Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a real delight to speak in this debate, because I honestly thought that I would not get the chance. There was a risk, I thought, that the shadow Chancellor might even filibuster in his own Opposition day debate, much as I enjoy his poetry readings and so forth.

We all know that the Budget process was a bit of a mess. It had more leaks than a sieve, lots of flip-flopping, and all the rest. By the time we got to Budget day, many of us were relieved that the process was over. But let us not pretend that this was all new. Previous Budgets had involved a number of leaks, and we all know that the Liz Truss mini-Budget must surely be the gold standard for sidelining the OBR.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

What with the Chancellor’s flip-flopping on the Budget, the various leaks and the misleading comments about the state of the public finances, Labour is beginning to look as incompetent as the Conservatives in its running of the economy and the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour has let the public down, and must start being transparent with us all?

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree with him: transparency is critical. On transparency, we Liberal Democrats think that it is time to overhaul this entire process. Colleagues will know that when Sweden faced a similar crisis in its Budget process in the 1990s, it overhauled the process, and it now has a system in which a draft Budget is published. There is a lot of time for it to be debated, and amendments can be tabled by Opposition parties before the process is concluded. The public would welcome such transparency; it would then be incumbent on the Government and all Opposition parties to set out how they would fund their pledges, raise revenue and manage Government spending.

These debates over the last few weeks have raised questions about the role of the OBR, and I want to put it on the record that we Liberal Democrats think that we should keep the OBR. It plays an important role as an independent organisation that can scrutinise the Treasury, but there is scope for more democratic accountability, and to tease out the divergence between forecasts by the OBR and the Treasury.

I am slightly perplexed to see that the Opposition day motion focuses on process, not policy, and that it promotes spin over substance. This Budget has levied stealth taxes on households and on our high streets, and has fundamentally failed to galvanise growth. Maybe it is obvious to people at home why the Conservatives have not tried to focus on the substance: because those stealth taxes were started by the Conservatives and have been carried on by Labour. The Conservatives failed to fix the business rates system, and Labour has not taken forward fundamental change. It is clear that both parties continue to refuse to go for growth with Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) asked a very reasonable and legitimate question about why the Treasury has not said whether it will provide funding for dental training places in his county and for his constituents. That was a legitimate question to ask, so I was disappointed that the Minister tried to say, in response, that we have not supported his tax rises, when we Liberal Democrats have repeatedly, over the last year and more, set out the different ways in which we would raise taxes, including by reforming capital gains tax, looking at other taxes and a windfall tax on the big banks, as recommended by the Institute for Public Policy Research and endorsed by independent economists. We have also set out how getting a customs union with the European Union would boost public finances by £25 billion a year. [Interruption.] I understand that the Minister and those on the Treasury Bench who are chuntering right now may wish to level their accusation at the Conservative party, but that does not stack up when talking to the Liberal Democrats.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

It is clear that this is a very serious matter, and it is right that the Government respond to it with the seriousness it demands. As my hon. Friend made clear, this is not—to quote the OBR again—

“simply a matter of pressing”

the wrong button

“on a locally managed website too early.”

This is a systemic issue and a far more serious one, and it deserves our serious attention.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Under the last Conservative Government, we saw years of chaos, incompetence and mismanagement, and very often a lack of transparency and honesty with the British public. The Government promised change, and had a responsibility to deliver a clean break from the Conservatives’ approach to government. Will the Minister acknowledge the damage that has been done to those efforts, and what steps will the Government take to rectify it?

[James Murray]

One of the reasons we take this matter so seriously is precisely the value that we place on the OBR. We see it as having a vital role in a robust and transparent fiscal framework, which is why we take last week’s breach of information so very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on businesses.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

14. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions on economic growth.

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I would not presume to know where the next Treasury ministerial awayday will happen, but perhaps we will have to consider the restaurant in the hon. Member’s constituency. He is a strong advocate for the businesses in his constituency. I hope he knows that I advocated from the Back Benches—and will continue to do so in government—for policies that we can implement to boost economic growth and living standards, so that more people have more money to spend in businesses such as the one he mentions in his constituency.

