YouSaid · the spoken record
Daisy Cooper
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2024–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Daisy Cooper. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“They are personally liable if they do not set aside enough money to settle all financial liabilities, including IHT. Experts have warned that someone being personally liable for IHT on a pension fund that never comes into their hands leaves the door open to costly and protracted litigation and will understandably make personal representatives, such as professionals or friends of the deceased, much more cautious before they distribute all of the estate. Even more concerning is the fact that if representatives discover a new pension fund after settling the initial IHT liability, this would have a knock-on effect on not only the estate but all other pension funds. It means that IHT will have to be recalculated for every part of the estate and every pension fund.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a retrospective tax without transitional protection. It upends plans for those who have already made sacrifices to build up their pensions, undermines confidence in pensions planning, reduces long-term investment and causes people to rush to withdraw money from their pensions. As has been mentioned, the chartered institute and the ATT have raised concerns about this group of clauses, which shoehorn pensions legislation into tax legislation. There are major worries about creating personal liability without control for personal representatives, whether executives or administrators. Personal representatives are legally obligated to gather all the assets, settle any liabilities, including inheritance tax, and distribute the remainder of the estate to the beneficiaries.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can the Minister explain why today’s tax measure will apply to a narrower tax base than the one currently targeted by remote gaming duty? How much tax revenue has been forgone by this narrowing of the tax base? Was it unintended, or was it a result of influence from the sector? Did any of the big online gaming companies meet any Ministers and discuss these measures while they were being considered? New clause 21, tabled in my name, seeks to clarify this situation by requiring the Chancellor, within six months of the passing of the Act, to undertake an assessment of the impact of the implementation of sections 83 and 84 in respect of the treatment of free bets and free plays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets, so we can clearly see the impact of this difference.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those figures are stark. This measure finally takes action that should have been taken a long time ago, and it will raise about £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30 to fund our public services fairly. Buried in the fine print, however, is a detail that makes it seem as if the Government are giving the big online gambling firms a get-out, and I should be grateful to the Minister for some clarification. According to the “Budget 2025 Policy Costings” document, “The tax base for this measure is the Gross Gambling Yield”, which is the revenue retained by gambling operators after they have paid out winnings to customers. The tax base for remote gaming duty as defined in the Finance Act 2014 is a larger tax base. It is known as the gross gambling revenue, and includes the notional stake value of free bets and free plays.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the doubling of remote gaming duty, and we are grateful to the Government, who have finally listened and taken that on board. This measure will raise vital revenue in a fair way, while addressing the eye-watering profits of the big online gambling companies and standing up for the thousands affected by problem gambling. According to the latest figures from the Gambling Commission, the online gambling giants saw revenues reach an eye-watering £7.8 billion in 2024-25. Meanwhile, Public Health England has estimated that gambling costs the UK economy about £1.4 billion a year through a combination of financial harms and the impact on physical and mental health, employment, education and crime. About 300,000 adults in Britain experience problem gambling, as well as roughly 40,000 children.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that she has consulted and that Ministers have had engagement with the industry. I was specifically wondering whether in the course of that consultation with the industry, there was discussion about using a different measure and choosing a different tax base for the calculation of this particular tax, because it seems as though the tax base could have been bigger if they had used the measure already in the Finance Act, rather than this new measure that seems to shrink the tax base. Did the Treasury have a particular reason for using a different measure for calculating this remote gaming duty?”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We all remember the place where we fell in love, or had our first date. I remember the music venue where I found my favourite band. I remember the pub where I sat with my girlfriends and one told me that she was not going to survive her stage 4 cancer—and I remember the spa day that we had when she did. Hospitality is part of who we are as human beings. It is unique in what it contributes to our economy, and we must do everything to support it.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 86 increases the rate of alcohol duty in line with RPI inflation. On paper, that measure might look like a normal, simple uprating policy, but it must be seen for what it really is: in the broader context, it is yet another tax on struggling hospitality businesses and financially stretched customers. Hospitality is being hammered over and over again with sky-high rents and soaring energy bills, the Government’s unfair jobs tax, and now this business rates bombshell buried in the fine print of the Budget. It matters, and hospitality really matters. It is the only element of pre-pandemic spending that has not recovered. The sector employs huge numbers of young people and part-time workers, often giving people their very first job and their way into longer-term employment. This is one of the sectors that make life worth living.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pubs are irreplaceable, and when a pub goes a community falls apart. Pubs are vital as part of the social fabric: they are the glue that holds our communities together, and we must protect them. We tabled new clause 9 because we want the Government to look at and “report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures” alongside all the other “wider fiscal changes”, including the higher national insurance contributions and the business rates changes. This really matters.