retroactively over a six-year period. When alcohol duty or fuel duty is frozen, the Treasury does not go back and seek to make up for the years it was frozen by adding them to the rate—although maybe that is what the Government are going to do—but that is precisely what the Government are now doing with the soft drinks levy. As I pointed out to the Finance Bill Committee last year, if the same backdating principle were applied elsewhere, the results would be very troubling. According to research that the House of Commons Library kindly produced for me, if the Government were to take the same approach to fuel duty as they applied to the soft drinks levy—there has been a long freeze in fuel duty—fuel duty would rise by 64%, while the aggregates levy would rise by 67%. No one would defend that, so why is it acceptable in this scenario to have such an increase? Businesses make long-term decisions on investment, employment and pricing based on the stability of the tax regime. To introduce retrospective changes on this scale undermines that certainty and, I fear, risks setting a dangerous precedent. Is this now Government policy? Can the Minister rule out—as the Minister at the time failed to rule out—the Government taking a similar approach with other taxes, such as fuel duty? I wonder if he will be able to give us a bit more confidence. Will the Government commit to not applying such levels of retrospective taxation-inflation increases to other sectors? In the context of this debate about the soft drinks industry levy and the increase in it, also important is what might happen—given that the threshold and the rates have been set—if there are proposals to lower the rate to bring more soft drinks into the tax, such as milk-based drinks—the milkshake tax—coffee drinks and milk substitutes that exceed the same sugar threshold. If that happened, that would potentially be another hit to the cost of living. Industry has estimated that compliance costs could run into the tens or possibly hundreds of millions of pounds, if such an approach were taken, moving the goalposts when the policy has delivered on its aims. The hospitality and drinks sector already face a lot of pressures, so they do not need to see further increases. I therefore think that applying a retrospective 27% tax increase is a move that the Government should not take lightly. We support the principle of the industry levy and the goals that it serves, but this is concerning, and I look for some confidence from the Minister that the retrospective approach to taxation will be a one-off.
We know that some British businesses are put off exporting by the costs, particularly the cost of cross-border payments. One solution is the adoption of innovative digital payment methods, which is why I warmly welcomed the Government’s announcement of the transatlantic taskforce for markets of the future. However, since its announcement last September, we have not had a great deal of detail on it from the Government, so will the Minister provide an update on the status of the taskforce and what he hopes it will achieve for our exporters?
I thank the Minister for that response. This is an area that we genuinely agree on. Digital payment technology will genuinely provide an opportunity for British exporters, so I gently ask the Minister to get on top of the detail on that taskforce and provide an update as soon as he can. We asked DBT Ministers last June exactly what the Government’s strategy on digital payment technology was. We were promised that it would be part of the industrial strategy, but it was missing. Can he explain why?
On 21 November 2024, Simone White lost her life, aged just 28, following a mass methanol poisoning incident. She was one of six tourists who died after consuming contaminated drinks served at a hostel in the tourist town of Vang Vieng in Laos. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), I have met members of Simone’s family who live in our respective constituencies. The incident has prompted them to campaign for increased awareness and education about the dangers of methanol poisoning abroad. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Orpington, Declares that bootleg alcohol poses a considerable danger to tourists and has, tragically, resulted in deaths in countries including Laos, Turkey and Vietnam. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that children and young people are taught about the dangers of consuming bootleg alcohol as part of the PSHE or biology curriculum in schools. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003160]
I will be brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I can see the intent behind amendment 134 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would ensure that the strategy covers a 30-year period, and I think it is important that one looks to the future. Given our relative ages, I suspect that, notwithstanding any decisions by the electorate, the Minister may be the only person who is still in this place to assess whether the strategy has worked in 30 years’ time. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was right to highlight that a 30-year strategy would set a baseline, but, as with any strategy, it would be right to refresh and, if necessary, amend it every few years to reflect changing externalities or new Government who wish to tweak it in a different direction. I think that is a sensible approach. Amendment 137 has an important focus on rural transport links. I have four stations in my constituency: Syston, Bottesford, Sileby and Melton Mowbray. Apart from Melton Mowbray and Syston, those stations are in relatively small villages that are served by only irregular buses. The intent behind the amendment, as I understand it, is to not only focus on investment in those rural services, but ensure that there are linkages so that people in outlying villages or elsewhere can access them. I know that my constituents would very much welcome that. Amendments 207 and 261 focus, in different ways, on interchanges and integrated transport, which are hugely important. The hon. Member for West Dorset rightly highlighted the experience, which I expect many of us and our constituents have had, of landing at a railway station five minutes after the train has gone because the bus service is not integrated in its timetabling. I gently caution the Minister that a national integrated transport strategy may not be something he wishes to take on himself. If I recall, that was something mooted in “Yes Minister”, and Jim Hacker took on the job, in an episode known as “The Bed of Nails” because it was deemed virtually impossible to win when trying to integrate all aspects of transport strategy. Fond as I am of the Minister, I would counsel him not to take on that role, even if the Bill has the right intent of trying to integrate transport a little better. Amendments 224 and 225 would rightly require freight services to be considered carefully, and would require consultation with freight operators. Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have spoken a number of times about the potential tension between passenger services and GBR’s own services, and the need for freight services to be protected and supported, as well as whether there is an explicit target for freight versus passenger services. Again, I think the amendments are sensible. Finally, I think new clause 29 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require an assessment of the need for Sunday services, is extremely sensible, and I hope that others on the Committee will speak to it. I mentioned Sileby station in my constituency. Sileby is a large village, but on a Sunday it has only one bus to Leicester first thing in the morning and one bus back from Leicester in the afternoon. That is the extent of the public transport available to that large and growing village. Constituents have written to me to ask what can be done to better understand the demand for and possible implementation of a Sunday rail service there—even if it is only irregular, running once or twice a day, it would be something—to give them that option, so I know that they would welcome new clause 29.