[Clive Jones]

I have had many meetings with business owners across Wokingham, whether that is world leaders in the defence industry, GP surgeries, medical manufacturers, farmers, hospitality companies or exporters. It is clear that Labour’s hike to national insurance contributions has created immense financial burdens for those companies. This policy has prevented many from hiring more staff and devastated their profits, and it is stifling growth. What steps is the Minister taking to give businesses like those in Wokingham hope that this Government do have their back?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The big picture on all three of those questions is that at last year’s Budget, the Government made the decision to increase national insurance in order to raise £20 billion. We have put that money into our public services, making sure that waiting lists have fallen pretty much every single month since the election. That means that we have delivered 4 million more appointments, many more people have been seen, and waiting lists are falling in my constituency and across the country. That is the difference that this Government are making: we are repairing the foundations, and making sure that we can look after people now and in the future.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Clive Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in opposition to amendments 1, 3 and 4. Under the previous Government, the country was subjected to years of economic chaos. This Government have made restoring stability a cornerstone of our strategy to boost long-term growth. Ensuring macroprudential stability, underpinned by an effective recovery and resolution regime, is a key part of that. Changes undertaken in the UK and globally through the Basel III reforms have made our large banks safer and more resilient, and we should welcome that. The reforms have improved solvency and reduced risks for the taxpayer.

However, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 has demonstrated the need for new tools to help minimise the risk to consumers, taxpayers and broader financial stability posed by small bank failures. We need an approach that goes beyond the bank insolvency procedure, and that is why the proposals in the Bill enjoy so much support across our financial services sector, as I know from my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. But in designing this new approach, we must make sure that the proposals reflect the lessons of experience. In all candour, I am concerned that the amendments do not do that, and will impede the functioning of the new regime, rendering it less effective at moments of crisis.

I was an adviser in the Treasury to Alistair Darling during the global financial crisis, when we had to resolve and recapitalise a number of major banks. The action that the Labour Government took then—often in the face of resistance from Conservative Members—helped to save our financial sector from catastrophe and stabilise not just the UK, but the global economy. There are many lessons to be learned from that period, but in relation to the Bill, one stands out. When we had to act to save our banking sector, we learned that successful resolution relies, among other things, on two key factors: speed and flexibility. It was the combination of those factors that was so important in 2008, and since then, I would argue, they have only become more important.

In 2008, we watched banks’ liquidity and solvency deteriorate by the day, but now, as the collapse of Signature Bank in the US in 2023 shows, the combination of banking apps and social media mean that a full-scale banking run can develop in hours or even minutes. If we are to resolve banks successfully, regulators must be able to move as quickly. Speed has become more important than ever. So, too, has flexibility. As we see increasing financial innovation and diversification among banks, with new challengers, new forms of institutions and new types of markets and assets emerging, allowing regulators sufficient flexibility has become more essential, not less.

The value of flexibility was demonstrated in the case of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK subsidiary. The creative use of powers to resolve that bank through a sale, rather than putting it into the bank insolvency procedure, protected consumers, minimised market turbulence and shielded the public purse. Contrast that with the US regulators’ approach to the parent company, SVB. There, rigidity and a mechanistic failure to apply major bank rules led to failures of regulatory oversight that contributed—as US regulators have acknowledged—to the bank’s failure. I raise this matter because I fear that amendments 1, 3 and 4 will militate against speed and flexibility, and will reduce the effectiveness of the Bill, especially in acute crisis situations.

Let me start with proposed amendment 4. This would require the Bank of England to consider competitiveness and the growth impact on the market before directing resolution through the FSCS. However well-intentioned the amendment is, it could have a catastrophic effect. At a time of crisis—policymakers have sometimes just hours to act—it would place a duty on them to make a market assessment, which, by the way, could presumably be challenged. This is simply impractical and could fatally slow down action to restore financial stability. As someone who has sat in the room during a bail-out process, I have to tell the proposer of the amendment that spending time on this kind of exercise during a disorderly bank failure is simply a luxury that we do not have.

I am also concerned that such a requirement would have a chilling effect, staying regulators’ hands when they have to act quickly. This could not only increase the risk of disorderly collapse, but raise the cost to the FSCS of a recapitalisation if it does proceed. Experience tells us that the longer we put off a resolution, the more expensive it becomes. This is a recipe for higher risk and higher cost. Moreover, leaving aside the practical difficulties, the underlying logic is flawed. First, in seeking to analyse the market before deciding on whether to resolve an institution or wind it up, we are putting the cart before the horse. Surely a much better course of action is to prevent the potentially disorderly collapse of the institution, and then to work out its long-term future and the role, if any, it should play in the market.