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. One of the points that I have made repeatedly to other Ministers is that businesses heard the promise that there would be permanently lower business rates, and made decisions based on the fact that they had heard the word “lower”. The Government gave themselves powers to introduce a lower multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure—20p less—and it was understood by the hospitality industry that if they used those powers, that would effectively cancel out the loss of the RHL relief. Businesses made investment decisions. They made hiring decisions. They made all sorts of decisions based on what they thought was going to happen. But the Government have not used those powers that they gave themselves, using a multiplier of minus 5p rather than the maximum of minus 20p.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope so very much that he is not, but I understand why he said that, and I hear the same from many hospitality owners and pub landlords on my own patch. It is because we Liberal Democrats care so deeply for hospitality, and recognise the vital role that it plays in every community in the land, that we were campaigning ahead of the Budget for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality accommodation and attractions until April 2027 —a measure that would have brought growth into every corner of our country, saved jobs and our high streets, and given a real boost to consumer confidence. That is why, since the Budget, we have been fighting tirelessly against the Government’s devastating business rates hikes, and pressing Ministers to implement the full 20p discount for which they legislated last year.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful for that question, but if the hon. Member reads the explanatory statement closely, he will see that it says “alongside wider fiscal changes”. The Government could of course widen that to other legislative changes, if they chose to do so. However, on that basis, I hope the hon. Member and his colleague will be supporting the new clause when we push it to a vote later.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why, during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we tabled a number of amendments asking the Government to report on the impact on small businesses in particular. I hope that has clarified the matter for the hon. Member.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely not. During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we Liberal Democrats said repeatedly on the record in both Houses that we supported a higher minimum wage. The problem we are hearing from businesses, particularly small businesses, is that they are getting lots of changes from the Government all at once. It is business rates changes, higher contributions, wages, the new regulation and now alcohol duty as well. It is the cumulative impact of all of the employment changes and the fiscal changes that means business owners and pub landlords just cannot cope. This is about the cumulative impact. We have made very clear which measures we support and which ones we do not, but the cumulative impact is felt by small businesses.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is also not clear to me how the Chancellor and Ministers can say that they did not know or did not understand the impact that the revaluation would have on bills if they had had that data over the course of the past year. I urge Ministers when they come to the House, as they are indicating they will, to provide some kind of a U-turn—we do not know what that looks like—to bring some clarity to all those questions. In the meantime, I hope the Government do support new clause 9, because we need to see the cumulative impact not just of alcohol duty changes, but their impact alongside national insurance and business rates.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wrote a letter to the Leader of the House and I made a point of order, but again, that information was not forthcoming. Then we had a bombshell revelation today when the VOA, in giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, confirmed upon questioning that it had given data drops on the sectoral impact starting a year ago. It also confirmed to the Treasury Committee today that 5,100 pubs have seen their rateable values at least double. It therefore seems, if the VOA did provide that information to the Treasury, that the Treasury should have had that information. It is not clear to me why I did not receive data-rich answers to my written questions asking for that breakdown by sector.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On that matter, it has been reported in various newspapers, on the BBC and in other places that the Chancellor and Ministers did not understand—those sources have quoted the Chancellor and Ministers as saying they did not understand—the impact that revaluation would have on business rates bills, especially for pubs. I find that impossible to believe, and I cannot understand how that can be the case. We know for a fact that, at the very least, the Valuation Office Agency gave the aggregate data to the Treasury. We know that because it says it in black and white—or in black and slightly red—on page 81 of the Red Book. It says that the VOA gave that data to the Treasury. I tabled a number of written questions asking the Government whether they had received that information broken down by sector, and I did not receive any answers.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We said it would cost £7 billion over 17 months, and we would fund it with a windfall tax on the big banks, which is a proposal backed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and independent economists. So we have answered all of these points and explained where the money would come from. The suggestions are fully costed and fully funded. We have made those points in this Chamber on several occasions, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see if he has a look at Hansard . My point is that, if we are going to put questions to the Government asking them for data so we can make informed policy suggestions, I very much hope that they start to answer them.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have explained all those measures in this Chamber before, but I am happy to spell them out again, including the remarks I made a few minutes ago. The very first thing we called for was for the Government to use the powers they gave themselves in the Budget last year. I would love to know the costings for that measure, and I have tabled written parliamentary questions to ask the Government to give me those numbers. If the Government will not answer written questions, how on earth are opposition parties supposed to come up with modern proposals? We have tabled written questions time and again, but we have not received any answers. On the VAT point, we have costed it.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, the only rumour we have heard about what the Government may be considering are the changes to licensing laws, so let me close with this point: if your pub is empty, you do not want to keep it open for longer, paying more money to keep the lights on, the radiators heated and the staff behind the bar. That is not an answer to this problem.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When did it send the information on pubs, specifically? If the VOA did tell Ministers that rateable values had at least doubled for more than 5,000 pubs, how is it possible that Ministers did not know? Why have we still not had a statement from the Government on what they are trying to do? Will their announcement extend to the rest of the hospitality industry, or just to pubs? Will the Government now use the full powers that they gave themselves? I cannot cost this, because I have not been given the numbers despite repeated attempts to get them. Will the Government consider a VAT cut?”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Member for making that point. I am the MP for St Albans, which is a small city, but I am a Suffolk girl born and bred. I know how valuable rural pubs are. They provide all sorts of services: they look after older people and single people; they are a fantastic community hub; and they provide employment for young people—one of my first jobs, aside from apple picking, was working in a pub—so I understand the vital importance of pubs in every single village, town, parish and hamlet up and down the United Kingdom. I am grateful to him for making that point. In closing, I hope that when the Government respond this evening they provide answers to some of these questions. What did Ministers know and when? If the VOA sent that sector information on valuations, when was it sent?”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Countless renters across the country will be worried that the higher property income tax will simply get passed on to them, making things even worse during the cost of living crisis. We cannot afford to ignore the unintended consequences of any tax policy. The new clause would require the Government to update the House on some crucial details about the broader impacts of this measure. What proportion of the tax rise will get passed on to renters, according to the Treasury’s estimates? Which income groups are most likely to be affected by the tax rise? Which parts of the country will bear the brunt of it? I hope the Minister will agree that that information is essential.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More broadly, the Federation of Small Businesses said: “Hikes to dividend tax mean the Government continues to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money.” Will the Minister listen to our small businesses, which are suffering under a mounting tax burden, not least from the Government’s business rates bombshell, and finally give them some respite? With new clause 2, the Liberal Democrats call for a review of the impact of section 7 on rent prices. As many hon. Members have highlighted, the new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before the House a proper assessment of the impact of the Bill’s tax changes on rent prices.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), shows that HMRC failed to pick up one in five taxpayer calls over the last decade, with the tax service leaving the best part of a hundred million calls unanswered in the last 10 years. HMRC has failed to pick up 83 million calls from Brits in the last 10 years—6 million in just the last year. That is why we have been calling for a new HMRC hotline dedicated to supporting pensioners. It would help those who are among the likeliest to seek tax information over the phone while freeing up capacity for the tax service to deal with other queries—something that is imminent, given that the tax changes will result in more phone calls.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Basic and higher dividend rates have been changed, but additional dividend rates have not, and no explanation has been given as to the policy intent behind that. It would be helpful if the Minister could set that out on the record. The long and short of it is that the Government say that they want to simplify tax, but their tax changes are making things more complicated. The Making Tax Digital forms will need to updated, and more individuals and small businesses will likely make more calls to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Recent research by the House of Commons Library, commissioned by Liberal Democrats including my hon.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak to clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 and 2. Overall, the tax changes increase complexity, raise the tax burden on small businesses and savers, and raise the risk of serious unintended consequences on the property market. They all have the hallmarks of a Treasury tax grab without proper the consideration of the broader consequences. When taken together, clauses 4 to 8 add more complexity, and concerns have been raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians, which highlighted that the new property rates add five new income tax rates. They are: the property basic rate of 22%; the property higher rate of 42%; the property additional rate of 47%; the property trust rate of 47%; and the savings trust rate of 47%. Rates will apply differently to investment returns and to savings.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have said that they want to make the tax system more transparent, so if Ministers truly want to be honest with people, they should accept this simple amendment and write to the people who are affected by these policies.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members have said, there is huge concern among pensioners about what the measures will mean for them. In a recent meeting with the Chartered Institute of Taxation, it was highlighted to me that is not clear who will qualify for which rate of tax. The way that the system is set up suggests that pensioners who receive the same amount of income but from different sources could end up paying different rates of tax. Many of us like Martin Lewis, but the fact that the Chancellor has done a podcast with him does not mean that the impact of the Government changes has been communicated clearly to every single pensioner. I urge the Minister to adopt our simple new clause 3.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is really important that people understand that this is happening. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 3 so that people are notified about how they will be affected by these frozen thresholds. The new clause will require the Chancellor to properly communicate to the people the impact of frozen tax thresholds. One of the most damaging aspects of this tax rise is that it goes unnoticed by so many. Unlike other tax changes, the stealth tax does not show up on people’s payslips and too many people are simply unaware that they are paying more tax because of the Government’s decisions. New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to be transparent with taxpayers and directly write to them, explaining in black and white the impact frozen thresholds will have on their pay cheques. As many other hon.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To put that into perspective, in a two-person household, where someone earns £26,000 and someone earns £60,000 a year, over the decade of Conservative and Labour stealth taxes, the lower of those earners will lose the equivalent of an entire year’s pay due to frozen tax thresholds. Wiping out an entire year’s pre-tax salary for a typical earner is devastating for household finances. It is staggering to realise that this decade of frozen thresholds will cost what is broadly a typical two-earner family a staggering £26,800. The OBR says that one in four adults will be a higher rate taxpayer by 2031, up from one in seven in 2022. That represents an additional 5.7 million people, including 920,000 dragged into the higher rate band as a result of the Chancellor’s latest three-year extension.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These stealth taxes were started by the Conservatives and are being continued by Labour. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we made sure to raise the income tax thresholds, taking people out of paying tax, but it is clear that the two biggest parties continue to drag more people into paying tax. According to the OBR, by 2030, an extra 9.4 million people will be dragged into paying the basic and higher rates of income tax, 1.7 million of whom will be dragged into the system because of this Government’s decisions at the last Budget. By 2031, the stealth taxes introduced by the Conservatives and continued by Labour will cost British taxpayers an eyewatering £67 billion a year, some £13 billion of which is a result of last November’s Budget.”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister will have heard a number of colleagues asking for more detail about how the pension provisions will affect pensioners. The Minister has just said that further information is to come. Will he please give us an indication of the date when we can expect that guidance to be published, so that he can then come back and clarify some points?”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Government allow a free vote so that those on their own Benches who want to vote against the measure are free to do so?”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to House staff and all Members in the Chamber. This policy was a disaster from the get-go. It came with no warning, no consultation and no clue. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to point out the damage it would do to family farms. We have repeatedly and clearly highlighted that it would fail to tackle the loopholes exploited by private equity companies but hammer the family farm, damaging our food security in the process. The changes are welcome, but they do not touch the sides, and they are a clear admission by the Government that they have got it badly wrong. There is now only one sensible course of action left: to scrap the policy in its entirety. Will the Government now do that? If not, the Liberal Democrats will table amendments to the Finance Bill to bring this measure down.”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“President Trump’s actions are not about drugs; they are about oil. They are not about regional stability; they are about regional dominance. They are not about upholding the law; they are about breaking it. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Government have been clear, but she has not been clear on any of those three points. The world has changed this weekend, and it will change again very quickly. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether there is a single strategic decision or practical step that this Government have taken in the last 72 hours to shore up our national security or that of our allies, especially Denmark?”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can you please advise me on whether any other routes are available to me and other parliamentarians, so that we can receive accurate and data-rich responses to questions, and can effectively scrutinise Government policy, which is hammering our high streets?”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me on how I might elicit satisfactory responses to a series of written questions I have tabled to the Treasury on the impact of business rates on retail, hospitality and leisure businesses? I asked for very specific figures relating to the number of businesses that the Treasury expects to be eligible for transitionary reliefs, how many premises will be brought into paying rates for the first time as a result of the recent revaluations, and an analysis of the number of businesses that previously enjoyed retail, hospitality and leisure reliefs and would see increases from 1 April. None of those questions have received substantive replies. I raised the matter with the Leader of the House by letter before Christmas, but I have not yet had a response.”
House of Commons5 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The failure to reform the business rates system again makes the Government look like continuity Conservatives. In a turbulent world, we need to boost our sovereign capabilities, and food security is critical to that, yet despite all the evidence, all the campaigning and all the honking of tractor horns on Whitehall, the Government have failed to get it right.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If this Finance Bill represents anything, I am sorry to say that it represents the fact that the Government know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We Liberal Democrats have tabled a reasoned amendment against this Bill, setting out all the reasons why we are against it. Ultimately, this Bill is a series of short-term Treasury tax grabs, with no care for the consequences and no vision for the future. People are crying out for change—the change that they were promised—but the double whammy of stealth taxes on households and high streets makes the Labour Government look like nothing more than continuity Conservatives. Once again extending the unfair freeze on income tax thresholds will drag millions of low-paid workers into tax.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Prime Minister should change direction. It is deeply disappointing that, having been grilled at the Liaison Committee yesterday, he clearly has no intention of doing so. The changes to the agricultural property relief and the business property relief will punish family farmers who put food on our tables and guarantee the food security of our nation, and they will not tackle the loophole of private equity companies and celebrity farmers buying land to reduce their tax liability.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This will have unintended consequences, and we can see what those will be. We have spent a year warning the Government; they can no longer say that they have not been warned. I hope so much that, at this late stage, they make changes to the Bill.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is just another short-term Treasury tax grab. Family businesses will be hit, too—the very businesses that support their employees through thick and thin; the very employers who provide employment in every corner of the country; the very family businesses that help the economy bounce back strongly after a crisis, giving our economy resilience. Why would a Government want to target our family businesses?”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I could not agree more. My right hon. Friend chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—a Labour-majority Select Committee—and he has navigated that issue so well over the last year. I say on the parliamentary record: all credit to him for his sterling efforts to draw attention to the issue. If there had been any justification at all for the APR and BPR changes, it would have been that the Government were trying to crack down on loopholes, but as my hon. Friends have said, that has not happened as a result of these changes. The Prime Minister in effect admitted in front of the Liaison Committee yesterday that the Government were not even trying to do that. We all know that the measures will cause damage. Farming communities know it; Liberal Democrats know it; and Labour-majority Select Committees know it.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now know that the previous Government’s failed Brexit deal costs the taxpayer around £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Just think about what the Government could deliver if they started to fix that. Just imagine what it would mean for people’s pockets and energy bills, and the money that they could have in their bank account at the end of the month. Imagine the change that the Government could deliver for households and high streets if they just started to plug that gap of £90 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Our high streets are critical to our sense of community up and down the land, yet high-street hospitality businesses are getting hit once again. Last year it was the jobs tax; this year it is the higher business rates bills.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is another short-term Treasury tax grab, with no care for the consequences. On the income tax hike for dividend, property and savings income, the Federation of Small Businesses sums it up: “Hikes to dividend tax mean the Government continues to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money.” At a time when we desperately need more business investment, that seems to be another short-sighted Treasury tax grab. We desperately need growth. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly banged the drum for growth with Europe. Brexit, we know, has been a disaster. Many of the Government’s own Ministers admit it, yet where is the strength of conviction needed to try to fix that?”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wholeheartedly agree. It is so frustrating; in last year’s Budget and in this year’s Budget, the Government continue to say that they are pro-growth, and that growth remains their No. 1 mission, but measure after measure in those two Budgets is anti-growth. Many of us have heard from family businesses in our constituencies and around the country. Many of them have told us that they have sat around the family dinner table and had deeply difficult and traumatic conversations, planning what to do with their business if they “die in the wrong order”, a phrase that some family businesses have used with me. Again, if they have to break up the business, they will probably end up selling it off to private equity companies. These are businesses that are household names and family favourites.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants, better incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurship.” However, Labour has not replaced business rates, and it has not levelled the playing field.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On business rates, I am sorry to say that the Government are behaving as though they are somehow doing hospitality a favour, but I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how angry hospitality owners and leaders are. Furious, angry, betrayed, gaslit—these are just some of the politer words I have heard them use. The Labour manifesto was clear: “The current business rates system disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. In England, Labour will replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because our pubs in particular, but hospitality more widely, are at the heart of our community. They provide so much more than just somewhere to have a pint and a pie. They provide community and social cohesion. They are the antidote to the epidemic of isolation. They have history and culture attached. They are somewhere we can go to argue well over a pint, yet our pubs and hospitality businesses are really struggling. That is why, as a point of protest, we Liberal Democrats voted against the increase in alcohol duty in the Budget resolutions last week, and we remain opposed to the measures in the Bill that relate to that increase.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