Gareth Davies

Party	Office	Area	Period	Began	Ended	Source
Conservative	MP	Grantham and Bourne	12 Dec 2019 – present	elected	—	Party history

Latest on this tracker 185

2 Nov 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Budget Resolutions
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank all Members from across the House for their contributions tonight, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I am also grateful for the very thoughtful contributions, particularly on welfare spending, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and from my constituency neighbour and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I particularly enjoyed his contribution. Most of all, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) on delivering her maiden speech. I gave my maiden speech in a Budget debate, and it is a hard thing to do. I still remember how nervous I was, and I can tell her that it does not quite go away, I am afraid. I enjoyed her speech, which was excellent, and I know that her constituents and her family will be very proud to see her sat where she is. I wish her the very best for the future. It is a genuine pleasure to close this day of the Budget debate on behalf of the official Opposition. Ironically, this has been billed as a “breathing space” Budget by the same people who have taken all the air out of the economy. The British people do not just want a breather. They want to get on, and there is little in this Budget for them. The subject of today’s debate is growth—a subject that was apparently chosen voluntarily by the Government. That is interesting, because paragraph 2.48 of the OBR’s assessment of this Budget clearly says that next year’s growth has been downgraded to 1%—cut by a third. The Chancellor said that this Budget would deliver “growth in every postcode”, but the OBR has read it and found that there will be lower growth across the country. [Interruption.] I have got to know the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), who is chuntering away, and I know that he is about to stand up and say that the OBR has upgraded growth for this year by 0.1%. That is great, and I am delighted for him, but in March 2024, the OBR did not expect growth under a Conservative Government to be 1.2% this year. It expected the Conservatives to deliver 2% in 2026, so I am afraid to say that the OBR has downgraded its growth expectations and projections for this year, too. The Secretary of State, who was very energised, said that the Government have cut business rates, but these are the guys who inherited high-street relief at 75%, cut it to 40% and then abolished it altogether. Under pressure from high-street businesses across the country, they are handing a little bit back and think it is all fine. It is like a burglar returning your TV and asking for a thank you. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was absolutely right to highlight that point. Then there is the high-street bank tax. This is a tax on lending, mortgages and the high-street branches that people rely on in constituencies across the country. I thought this Government wanted to see more bank branches, not fewer, but fewer branches is exactly what will happen. The Minister is probably going to stand up and claim that this Budget is delivering for working families on the cost of living, but that is not the whole picture, is it? Living standards this year, across every postcode, are set to fall under a Labour Government, but it is okay because they can all live off cheaper gherkins. The Government do not like to hear this, and no doubt I will be accused of talking down the economy, so let me be very clear: I talk up my country, but I talk down this Labour Government. I am not the only one; there are plenty of us. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Budget has “very little that will move the dial on growth”. The CBI said that the Budget “lacks the bold moves that would have made it easier for firms to invest, hire and grow.” The British Retail Consortium said costs will “keep climbing as the Chancellor failed to provide the breathing space he promised.” Even the Government’s friends in the Resolution Foundation said the Budget “did not rise to the scale of the challenges”. Do not get me wrong: I do not believe that the Government are bad people. I just do not think they have any grasp of basic economics and reality. Just this weekend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, we heard that they do not even think that employers are working people. In all of this, let us spare a thought for poor old Keir Starmer, who must have been sat watching the TV on Lord Alli’s sofa and wondering, “What was it all for?” The new Prime Minister booted him out with a story of transformation, almost revolution. After years and years of trying, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) finally becomes First Lord of the Treasury, and we all eagerly awaited his first Budget—his first chance to mould the country to his Mancunian grand vision—but what we got was the same old Labour: higher taxes, no action on welfare, and no real answers to the challenges facing our country today. This is continuity Keir without the mandate. Tinkering with little policies like the £2 bus cap is not going to keep us safe from Putin. It is not going to take a family out of poverty; it will just get them to the bank branch, which is closing, near the house that they cannot afford, with a mortgage that they will not be lent. When will Labour learn? It does not have to be this way. Instead of fuelling a rise in unemployment and overseeing a spiralling benefits bill, the Government could reduce costs to businesses and cut the regulatory burden. We could get people off welfare and into work. We will happily work with the Chancellor in the national interest, if only he is brave enough to stand up to the Members chuntering behind him. Nothing has