The Minister says the watchdog can request enforcement. Does it have the power to compel enforcement?
I will endeavour not to detain the Committee for long. In the Committee’s second sitting, when Mr Reeve and Mr McDonald gave evidence—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham alluded to—Mr McDonald stated: “In the case of Wales, the heads of terms for the MOU were published in December…We are optimistic that we can jointly publish a full draft in early March.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 56, Q104.] That is encouraging in the case of Wales, but Mr Reeve was unable to offer any similar assurance as to where things were with Scotland. He said: “We are working with colleagues in DFT on the heads of terms for that and on what the principles will be”.––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 55, Q100.] He also said it remains a priority. A different pace appears to be being reached in Wales compared with where we are with the MOU with the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is right to highlight the fact that in both cases we will, in a few short weeks’ time, be entering the pre-election period for the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. In the case of Wales, there is a degree of reassurance. Will the Minister update the Committee on where the discussions with the Scottish Government have got to; when the DFT and Scottish Government will publish the heads of terms, as the Welsh Government published them in December; and whether he is still convinced that the March timescale will be met and that we will see both MOUs published? Amendment 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is pragmatic and proportionate. It simply seeks to put a degree of certainty around the timescales and, quite rightly, as he highlighted, to give the process a degree of transparency by gently nudging all Administrations concerned to lay the MOUs before the House so that right hon. and hon. Members can consider them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
I want to tempt the Minister. I hope he will look at me and not catch the eyes of his officials, because I am very well aware, from my time as a Minister, of phrases such as “in the fullness of time”, “at the appropriate juncture” and “in due course”, and exactly what they mean, not least as a keen student of “Yes Minister”. I am sure that, on occasions, I used them myself. May I tempt him a little further as to whether he is going to put an actual timescale on this?
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Latin America, I was interested to note that, after 25 years of negotiations, the EU has announced a trade deal with the Mercosur South American trading group. What is the position of the UK Government on a trading agreement with Mercosur?
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a keen cyclist or mountain biker, but I am sure that he will share my excitement, and that of my constituents, that after the grand départ in Edinburgh, the Tour de France will pass through Innerleithen, Walkerburn and Canonbie in my constituency. Along with the forthcoming opening of the mountain bike innovation centre in Innerleithen, does he agree that this will showcase the Tweed Valley as the best cycling venue not only in the United Kingdom but in the world?
Yet again, the Business Secretary is not here for his departmental questions. This time, he is in China, trying to sort out the mess that is British steel strategy. He is burning through £2 million a day of taxpayers’ money keeping the Scunthorpe furnace going, the Chinese owners are asking for £1 billion in compensation, and decommissioning could cost more than £2 billion. His steel strategy is literally melting before its long-awaited publication. Given that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses, what is a good outcome here?
Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see why the Business Secretary needs to be here to answer questions, because I did not hear an answer to my question. I will try a different topic, which is also really important to our constituents. Sixteen million of them got their Royal Mail parcels and letters late this Christmas—my constituents have made many, many complaints. What has the Minister done to hold Royal Mail to account for its unacceptable level of service?
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that we sent to the other place is being scrutinised extensively, and it has been reported this morning that the Parliament Act 1911 may be invoked to force the Bill through to become an Act. Given that it is a private Member’s Bill and was not in the Labour manifesto, can the Leader of the House assure the House that he will not allocate Government time to do that?
The hon. Lady will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. At any point, she would have been able to seek to intervene on the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).
Last May, Reform pushed leaflets through the doors of homes in Worcestershire that said that it would cut taxes, but this year, Reform-led Worcestershire county council has sought permission from the Government to increase council tax by a staggering 10%. Does the Leader of the House agree that that inflation-busting rise is a step too far for the residents of Worcestershire? Will he rule it out, and make representations to the relevant Secretary of State?
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House announced, on Monday 9 February there will be a Select Committee statement from the Procedure Committee, the subject of which is secret. That should encourage Members to come along and listen to what is being said. It is secret because the Committee has not yet published its report. On Thursday 26 February—if we are allocated that date—we have offered a St David’s day and Welsh affairs debate, so I am sure the Leader of the House will not want to upset the Welsh. In Westminster Hall, on 3 February there will be a debate on town and city centre safety. On Thursday 5 February, there will be a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee, followed by a debate on sustainable drainage systems and a debate on secondary breast cancer. On 10 February, there will be a debate on the Independent Water Commission final report. On Thursday 12 February, there will be a debate on onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry, and a debate on which we are waiting for confirmation. On 24 February, there will be a debate on Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza. The Leader of the House and I had a very good meeting on Monday. I look forward to the necessary changes to the Standing Orders coming forward to assist the Backbench Business Committee in doing its work. The Mayor of London is wrestling with a £260 million gap in the finances. There are proposals to close police counters across London to save about £6 million a year. Since 6 October 2023, hate marches across London have cost the Metropolitan police £82 million, and officers have been dragged in from all over London to police them. Council tax payers of London are outraged about having to pay to police those marches. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister who responds to the debate on the police grant tells us how the Government will make sure that the organisers of such demonstrations—rather than the council tax payers of London—bear the cost of policing them?
It is an honour to follow an excellent opening speech from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I congratulate him on the way he has introduced this debate. I declare my interests as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Holocaust memorial and education centre, co-chairman of the APPG on Israel and sponsor of this year’s Holocaust memorial reception in Portcullis House, on behalf of the Holocaust Educational Trust. We gather today to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, which commemorates the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau on 27 January 1945. That moment exposed to the world the full horror of the Nazi regime’s systematic murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children—for the benefit of the BBC, I say Jewish men, women and children. However, Holocaust Memorial Day is also a moment to remember the millions of others who were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, such as the Roma, disabled people, political dissidents and others. We remember not only to honour the victims, but to understand how such an atrocity became possible and how we must never allow it to happen again. The Holocaust did not begin with the gas chambers and the death camps, and too often we forget the context. In the decades before, hatred was allowed to grow in Germany; prejudice became normalised; and language, institutions and social norms were slowly corroded. In the great war, Germany was defeated, and afterwards it was economically shattered. The treaty of Versailles imposed territorial losses, military restrictions and severe reparations, the burden of which fell heavily on ordinary people in Germany. The Weimar republic, although democratic in structure, was fragile, and economic catastrophe soon followed. In fact, hyperinflation in the early 1920s left Germans burning paper money to keep warm, because the currency’s value had fallen away. Widespread poverty took hold, and in times of despair, many people searched for simple explanations—and for scapegoats. It was in that climate that the Nazi party rose to prominence. Hitler and his supporters offered simplistic answers to complex problems. They promised national revival, strength and unity, while identifying enemies within. Jews were portrayed not as fellow citizens, but as outsiders. They were dehumanised and blamed for Germany’s defeat, its economic hardships and the perceived decline of society. Hatred was not accidental; it was systematic, deliberate and relentlessly reinforced. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, antisemitism became state policy. Just imagine that: it was state policy to outlaw a particular religion. Persecution began not with mass violence, but with exclusion. Jewish civil servants were dismissed, Jewish businesses were boycotted and Jewish professionals were barred from practising law and medicine, and from teaching. Those measures were designed to isolate, humiliate and impoverish an entire community. It is important to stress that while most people did not actively participate in persecution, most chose to look away while it happened. Silence, passivity and indifference allowed injustice to become embedded and, ultimately, unstoppable. Persecution soon escalated. The Nuremberg laws of 1935 stripped Jews of citizenship and basic rights, reducing them from equal members of society to subjects of the state. Violence became overt. In November 1938, Kristallnacht marked a decisive turning point. Synagogues were destroyed, Jewish homes and businesses were attacked, and thousands were arrested by the state—not by mobs acting alone, but by authority itself. With the outbreak of the second world war, persecution turned into annihilation. Jews were forced into ghettos, and we will no doubt hear about harrowing testimonies of overcrowding, hunger, disease and despair. From 1941 onwards, death camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka and Sobibor were constructed for one purpose alone—mass murder. Trains arrived from across Europe, and people were selected, exploited and killed on an industrial scale. There were some who resisted, often at immense personal risk, and they remind us that choices are always possible, but they were the exception, not the norm.
Indeed, I condemn that action, and all actions that seek in some way, shape or form to glorify or justify the Holocaust. The lesson matters profoundly today. Holocaust Memorial Day plays a vital part in educating the public on the dangers of prejudice, discrimination and hatred—dangers that, if left unchecked, can escalate once again into violence and even genocide. It honours survivors and preserves their testimony, particularly now that the number of first-hand witnesses is sadly diminishing—a point to which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket alluded. The theme for this year, “Bridging Generations”, is therefore a powerful call to action. The responsibility for remembrance does not end with the survivors. It must be passed on to their children, grandchildren and all of us, so that memory becomes responsibility. That matters, because antisemitism in the UK remains at alarmingly high levels. Following the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, antisemitic incidents surged dramatically. According to the Community Security Trust, 1,521 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the first half of 2025 alone—the second highest total ever recorded for that period. Although that is lower than the number in the record year of 2024, that still represents a sustained and deeply troubling level of hostility that is far above the pre-October 7 averages.
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for that intervention. The sad reality is that following my question to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, my social media accounts were loaded with antisemitic tropes. It is a disgrace, and Ofcom has to take action. It is our duty to ensure that hate speech is never allowed to continue. I believe in free speech, but I do not believe in preaching hatred to one another, regardless of religion, and action has to be taken on that. Greater London and Greater Manchester remain hotspots of antisemitism; there was an attack on the synagogue in Manchester during Yom Kippur. Online antisemitism, to which the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) just referred, now accounts for well more than a third of all incidents. Holocaust-related abuse appears with disturbing frequency, and there has been a sharp rise in the glorification of the Holocaust. Behind these statistics lies a chilling reality: many Jewish people in Britain feel unsafe, unwelcome or forced to hide their identity in public. Surveys suggest that around half have considered leaving the UK due to antisemitism. That should trouble every one of us. We must be honest about the ways in which contemporary antisemitism often disguises itself. Increasingly, anti-Israel activism functions as a Trojan horse for antisemitism, allowing ancient prejudice to re-enter public discourse under the cover of political critique. Legitimate criticism of any Government is entirely valid, but when Israel becomes uniquely demonised, Zionism is used as a slur and Jewish institutions and individuals are targeted, regardless of their views, we are no longer in the realm of political debate. CST data shows that a significant proportion of antisemitic incidents now blend anti-Zionist language with classic antisemitic tropes: claims of secret control, collective guilt or global conspiracy. On campuses and online platforms, and in public demonstrations such as yesterday’s, Jewish students and citizens are increasingly made to feel responsible simply for who they are. That not only undermines free speech; it poisons it. We must confront the disturbing rise of Holocaust inversion: the grotesque distortion that portrays Jews or Israel as the new Nazis. That is not merely offensive rhetoric; it threatens and trivialises the Shoah, inverts reality, and inflicts profound harm on survivors and their families. Equating the Star of David with the swastika or accusing the Jewish state of genocide is not historical analysis; it is antisemitism. We must be clear and unequivocal in condemning it. On Holocaust Memorial Day, we should acknowledge the historical link between the Holocaust and the modern state of Israel. Zionism long predates the second world war, but the genocide of European Jewry underscored with devastating clarity the need for a Jewish homeland—a place of refuge and self-determination. Many Holocaust survivors helped build that nation, carrying the scars of the camps with them. Attempts to de-legitimise Israel ignore that history and risk erasing the fundamental lesson of “never again”. Finally, I want to turn to the future. Last week, the Holocaust Memorial Act 2026 received Royal Assent, paving the way for the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, beside this very Parliament. Proposed by a cross-party commission more than a decade ago, the memorial will honour the victims and educate generations to come. The proposal was started by Lord Cameron and was supported cross-party. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, we must get that memorial built before the last of the survivors is no longer with us. Its location matters. It will stand as a permanent reminder, at the heart of our democracy, of where hatred can lead when left unchallenged. As we remember the victims today, we also reaffirm our responsibility to challenge antisemitism wherever it appears, defend democratic values and human dignity, and ensure that history is neither forgotten nor distorted. When we see demonstrations and attempts to blockade Jewish businesses, restaurants and synagogues, we must call it out for what it is: antisemitism, pure and simple. Remembrance is not only about the past; it is a warning for the present, and a duty that we owe to future generations. I and, I believe, the whole House will recommit to carrying out that duty.