Secondly, the amendment fails to take into account other objectives that the Prudential Regulation Authority should properly consider in deciding whether to act, including the protection of retail savers, the prevention of contagion and the safeguarding of macroprudential stability. As drafted, the amendment, however well-intentioned, could distort PRA decision making. Its intentions may be good, but its impact might not be.

The same is unfortunately true of amendments 1 and 3. Both seek to circumscribe the use of the FSCS via statute, to prevent it being used to bail out larger institutions. The amendments would rob regulators of the flexibility to use the instrument in unusual or unforeseen circumstances, in the name of solving a problem that does not exist.

The powers provided by the Bill are already aimed squarely at smaller banks, and there are various safeguards in the Bill to prevent the use of those powers for larger banks in most scenarios. For example, the Bill states that the FSCS-funded resolution may be used only for institutions that are placed in a bridge bank or transferred to a new institution, and this would not be applicable for larger bank in most scenarios, as they are expected to be resolved through an MREL bail-in. The Bill also provides for de facto Treasury sign off, requires the Chancellor to report to Parliament on the use of the powers and mandates the bank to inform the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees whenever an FSCS-funded resolution is undertaken. As such, it is already well-policed and circumscribed. There is little danger of this approach being regularly or routinely used with large banks. Adding a statutory prohibition on using this approach with firms meeting their minimum MREL thresholds would add little, but it would create risk.

My experience in the Treasury during the global financial crisis, and in my work across financial services since then, is that we cannot say that the highly improbable will never happen, and we cannot always predict what form the next crisis will take, or what will trigger it. Conservative Members should surely understand this lesson better than most. After all, it was Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget that sparked market chaos through a product—liability-driven investments—that most people had never even heard of, and were thought to be very stable and low risk. Given this, it would be exceptionally unwise to statutorily bar the Bank from being able to use all the tools at its disposal in exceptional circumstances. There are eventualities that, however unlikely, are possible, such as a well-capitalised bank suffering a very rapid deterioration of its position due to a mass redress event. We must allow the Bank flexibility to access the tools that the Bill provides in exceptional circumstances, in order to ensure stability and protect the taxpayer. We must not bind its hands in a crisis.

The power of the Government’s proposals lie in their ability to be deployed rapidly and with flexibility. That is what will give them their traction and help safeguard our financial stability. It is critical that we preserve those facets of the Bill. For that reason, I urge the House to join me in rejecting the amendments.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the Bill, because the last thing taxpayers need to worry about are the consequences of an under-regulated banking sector. I have brought amendment 3 back from Committee, because the size of banks eligible for the new mechanism has been a key debate through the Bill’s passage.

The Minister has regularly set out that the Bill’s stated aim is to enhance the resolution regime, so that we can respond to the failure of small banks. However, the Bill does not restrict the regime to small or medium-sized banks. If applied to large banks, it would create high costs for banks and customers. The costs would persist for many years, adding a significant long-term burden on the banking sector and consumers. Amendment 3 would ensure that the Bill does not apply to banks that have reached the end-state minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—put more simply, the largest UK banks. That would mean that only small and medium-sized banks could be supported by the mechanism. That would protect consumers and the banking sector from unnecessary financial burden.

Amendment 4 has also been brought back from Committee. It would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of a failing small bank through a levy on the banking sector. We believe that further consideration of the effect on the competitiveness and growth of the market is important before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks.

To conclude, I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the remarks made in Committee and explain how precisely the amendment would complicate the process of managing a bank failure.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their amendments and their constructive engagement throughout the Bill’s passage. The Bill will ensure that the Bank of England remains equipped with the necessary tools to effectively manage bank failures in a way that minimises risk to the taxpayer and to UK financial stability, protecting the taxpayer.

While there may be some disagreements on the finer detail of the Bill, what we have heard today, and on Second Reading and in Committee, demonstrates that there is cross-party support for the principles and overall objectives of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and the hon. Member for Wokingham for supporting those.

The amendments cover a broad range of issues, and I will explain the Government’s position on them in turn, but first I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for setting out his experience of the banking crisis and stressing that the mechanism we are seeking to provide through the Bill must allow the Bank of England, in close consultation with the Treasury and other financial services regulators, to act with speed and flexibility at times of crisis. There are hours, not days, in which to make decisions during crises, and at the forefront of our minds when discussing the Bill should be that they often happen over the weekend, as happened under the previous Government with Silicon Valley Bank. I will turn to that example shortly, but I wanted to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon for setting out his concerns about the amendments that would essentially stymie the effectiveness of the Bill.