changed—not the tax hikes, not the welfare bill, not the excuses. All that has changed is the person holding the microphone. I accept that the Prime Minister has been busy. We have watched him bounce from the Downing Street desk to the “Gogglebox” sofa and back home to Manchester. We know his favourite crisps, but we do not know his plan for the economy. He is a TikTok Prime Minister who chose a Chancellor on a tuk tuk. He has had a ride, and now he has taken the British people for one, too. A Chancellor who, for some reason, carried a miner’s lantern to the Labour party conference is now leading the economy down a dark tunnel, with no plan to get out. Back during the days of the coup, the Prime Minister told us, with a nauseating dose of cheddar cheese, that he wanted “hope in every heart”, but we got a hand in every pocket, with tax at record levels, debt higher, debt interest higher and youth unemployment spiralling. This is not just a missed opportunity; it is a dereliction of duty.
Hansard source
19 Oct 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Stringer, and to serve on this Committee. I thank Minister for his explanation of the Government’s intentions in relation to the order. As the Minister outlined, the order builds on the changes made by the previous Government in the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Incidentally, they were brought in by a particularly impressive Treasury Minister—I cannot remember his name—while the official Opposition spokesman at the time left a lot to be desired, I have to say. I am pleased to see amendments that aim to simplify the system. As the Minister said, for those who are travelling to Great Britain and for the businesses that sell to them, the order makes a frankly welcome change to some of the regulations I have been responding to since 2024, which have a very different impact on British consumers and businesses. The Opposition will not oppose the measures today, but I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how many people will be impacted by the measure? Secondly, which ports in particular are likely to be affected? Thirdly, the measure is pegged to cost around £500,000, but no explanation has been provided on where that money will be spent, so where will it be spent?
Hansard source
19 Oct 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026
I apologise, but I am specifically interested in those who already maximise their allowance. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact on those individuals, to whom this measure will be detrimental?
Hansard source
8 Sep 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
High Street Renewal
The Chancellor is going around lauding an apparent cut to business rates, but it was his Government who reduced business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure from 75% to 40%. If he goes out there and speaks to the owner of any average pub, they will tell him that their business rates have almost doubled. Why will he not answer the question as to why he cannot and will not follow the Conservative plan to cut Labour’s spiralling welfare bill to fund the abolishment of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses across our country?
Hansard source
2 Sep 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026
I was going to say it is a great pleasure to be on this Committee, but it is an even greater pleasure after that wonderful remark. I am very grateful, and it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister, as usual; I thank her very much indeed for her explanation of the Government’s intentions for the draft regulations before us. As I think I have stressed at every Delegated Legislation Committee under this Department, it is important that these changes strike the right balance—in this instance, between ensuring that employees are able to exercise their right to industrial action in certain circumstances and in accordance with the law, and the interests of businesses and employers upon whom our future prosperity depends. To that end, I have a few questions about the measures. At the end of part one of the explanatory memorandum it states that guidance covering these regulations will be updated next month, in October. Does that mean that employers will be left in the dark about the specifics of their new, added responsibilities until the date that these regulations come into effect? More broadly, that seems to be a recurring theme of statutory instruments laid by this Department. I suggest that the hon. Lady and her colleagues try to put themselves in the position of a business, particularly a small business. Whether or not one agrees with the Government’s regulatory changes, businesses deserve fair and reasonable time to plan before regulations come into effect. That is good for everybody. I am afraid that, consistently, guidance and regulation come at the same time, which gives no time for due planning so that businesses can get ready. Will the Minister commit today to publishing guidance ahead of regulation coming in, so that employers have advance sight, notice and guidance? That would be appreciated by all companies, big and small, in all our constituencies. Secondly, following the Government consultation on these regulations earlier in the year, some respondents suggested that reducing the perceived risks to participation in industrial action could lead to more frequent and prolonged disputes with trade unions. I appreciate that the Government may not be concerned with trade union-created disputes becoming more frequent, but the public and businesses certainly are. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s response to those specific concerns in the public consultation? They were not addressed in the formal Government response, and it would be good to hear the official response. Thirdly, the law firm Dentons has made clear that employment tribunals will determine on the facts of each case whether a worker has suffered a detriment. But we know that the Government are already facing an unprecedented and growing backlog in the employment tribunals system. In the most recent statistics, which are from March 2026, there were 64,000 single claim open cases awaiting resolution. That is a 55% increase compared with the same period in 2024-25, and a 42% increase in the last year alone. We know that the Justice Committee felt required to launch an inquiry into the issue, and the Law Society has described the situation as “urgent”, stating: “It is alarming to see employment tribunal backlogs continuing to spiral”. What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the impact of the Government’s employment policies in creating this additional backlog? Has an impact assessment been carried out by either her Department or the MOJ to determine how these specific regulations might further exacerbate what is quite a worrying backlog? Fourthly, during the passage of the Employment Rights Act through both Houses, the Opposition repeatedly tabled amendments that sought to put beyond doubt that protection from detriment for employees who engage in behaviour such as intimidation on picket lines, protest on company premises or at the personal residence of managers, or the harassment of non-striking workers is withheld. The Government chose at that time—many times, actually—to reject those amendments, suggesting that such behaviours would already not entitle protection. For the record, can the Minister state categorically that, if workers engage in those kinds of behaviours, which I think we would all disagree with, these regulations will not leave employers unable to take action against those serious perpetrators? Finally, paragraph 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the deduction of pay by an employer from a worker who takes industrial action. That is allowed under common law and unchanged by the regulations, but the paragraph also explains that “the question of precisely how much pay may lawfully be deducted” can be “complex”, and that the Government’s view is that the common law is not sufficiently developed in this area. That matters when we are debating these regulations, because employers deemed to have made an excessive pay deduction could be liable to have a complaint brought against them under section 236A of the 1992 Act. It seems, therefore, that the Government admit that this is a potential or actual grey area, but that they will not provide the clarity that we have sought, not least before these regulations come into effect. That could lead to serious consequences for employers. I realise that there are a few questions there, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide more clarity on them. If she cannot provide the answers today, I would be grateful if she could write to me with them. My final remark, if I may, Ms Vaz, is that we last met in a delegated legislation Committee on 8 July and—it happens from time to time—the Minister was not able to answer all my questions in that Committee. I wrote to her on 9 July. She is a very diligent person, and I know she will be horrified to learn that she has not yet responded to me, 55 days later. I gently request that she ask her officials to send that response as soon as possible.
Hansard source
2 Sep 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Global Tin Availability
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. Thank you very much for keeping us all in order. Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing the debate. I am pleased that he clarified that it is not a debate on Tinder. To clarify, I did know that it was a debate about tin and not Tinder, but it is clear that he is a perfect match for this subject, because—I did not know this, actually—he is known as the Tin Man. Unlike in “The Wizard of Oz”, though, he does not need to search for a heart, because it is clear that he cares deeply about this subject and is a great advocate for tin and for his constituents. I very much enjoyed, and was partly educated by, his excellent speech. He will recognise elements of his speech in my own, because of the excellent points he made. Unlike lithium, tin is rarely treated to big headlines and gigafactory photo opportunities. However, as we have been hearing, it quietly plays an indispensable role in our economy. Half the tin we consume goes to electrical solder, supporting our entire electronics industry, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out so eloquently. Demand is only increasing as solar panels, electric vehicles and AI data centres compete for the same limited global supply, and it is no surprise that prices have soared to nearly $50,000 per tonne as a result. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth was right to highlight the new investment in the South Crofty mine as of May 2026, which will open it up for the first time in decades. That is excellent news for the country and, obviously, for his constituency. It would be remiss of me not to point out that the National Wealth Fund has existed for quite some time. It was created by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) as the UK Infrastructure Bank, and although it has been renamed under the new Labour Government, the organisation’s construct and purpose remain. I am very grateful for that, as I am sure the people of Cornwall are, because, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth will be aware, back in 2023 the UK Infrastructure Bank invested in Cornish lithium. This subject is not alien to the Conservative party, and we care deeply about it. The hon. Gentleman did not mention this, but he and the Minister will be aware that the last Conservative Government created the first critical minerals strategy, which recognised tin as one of 18 essential minerals. It is vital that we have a critical minerals strategy, and we welcome the investment