I note that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, raised a number of issues on new clause 3, on the Bill’s impact on credit unions. Some were not strictly relevant to the Bill, but I will come on to them. As he noted, the Government absolutely support credit unions. They play a vital role in providing saving products and affordable credit in local communities across the country. However, they are not in scope of the resolution regime that we are discussing, and therefore not in scope of the new recapitalisation payment mechanism introduced by the Bill. That is a benefit to the credit union sector. Indeed, it asked the Government to ensure that it was not included in the payment mechanism. Credit unions will therefore not be liable to pay towards the cost of a failure where the mechanism is used.

Spring Statement

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The Budget in autumn last year wiped the slate clean after 14 years of economic mismanagement by the Conservative party. We will not have to repeat a Budget like that because we are not going to inherit anything like that ever again. We have changed the rules so that the OBR always gets information now, rather than the information being hidden as it was by the previous Government.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) gave examples of alternative taxes to Labour’s national insurance increases, asking that big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies pay their fair share of tax. Can the Chancellor confirm that she has heard those Liberal Democrat alternatives, and will she explain why she is not listening to those fair and sensible proposals?

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Belarus) (Revocation) Order 2025 Draft Double Taxation Relief (Russian Federation) (Revocation) Order 2025

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 General Committees

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his remarks. I will briefly set out the Liberal Democrat view on this statutory instrument.

Revoking double taxation relief for Belarus and Russia is the right thing to do. They reneged on their treaty obligations to the UK, so it is only correct that we cancel the treaty. However, it is a bit surprising and concerning that it has taken so long for the Government to reach this decision.

Russia suspended its implementation of the treaty in August 2023, so the previous Conservative Government should have acted with urgency to revoke the treaty in response, particularly in the wider context of Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine, which is supported by Belarus. It was a mistake not to act sooner, so can the Minister assure us that equivalent SIs will not take so long to be implemented by this Government?

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I recognise that the Chancellor has a very difficult job. She inherited an economy on its knees, following the Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy, from their terrible trade deal—[Interruption.] That extends from their terrible trade deal with Europe, which is holding back businesses in Wokingham, to soaring inflation, stagnant growth and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which hit so many mortgage holders across the country.

However, the Government seem to be repeating some of the same mistakes. Last night, the Treasury issued a statement saying that

“meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable”.

Will the Chief Secretary reassure this House that protecting the NHS and care is also non-negotiable, and will he rule out any cuts to those services as the Government try to balance the books? Will he work to repair our ties with Europe and cut trade-related red tape, especially in the face of Donald Trump and his oligarch allies such as Elon Musk?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will note from the Prime Minister’s plan for change that the NHS is the subject of one of this Government’s key commitments, with commitments to get the elective waiting list down and to invest in the national health service so that we can do so. He will have heard that from the Chancellor at the Budget in the autumn, and he will see that it is a continued commitment from this Government. We can do that because of our commitment to the fiscal rules and because of our investment to grow the economy, which is the only route to long-term, sustainable public financing.

The hon. Member was very rudely groaned at by Conservative Members, but when it comes to their performance on the economy, it is not they who should be groaning, but the British people who should be groaning at them for what they did to their family finances.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Clive Jones Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

GPs such as those in the Twyford surgery in my constituency have made it clear that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will impact their budgets. They urgently need clarity to determine what they can provide for my constituents and whether they will be forced to make redundancies. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to provide certainty on whether GPs will receive funding for national insurance increases, and not abandon them, as they were abandoned by the previous Government?

[Shockat Adam]

I totally agree with the hon. Member that GP services are already on their knees, and this is going to further increase their despondency. It will give them no confidence whatsoever.

A second issue relates to our charities. I do not think there will be a single Member in this House who has not posed in front of a charity for a photo for their social media or for the work that they do. In my short time in this profession I have seen that this country is virtually run by charities, but every single year they have to jump through fire hoops just to make ends meet. They have to prove their worth and look for funding every year, living virtually hand to mouth. This will be the final nail in the coffin for many charities that are doing vital work for our communities.

There are so many that I could mention, but I will mention just one. Jasmine House is a charity in my constituency that provides vital support for women who have been victims of sexual violence. We already know the dire state of the judicial system, with women who have been raped having to wait up to five years or sometimes seven years for justice. This home, which provides much-needed psychological and emotional support, already has a two-year waiting list. This rise in national insurance will completely destroy this charity and many more like it across the country, which is why I urge the Government to rethink this disastrous policy and accept my amendment.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Paul and Melissa Johnson, the directors of Home Instead, are local business owners of an adult social care provider based near Twyford, in my constituency. They predict that the national insurance increase will be in the region of £45,000 a year on the basis of their current payroll, and that the increase in the minimum wage and other costs will add a further £55,000 a year. Some similar businesses may have to scale back their plans for growth or their existing operations, or may even face the prospect of closing down. Inevitably, that will have a significant impact on their elderly clients, along with the local authorities with which they work.

Nationally, it is the same story, because the Government’s job tax will be the tipping point for thousands of care providers. This could have been avoided if the Government had instead chosen to increase taxes on big banks, online gambling companies and social media giants, all of which need to pay their fair share of tax. The Conservatives allowed those banks and social media giants to get off the hook; why are Labour doing the same?

Let me ask the Minister this: will the Government commit themselves to exempting social care from the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, and if not, how will they protect those who are affected by the potential closures of social care providers?

The concerns do not end there. I recently visited Twyford surgery and spoke to its fantastic GP partners about the impact that the increase will have on their ability to deliver primary care effectively. It is the same story that we hear all over the country: they are looking at, in effect, a 4% reduction in funding, which will have an impact on the services they are able to offer, including joint injections and contraception. The Chancellor will compensate the NHS for the cost of the tax increase, but that support will not be available to GPs or to the vast majority of care providers that are in the private sector, which will lead to even greater pressures on our health and care services.

At a time when the GP-patient ratio for my area is rising, with 2,101 patients for every GP compared with England’s national average of 1,664, this is simply unacceptable—and it is happening at the worst possible time, because general practices are already in crisis. Patient lists are soaring, and we simply do not have enough GPs. The Government must provide assurances, as a matter of urgency, that general practices will be given the same protection as the rest of the NHS, and will receive the necessary funding to cover these additional costs. I am sure that millions of people across the country will agree that it is simply common sense to protect GPs at a time of crisis.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Clive Jones]

Okay, yes.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reluctant acceptance, and I congratulate him on his speech. Does he agree with me, and with those in Lightwater surgery in my constituency, that in an average general practice such as Lightwater the national insurance rise equates to the salary of a fully qualified nurse, and that, whether by accident or design, it will have a significant impact on our constituents and their receipt of healthcare?

[Clive Jones]

My hon. Friend is 100% right.

GP surgeries have told me that they spend a disproportionate amount of time seeking out different funding pots, which requires time and resources—time that could be spent on patient care. Will the Minister commit to simplifying the process of funding for GPs?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Clive Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

This Bill has several issues, but its glaring failure is the lack of immediate support for the many small and medium-sized businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors that are important to our national economy and our local high streets.

The Government claim that they would like to have a level playing field between the high street and the online giants, but this Bill fails to properly address the issue. Many small businesses fall outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and will therefore see no benefit from the Bill. These small businesses need their tax burden to be reduced too.

Labour’s plan to increase national insurance contributions and business rates will prove too much for many small businesses, including charities in my constituency that tell me their increased national insurance contributions will seriously affect them and reduce the amount of money they can spend on supporting the residents of Wokingham.

Small businesses in my constituency have seen a huge increase in both rent and costs, and they had to do their best to survive under a Conservative Government who trashed the economy. As a result of Conservative policies over the last few years, a household with a mortgage now has at least £6,000 a year less to spend on our local high streets where our friends and neighbours work. What these small businesses need now is a proper overhaul and reform of the business rates system, not a Bill that meddles around the edges to provide ineffective and short-term solutions, and they do not need an increase in employer’s national insurance contributions.

My constituency has approximately 3,585 businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure industries, which is roughly 70% of the businesses in Wokingham. This make-up is not too dissimilar from the national picture, so the Bill will be ineffective for businesses across the UK.

The Bill fails to offer support to the vast majority of businesses that desperately need their tax burdens to be reduced. It is clear that this Bill does not do enough, and so many businesses and charities that are so important to our high streets will be left to absorb all the extra taxation levied on them by the Government.

This Bill will not fix the broken business rates system, and it will seriously damage the retail and small business sector in our economy.