that has been made, but we must ensure that we do not just celebrate one investment rather than talking about the overall issues and strategy. I look at the current Government’s critical minerals strategy, and I am afraid I take issue with the fact that it does not mention China even once, despite China’s near monopoly on the processing of critical minerals, as was highlighted by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds). That is not just an omission in the Government’s strategy; it is a hole in the middle of the plan roughly the size of the South Crofty mineshaft. It will be no surprise to the Minister that I have a few questions for him. First, smelting tin is extremely energy intensive, and we know that the UK’s industrial energy prices are around 50% higher than those of our friends in France and Germany. How are the Government squaring their clear critical minerals ambitions with those very clearly rising energy costs? Secondly, I recognise that he is not a Foreign Office Minister—as tempting as it is, I will not ask him to solve international conflicts from the Dispatch Box today —but global tin supply has decreased due to unrest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the restrictions in Myanmar’s Wa state, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. Will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had directly with his Foreign Office counterparts about the security of the supply routes for tin? Lastly, how do the Government reconcile such enthusiasm for critical minerals, which the Minister will clearly demonstrate in a minute, with the national insurance rise and the Employment Rights Act 2025? Those measures will cost this very industry some £50 million exactly at the moment when foreign investors are voting with their feet and, unfortunately, taking money outside our country. South Crofty will not produce its first tonne of tin until 2028 at the earliest. Between now and then, we must back British businesses in the critical minerals sector, and we must oppose the economic pressures that the Government are unrelentingly piling on the industry. I hope that the Minister can provide some of the answers to my questions, because right now, frankly, his strategy has all the substance of fool’s tin.
Hansard source
9 Jul 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I thank Members from across the House for their contributions today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate on trade—granted, of course, by the Backbench Business Committee. Before I turn to the specifics of what we are debating today, it is important to be clear from the outset that Conservative Members, like all Members who have spoken, want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. Israelis, Palestinians and people across the region deserve to live in peace with security, and it is my party’s long-held position that this can be best achieved through a two-state solution. We also want to see the Abraham accords expanded and wider regional barriers to peace overcome. At the same time, the official Opposition’s view is that settlements are not conducive to achieving long-term peace. We believe that the Israeli Government should firmly clamp down on settler violence, and we are against the expansion of settlements.
Hansard source
9 Jul 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will address the point that she raises later in my speech, but our shared aim across this House, which is peace in the region, cannot be achieved without Britain maintaining an enduring relationship with Israel and with our allies in the region. It is through engagement that we will be able to achieve the resolution we all want. Engagement is vital to achieving the peace that unites the House today. That is why I regret that, in my view and the view of the official Opposition, Britain’s influence has been diminished to such a degree due to a series of misjudged decisions. These include the decision to cancel trade talks while Hamas were still holding hostages after the 7 October attacks; the decision to impose export licence suspensions while Israel was burying hostages so barbarically taken from their loved ones; and the decision to recognise a Palestinian state when no formal peace process had been agreed. Of course we support a two-state solution, and it is right that we would recognise a Palestinian state, but recognition of a Palestinian state is only meaningful if it is part of a formal peace process. As my shadow ministerial colleagues have pointed out, the Government’s actions to date have left our relations with Israel in a deep freeze, with our ability to influence the situation in the region severely diminished.
Hansard source
9 Jul 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that we are saying we should do nothing. If Members remember, it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2024 who imposed sanctions on the settlements. The House has heard me say from this Dispatch Box that the expansion of settlements is wrong. She is being unfair. What I am talking about is a point of execution. We have to engage with our allies—Israel is a critical ally of the United Kingdom—and that is not done by banning trade with Israel.
Hansard source
9 Jul 2026ParliamentGareth Davies
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
We can be critical of our allies and we can be critical friends—of course we can—but what I am saying is that disengagement is not a solution to achieving what the House wants, which is peace in the middle east.
Hansard source

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Latest on this tracker 185

Budget Resolutions

Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026

Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026

High Street Renewal

Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026

Global Tin Availability

Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban