Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is right that the rise in private markets has brought benefits, including to growth and financial stability—we have discussed that many times in the context of pensions—but it does come with new risks. The Treasury and regulators have increased their focus on those risks in the non-bank sector in recent years and, as I am sure he is aware, have played a leading role in the response to emerging non-banks’ risks internationally. In particular, the Government emphasised in the November remit letter to the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee that the committee should continue to consider risks in private markets. We are considering the House of Lords Committee’s recommendations, and will respond in due course.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

At the weekend, Storm Ingrid caused the sea wall at Dawlish to collapse in two new places, and we wait to see the damage caused by Storm Chandra today. Both storms are once again exposing the vulnerability of the main rail line to Devon and Cornwall, which is vital for the local economy. Given the reported lack of a Treasury emergency reserve, can the Chancellor guarantee contingency funding for any urgent and unplanned resilience work required and not covered by a fiscal event?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the situation in her constituency. All Departments across Government have had their budgets set, and they include a contingency for covering known pressures. One of the ways that we have managed spending settlements differently from the previous Government is that all Departments must recognise that unexpected pressures will come along. They need to prepare for that, and should have robust plans for responding when such things occur.

Railways Bill (First sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Baggy Shanker]

Q I have to ask this question. Several years ago, the decision was made to create GBR and have it headquartered in the brilliant city of Derby, and successive Governments, Secretaries of State and rail Ministers have backed that decision. Recently, Mr Westlake, when I asked about the size and shape of the headquarters on the Transport Committee, you said that we are six to nine months away from getting to that point. Given that we are about to begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, can anything be done to ensure that we hold to that six-to-nine-month milestone, or improve it?

Jeremy Westlake: First of all, we are very much looking forward to being headquartered in Derby. I have lived in Derby for 17 years and I think it is a wonderful place to have a centre for the rail industry; let me start with that. The work we are doing now is to define the internal organisation structure for Great British Railways, including its operating structures, divisions, integrated business units and network functions. That work needs to conclude before we can come back to you more clearly on the size of the HQ in Derby.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Q I want to go back to the accountability piece. You said to the Minister that there are adequate checks and balances in the system. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at this on the Transport Committee, and the closest thing I can relate GBR to is the NHS. It is not necessarily run by the Department of Health and Social Care; it is a separate organisation, and then it is devolved into local regions through integrated care boards and things. My experience is that it is incredibly difficult to hold it to account because you do not have direct access to the Secretary of State.

I am interested in your views on how we, as parliamentarians, will hold Great British Railways to account, not only as constituency MPs when the services do not necessarily deliver your aims, but in our scrutiny function as Select Committees. What should we focus on with GBR? How you have described it sounds as complicated as the NHS, and for 20 years I have struggled to figure out how we actually hold that to account. Ultimately, if we are creating a new organisation that has a public benefit, how will politicians hold it to account if the public cannot trust us to be able do that? In the Transport Committee evidence, the implication was that it will be done through the Secretary of State, but if I were the Secretary of State, I would not necessarily want to take responsibility for anything that is not going right with GBR. I am interested in your comments on how we as MPs can hold GBR to account once it has been established.

John Larkinson: I could say something about the role of the ORR in holding it to account. There is a distinction between the role of the Secretary of State and our role. Ultimate accountability is with the Secretary of State. For example, it is the Secretary of State who signs off the GBR business plan, which is a fundamental component of the new system, in my mind. If there were a very strategic problem at Great British Railways—if it were not following its duties or if it were breaking the law—ultimate accountability would be with the Secretary of State.

Within that, some of the accountability comes through us. We have the role of enforcing the GBR licence. In terms of the provision of information coming out of the system, one of our big roles is monitoring everything that GBR does and all its functions. That will be done largely through the monitoring of the business plan. From my perspective, it is crucial that we have the ability to do that as we see fit and to publish information. A crucial role for the regulator is providing that information base and analysis to allow Parliament to scrutinise what GBR is doing more effectively.

Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that there are three key mechanisms by which GBR will be held to account. First, it will have to balance its duties in law. Secondly, the business plan will need to be signed off by the Secretary of State and its delivery will be monitored by the ORR. Thirdly, there is the licence.

One thing I would say is that the railways are slightly different from the national health service in so far as we have a revenue line of more than £10 billion per annum. We want Great British Railways to be a commercial organisation that can respond to the market with operational independence at arm’s length from Ministers. However, it is the duties, the business plan and the licence by which GBR will be held to account.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q Can I just come back to you on that? One of the other things that came out when we had the Rail Minister in front of us was the devolution aspect, and my understanding is that each of these individual railway lines will still be run as an individual line. It will be like we have it now; they are just going to be publicly owned, rather than privately owned.

The implication was that the chief executive of those lines is ultimately accountable, so it is up to them to deliver the service for passengers. Obviously, what you are saying about the business plan is very high level, but we are also talking about what happens on the ground with passenger services. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am not sure I would want to be the chief executive of one of those railway lines—you are basically expected to be the fall guy or girl, if it does not go right. How do those individual chief executives play into this triangle of accountability that you have? Why should they be holding that level of responsibility? Should that not be with the Secretary of State or somebody more senior?

Jeremy Westlake: Can I come in on that one? First, the intent of how we are constructing GBR is to introduce much more local empowerment to create an integrated railway that actually consults with the communities that it serves. Whether that is the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or mayoral combined authorities, we want those strategies to be built up from that level, so that you actually have a railway that serves the communities that it is there for.

I actually think that the jobs of running these integrated business units are some of the best that you could have in the railway, because the intent is to have the rest of the organisation supporting them to deliver for passengers and the communities they serve. Actually, if you look at the statutory roles for consultation, and the intent in drawing those input and output requirements to those integrated business unit leaders, I think we will end up with a much better strategy for the railway as a whole.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q But the responsibility for the delivery of services will be theirs. Going back to my original question about how we hold it to account, are you effectively saying that when it comes down to the individual railway lines and the services, we as MPs will be going to that chief exec and then having to figure out how we escalate it if that does not work?

Alex Hynes: Under the current system, if you want to talk about the delivery of rail services in your area, you have to talk to the relevant train operating company’s managing director and the relevant route director in Network Rail, because there is no one in charge.

These integrated business units are going to be the powerhouse of Great British Railways. We have created three of them already, albeit using a workaround within railway legislation. In Kent, on South Western and Greater Anglia, we have now appointed one person to run track and train to ensure that that person is making joined-up decisions in an integrated way, and in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers.

Also, as an accountability mechanism, it works incredibly well because there is nowhere else to go—that person is the directing mind for their chunk of the railway. Having done one of those jobs myself for seven years in Scotland, it is very effective as an accountability mechanism, and it enables much better decision making, as well as decision making that can be undertaken faster than in the current system, where we have many organisations involved in the running of the railway.

[Laurence Turner]

Q Good morning. I first have a couple of questions to Mr Larkinson, but if other witnesses wish to come in, please do so.

Mr Larkinson, in the ORR’s last annual report and accounts, it stated,

“we began engaging with infrastructure managers on how to reduce the administrative burdens we impose”—

in the context of the Bill and rail reform. I do not mean to suggest that “burdens”, as expressed here, are always entirely one-sided, or that the ORR is doing anything other than working within the framework that has been established for it. Can you tell us a bit about what these “burdens” are, and what potential benefits might accrue from their removal?

John Larkinson: That work comes from the Government’s overall review of regulators and the remit that they have given to all regulators to look very carefully at administrative burdens imposed on regulated companies. We are the regulator that that applies to. The target is to reduce the administrative burden by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We are working on that process as set out by the Government and have already put a whole section in our business plan about the work that we are going to do. On that basis, we have had conversations with the companies that we regulate, such as Network Rail, about areas where we might be imposing unnecessary administrative burden, which is something that is always good to come back and look at.

Interestingly, we have had different responses from the different companies that we regulate, including, “We do not see any massive excess of administrative burden.” In the case of Network Rail, we have already identified some areas, such as the amount of data we require and the way that data is transferred around us—areas where things can be made faster and less resource intensive. So yes, we are getting on with it and reporting back. Indeed, I was at the regulators council with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Chancellor reporting back about a week and a half ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Smith]

Q Do you think that duty could help to ensure that inclusivity is taken in the widest possible sense? I travel with my toddler, and there is a risk when I go to the toilet with him that he will hit the emergency open button and I will be exposed to the train. There is a conflict there: I absolutely recognise that disabled people need to be able to use those facilities and get support, but I also need to be able to use the train safely as a mother with a small person.

How will we ensure, if we move to co-creation in how we deliver accessibility, as Alex was proposing, that we consider a slightly wider group of people—as much as disabled people are absolutely the priority—to ensure that we deliver inclusive railways? Could that duty help to provide a bit of a framework for that to be considered going forward?

Ben Plowden: Yes. By definition, if you want to increase the volume of travel by rail, you need to make that network meaningfully usable by the broadest segment of the population that you can. That also relates to issues around affordability that we might come back to. If GBR had a legal incentive to increase demand over time, as well as a duty to demonstrably increase accessibility over time, I think that would encourage it to think very broadly about how to get the largest number of people possible using a safer, more accessible, more reliable and more affordable network.

Emma Vogelmann: In terms of true co-production, you are really looking at how to create universal design. That universal design is beneficial to everyone. I want to stress that if accessibility provisions and things that are built in to promote accessibility are done correctly and in consultation with disabled people and other passengers, you will not have that conflict in access needs. Universal design would allow everyone to benefit from those improvements.

Alex Robertson: I agree absolutely with what Emma has said and what we are trying to achieve with this. The question, and this is obviously why you are asking it, is how much you can legislate for that.

We had an experience with Merseyrail developing its new trains in and around Liverpool. You completely need to engage disabled passengers throughout the process, from the specification to the design and implementation, because things that you think are possible at the beginning may lead to trade-offs later on. You want to have people in the room making those decisions with you and balancing the competing the interests of different passengers, and you have to do that throughout. That did lead to—I hope this is reflected by people’s experience in Liverpool—a much better experience for disabled passengers and for the general travelling public. How much you could legislate for that I am not entirely sure, but it will have to be absolutely integral to how GBR goes about its business.

The other advantage you will get through having GBR at the network-wide level is that we know that we have trains of different sizes, platforms of the wrong height—it is a mess across the network. Putting GBR in a position where it can make those decisions, plan long term, and get some consistency to a higher and better standard is what we are hoping for, and I believe we can do that with the changes that are being made.

Michael Roberts: I think at the nub of your line of inquiry is the need for inclusion in its broadest sense. However a duty is expressed around the interests that GBR needs to take into consideration, whether in the Bill or in other statutory documents, I think some consideration ought to be given to, for example, diversity in its widest sense—that is, the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 rather than just necessarily one of those, important as the needs of disabled travellers are. There are needs of other travellers that also need to be taken into consideration.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q One of the things that has been touched on in that conversation, particularly around universal design and the Bill’s aims to improve accessibility, is that we already have huge discrepancies around the country on each individual line. It is worth asking, for the record, whether you agree that there will be a significant time lag in when this accessibility aim will actually be delivered to the general public. The Minister eventually suggested that it may take 30 years for some of these things to come into place, so do you think it is important for us to be realistic with the public about what the accessibility provision in the Bill will actually mean on the ground?

Emma Vogelmann: Overall transparency and really clear expectations and timelines are absolutely what disabled passengers need. However, there are still grounds for that rate of change to be challenged. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee said that at the current rate of change, it will take another 100 years before all train stations are made step free in the UK. We need to be transparent about that rate of change, but also be prepared to challenge it.

Alex Robertson: We need to be serious about the change: it is a huge change that we need and some of those things will take a long time. The infrastructure cannot be changed overnight. You had a conversation earlier about the need for long-term planning that puts you in a position to do that. You have to be realistic and up front about that and recognise that it draws on public money to do that.

There are other changes, however, that could happen much more quickly. You could get a much clearer signal about the priority given to accessibility, and you could get a change in how effective passenger assistance is delivered. I do not want to suggest that that can change overnight, because it is not straightforward; it is dependent on how you operate the railway and different expectations—for example, of staff members, their systems and so on—but you can make a more rapid change in relation to that.

I mentioned earlier the redress that people receive when passenger assistance fails—and when turn up and go fails. Turn up and go is completely unreliable, which is why people often have to rely on booking passenger assistance, but even that fails about one in five times so those people do not get the full service. You would want to see some pretty rapid progress on those things, and recognise that some of the longer-term changes to infrastructure are not straightforward. However, you would also want to have confidence that there is a sufficiently ambitious plan in place, and that people are going to hold the feet of those who are delivering it to the fire.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q As I understand it, one of the ways that a lot of it will be delivered—the detail of what GBR has to provide—is through the licence. Do you think it is a problem that the Committee has not had sight of the draft GBR licence yet, setting out what we expect accessibility to look like in the Bill versus the reality of what it will look like?

Ben Plowden: I would make a slightly broader point, which is the number of other documents and processes that will need to be in place either in parallel with the Bill or subsequent to it being passed—I stopped counting at 19. There is a long-term rail strategy, the GBR business plan, the licence that you have just mentioned, the statement of funds available, and the list goes on.

One of the questions for the Committee is whether it sees some of those documents as part of its scrutiny, and understanding how all the different components of the system that GBR will operate within are going to work, when they are going to materialise and how they will interact with each other. Even though the Government’s intention is to simplify the system, it will still be quite a complex system of delivery, regulation, oversight, investment and so on. A broader understanding of the entire system that the GBR Bill will create is important. Not having had sight of some of those critical documents is part of that uncertainty.

[Baggy Shanker]

Q Do you agree that the accessibility duty, if combined with detailed targets in the business plan, will improve the whole system for disabled passengers?

Emma Vogelmann: From our perspective, having accessibility targets and so on that are not built into statutory instruments is not a guarantee of change in accessibility. We have seen accessibility requirements or targets being spread across all transport sectors, and particularly in rail, but the amount of change and enforceability is very low. As much as possible needs to sit in the primary legislation.

Alex Robertson: It is a difficult balancing act as to how much you put in legislation and how much comes later. It is absolutely critical that the GBR business plan properly sets targets for accessibility. One of the things that we touched on earlier is that the licence will give us the power to set the standards in relation to accessibility. We will do that in the way that I talked about, by co-creating them with disabled passengers. We will do it in a way that makes sure they are right.

There is a whole series of things that will need to happen. Ultimately, it is for you all to decide the extent to which you need to see that up front, as opposed to recognising that the direction, intent and duties are clear in legislation, and that the organisations that will be responsible for delivering it are in a position to do that.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Horse and rider safety is a matter of real importance to urban fringe communities like mine, and many of my constituents, both urban and rural dwellers, asked me to attend today. Whether it is the Dartmoor pony on Devon’s coat of arms, Wembury bay riding school by Wembury beach, or Erme valley riding school for the disabled in South Hams, horses are central to urban fringe life, the local economy and our heritage in South West Devon.

In Devon, the issue is especially close to home. Dartmoor ponies, which are an iconic part of our landscape, have roamed freely across unfenced moorland since the bronze age, and they frequently cross roads in the national park —dealing with them is something that new drivers have to learn pretty early on. The ponies are a symbol of our heritage, yet they are regularly injured or killed in collisions. Devon and Cornwall police reports that 144 animals, including ponies, cattle and sheep, were killed on Dartmoor’s roads in 2024. Local initiatives, such as improved signage and reflective collars, make a difference and are welcome, but they are not a substitute for wider awareness and driving safely, as we have heard this afternoon.

We also need to look at localised speed limits. For example, in Ivybridge, the B3213 has a 60 mph limit until just after a road that is used by local riding schools. It becomes a 30 mph road at a certain point because of a new housing development, but the council has pushed back on all attempts to reduce the speed limit on the other part of the road that would be used by riders. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. Is there anything we can do to incentivise local councils to think about roads used by riders when they set speed limits and road policies?

I thank all those who have written to me to raise this important issue. I continue to work to support them on it.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Connor Naismith]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Look, we will await the Budget to see the OBR’s forecasts, but I will take no lessons from the party opposite on economic credibility. They are the party of Liz Truss, which dragged this country into the economic abyss.

We know that Tory austerity and a lack of investment in our country’s infrastructure are part of the story of why our economic growth and productivity have never recovered since the financial crash in 2008. It seems like the Conservatives want to take us right back to the beginning of that 14 years of chaos, failure and decline. I think my constituents would say no, frankly. What is worse, the Conservatives cannot even tell us with any credibility where the cuts would fall. We have seen this playbook before. They have no credible plan to pay for their promises, just vague talk of savings from the very services that our communities rely on—our schools, NHS and local infrastructure. The Tories have some cheek to come here and talk about home ownership when they manifestly failed to build the homes that our country needs because they presided over a broken planning system that they did nothing to reform.

As I mentioned earlier, my constituents have not forgotten what Liz Truss’s mini-Budget did to their mortgage payments. During the election campaign, I spoke directly with families in Crewe and Nantwich who had seen their monthly costs soar overnight. I distinctly remember speaking to a man who told me that his mortgage payments had risen by £1,000 a month and that he had been forced to sell his home as a result. If we want to examine the reality beyond the rhetoric of the modern day Conservative party’s record on home ownership, it is that: failure to deliver, soaring prices and broken dreams.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Member talks about broken dreams, but no Government Member has spoken about the hard-working families in the middle—not the ones struggling to buy their first home and not the so-called rich people at the top who in the Government’s world this will benefit, but the hard-working families, who he has no doubt spoken to, who cannot buy a property with an additional bedroom for their growing family because of stamp duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) referenced, that stamp duty is the difference between the price of the home they wish to buy and the dream of actually succeeding in doing so.

[Connor Naismith]

It was those families in the middle who suffered most at the hands of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, so I would expect Conservative Members to apologise to those families in my constituency for their record on the economy over the past 14 years.

Compare all that with what Labour is delivering in government. We are getting Britain building, and not just the homes we need. In Crewe and Nantwich, we are getting a new hospital at Leighton, the new youth zone in Crewe town centre, a new history centre and many more things that our community will benefit from. The choice ahead at the Budget is clear: stick with Labour’s plan for national renewal or return to the chaos and cuts of the past, whatever shade of blue that comes in. Labour chooses a fairer economy, one that works for working people and rewards them. That is what we are building in Crewe and Nantwich and across Britain. The people of Crewe and Nantwich deserve better than unfunded tax cuts and economic instability. They deserve a Government that invest in the future, protect their services and build a Britain for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

I am speaking today about the other part of the motion before us—the part about the unspecified cuts that would pay for the tax cut—and the implications of that. As the hon. Gentleman would expect of a responsible member of my party, I am not going to speculate with plans about how we fund things for which there is no plan.

Going back to the record of austerity—remembering that austerity cost and took out of our economy less than the Conservatives propose taking out in their motion today—it left the bottom fifth of households £517 poorer, while the top fifth gained £174. Austerity did not just deepen inequality; it entrenched it. It led to the longest pay squeeze in 200 years, with growth anaemic, productivity absolutely flatlined and public investment slashed.

My friends at the TUC have worked out—[Interruption.] Yes, they are my friends. I was proud to represent millions of working people. Conservative Members speak about those working people with disdain, but it was an honour to represent them in their workplace and negotiate for better wages on their behalf. Good Conservatives in the past used to understand social partnership and the importance of responsibility and working with workers and bosses to get the best outcome; it is a shame those lessons have been forgotten, with the baying calls of the mob at the mention of trade unions. My friends at the TUC have worked out that if wages had risen in the past decade by the amount by which they rose between 1997 and 2010, the average worker in my constituency would be £93 a week better off—that is nearly five grand a year more in people’s pockets. Instead, we got the longest pay squeeze in 200 years.

[Rebecca Smith]

I am just perplexed as to where the hon. Lady is going with this. Ultimately, the statistics that she has just quoted would have saved her constituents £5,000, but if the Government do not scrap stamp duty, anybody who aspired to buy a slightly bigger house with that increased income would not be able to afford to do so.

[Antonia Bance]

To be clear, the point that I am making is about the unspecified cuts referenced in the motion. I am talking about the implications from the last time the Conservatives made cuts of that magnitude. While it may be the case that getting rid of stamp duty would save some money for people in my constituency, where there is an average house price of £190,000, it would by no means have the impact that it would for people in richer constituencies in other parts of the country. The cuts that the Conservatives intend to make to pay for it would, however, hit people in my ends.

Despite all the pain of those years of austerity, it failed to reduce public debt in any meaningful way. That is why our public services were on their knees and we face a mountain of debt that has built up over 14 long years.

Now compare that to our Labour Government, who are steadily and slowly delivering the change that this country needs. We are creating 5 million extra NHS appointments, and the number of people in my area waiting more than a year for the operation that they need is down 45%. Thanks to the investment from our Heath Secretary, crack teams are going into Dudley, Wolverhampton and Sandwell NHS trusts.

We secured three major trade deals in the first 10 months of our Government, and wages went up by more than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. We are putting in pride in place funding for communities that are hit the hardest, such as Friar Park in my constituency, and £39 billion of affordable housing funding is going to fund new social and affordable homes—the largest amount in a generation. I hope that 600 of those will be in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I gently say to the hon. Member that I have not really got into the flow of my speech yet, either. I will finish the first sentence before I take any interventions. People feel that that vital first rung is utterly out of their reach.

I remember when I bought my first property. It was the most amazing feeling in the world when I first walked through that door, with those keys. It was really hard to earn enough to secure the mortgage that I needed and to save up the money for the stamp duty and the deposit. I managed to do it, but I would have been able to do it sooner without that stamp duty cost. That is why I am delighted that the Conservatives have come forward with a clear, coherent and aspirational plan to abolish stamp duty land tax on the purchase of primary residences and to open up the dream of home ownership to the next generation.

[Rebecca Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the policy was announced at our party conference in October, it was the first solid political idea to have come forward from any political party since the last election that genuinely offers aspiration for hard-working families? We are talking about not just hard-working families who need to get on the housing ladder in the first place, but those in constituencies like hers and mine who are desperate to expand their families and continue contributing to the society we all live in.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent point. This is proper Conservative policy. This is the kind of thing everyone in this country is clamouring for—[Hon. Members: “More!”] This party is delivering that under our new leadership. For too long, stamp duty has been a dead weight on the housing market, a tax on aspiration and a barrier to the kind of home ownership that gives people a genuine stake in their community. It is time that we abolished it on primary residences.

Surely we can all agree that our housing market is not working as it should. Far too many young people feel locked out, priced out and increasingly disillusioned. The average age of a first-time buyer in England is now 34, up by nearly a decade from where it was 40 years ago. In London, it is even higher, and across the country 20% fewer 25 to 34-year-olds own a home today than was the case in 2000.

I have skin in the game: I have three children and I want them to be able to buy a house without coming to mummy and daddy to help them out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bedford]

My hon. Friend puts the case very clearly, and he is absolutely right. Labour Members talk about intergenerational unfairness, but they do nothing about it. We Conservatives believe in encouraging young people to determine their own futures.

[Rebecca Smith]

My hon. Friend speaks of intergenerational fairness. Does he agree that the status quo hinders older householders who may be asset-rich and cash-poor, because the value of their property has increased—fortunately for them—but not necessarily their income? Stopping this policy in its tracks would stop older people who may be desperate to downsize, knowing that to do so would be to play their part in providing homes for other families, but who simply cannot afford to because the stamp duty on more expensive properties is unpayable.

[Mr Bedford]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. Many people come to my surgeries and make that point month in, month out.

That is why this Conservative motion matters. By abolishing stamp duty, we would be empowering young people to aspire to own their own homes and invest in their own futures. That is what a responsible Government do, giving people the tools to achieve their ambitions. This policy will not only transform lives, but boost the economy, stimulate growth in the property market and add an incredible £17 billion to our GDP over 10 years. We saw the results when the last Conservative Government cut stamp duty in 2021. People took the opportunity to invest in their own futures.

This is the Conservative way: lower taxes, greater ownership and rediscovered aspiration. I will be voting for this aspirational motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, who understands that it is not just a question of economics, but a question of values. We should choose freedom over control, ambition over dependency and aspiration over stagnation. That is the Conservative vision for Britain, and it is one that I know my constituents in Mid Leicestershire—particularly the young people—will get behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Absolutely. They have no recollection of the past, they are blind to the experience of their own Government, and they are only asking, urging and pleading us to look forward, not back at their own record.

In Taunton and Wellington, there are countless examples of folk who are unable to afford a home of their own. Rosanna, a qualified solicitor, has been living with her parents for over six years because she is unable to afford a new home. What is needed is a far bigger focus on building the council and social rent homes that are needed by our country. The Liberal Democrats propose to raise the number from the Government’s target of 20,000 per year to 150,000 per year. There should be less reliance on a few big house builder developers, whose interest, perfectly reasonably, is in increasing profits and the value of their land, rather than in making their products cheaper—why would they?—or in necessarily increasing the amount of housing supply.

Less reliance on the big developers and more council and social rent homes delivered by public funding would mean that there would be no need for the Government to cut the affordable housing requirements in London, as they did last week. Our manifesto provided £6 billion a year over five years to begin to achieve not just the 90,000 social rent homes that Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that we need, but our manifesto target of 150,000 homes. A decent home should not be for just the most vulnerable and excluded; all working people should be able to have a home with a decent rent. Coupled with that, we need new routes to be available for people to get on to the home ownership ladder and a new generation of rent-to-own homes, where renters can gain ownership over 30 years.

[Rebecca Smith]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, as he always does. However, there is a gaping hole in his argument when it comes to people who are looking not for their first home, but for a bigger home, which may be a new property or a property that already exists. What would he say to his Taunton constituents who are in that middle bracket, given that he will be voting not to scrap stamp duty? That land tax will hinder them from taking a step up the ladder, whether by buying one of the many new homes that he admirably wants delivered in his constituency or by buying a home that already exists.

[Gideon Amos]

I would point my constituents to the comments made by Lucian Cook, the head of research at Savills, who has said that the proposed SDLT giveaway would simply pass straight into house prices. It would have very little, if any, effect on people’s ability to buy homes, whether they are downsizing or not.

Family Businesses

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

To correct the hon. Gentleman, I did not say that only 4% will be affected. We have set out that up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to be affected in 2026-27. That means that about three quarters of estates will be unaffected and will not pay any more inheritance tax. All the data on that has been set out in a letter from the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at that document, he will see some of the stats that I refer to.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Of the 500 or so that the Minister has just explained will have to pay inheritance tax, does he have any idea what number are small businesses, compared with the large estates that he seeks to challenge in the legislation?

[James Murray]

The data that I refer to is based on claims data. This is an important point that comes up frequently when we have debates on agricultural property relief and business property relief. If one were to consider assets owned by farmers or other business owners, the actual value of the asset does not give a guide to what claim might be made against inheritance tax because that will depend on the ownership structure, on debt that might be owned or on what inheritances have happened earlier in people’s lives and so on. The only data that can give an indication of what impact the changes will have from April 2026 is the claims data.

The data that I referred to earlier and which I referred to in response to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is the real claims data that HMRC has. That is the data on which we made decisions around this policy and which informs some of the Chancellor’s statistics in her response to the Treasury Committee, which the hon. Lady may like to consult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I must say, I am disappointed—as will be business owners up and down the country—that the Chancellor could not find her way into the Chamber today. If she had done, she might have learned a thing or two.

In Tatton, there are family businesses that go back four or five generations. Before the Budget, some were planning to get ready for the next generation—but not now. Some, founded in the 1800s, have told me that their businesses survived two world wars, the Spanish flu, the high tax and economic lunacy of the 1970s, and even the recent covid lockdowns, but the Chancellor’s Budget will be the death of them. They have told me that on their family business gravestone will be written: “RIP. 1830-2026. Reeves’ budget the fatal blow.” Here we have a Chancellor who wanted her legacy to be that she was the first female Chancellor; in fact, her legacy will be as the grim Reeves reaper who fatally killed off family businesses and destroyed enterprise in the UK.

The Labour Government show no sign of understanding business, let alone family businesses that employ 14 million people and add £575 billion to the economy. The family business is a living entity; it needs to be nurtured, and if it is, it will grow and last hundreds of years, to be passed on to the next generation. It has a unique place in the business ecosystem—it serves a special purpose. Even previous Labour Governments knew that. That is why they introduced the business property relief; they knew that it was required. But not this Labour Government—oh no! Now, the death of a family member could spell the death of the family business, too.

The CBI and Family Business UK have warned that the changes to property business relief alone could lead to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by £9.4 billion. Businesses must think about how much money they will put aside for those tax changes. With every £1 put into tax, they can invest £1 less in their business, which will stifle the growth of the company. This Labour Government talk about growth, but these measures will only kill it off. The impact is not just from inheritance tax: we have the family farm tax, the increase to employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage changes. Every single one of those will add a final nail in the coffins of many of our businesses.

[Rebecca Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the myriad Labour attacks on family businesses will have a huge impact on businesses like Vospers vehicle franchise in my constituency? Founded in 1946, it employs 600 people but faces a £1.4 million increase in national insurance contributions and a future business property relief levy on the next generation, in an industry that has seen a 20% reduction in sales in January alone, following the Government’s so-called growth Budget.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend speaks knowledgably and passionately about the business in her constituency, and she is right. A family business I spoke to said, “We are already working on small profit margins. We do not know how we will cope. The enormity of the changes will change the way we look at our business. What are we going to do? We might have to carve up the business or cut it down. We might end up selling up or we might look for foreign investment, whether we seek that out or they seek us out”. They say that their business will not survive and thrive, and there is no doubt that it will shrink or end.

Another essential point, which other hon. Members have mentioned, is that family businesses are the breeding ground of entrepreneurs. Family members will work of a weekend, be trained up and go into the family business. People talk about love and passion—all those things—but it is that entrepreneurial spirit that this Government will kill, along with jobs in local communities, because family businesses have a special place in the heart of communities.

This Chancellor said that the changes would only impact the wealthiest of businesses—have we not heard that before? The Government said that the farm tax would impact only the wealthiest of farms, that the removal of the winter fuel payment would impact only the wealthiest of pensioners, and that VAT on schools would impact only the wealthiest of people: that is utter nonsense. The Labour party is removed from reality, ideologically driven and blinded by jealousy.

Labour’s raid on family businesses, worth about £500 million by 2030—that is the Treasury’s forecast—will actually lose billions of pounds more. These tax changes are ideologically driven and the Chancellor is killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. There is a vacuum of business know-how and business knowledge among those on the Government Benches. What they are doing to our country is an utter disgrace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

1. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill on the cost of delivering public services.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions on public sector organisations.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

As we set out in the autumn statement, the Government have set aside funding to support the public sector with the additional cost of employer national insurance contributions. The amounts are £4.7 billion in 2025-26, £4.7 billion in 2026-27, £4.8 billion in 2027-28, £4.9 billion in 2028-29 and £5.1 billion in 2029-30. The Government plan to update Parliament on allocations by Department as soon as possible.

[James Murray]

The funding for the impact on public sector organisations includes funding for the devolved Governments, which is allocated through the Barnett formula in the usual way. It is the responsibility of the devolved Governments to manage devolved workforces. Might I say that if the bill is somewhat higher in Scotland, that may be due to the Scottish Government’s decisions about the size of the public sector?

[Rebecca Smith]

A major housing association serving not only Plympton, Plymstock and Ivybridge in my constituency but the rest of Plymouth and other parts of Devon and Cornwall will have to shoulder three quarters of a million pounds in increased national insurance contributions. That is money that could have been spent on new homes for some of the most vulnerable in my constituency. How will the Minister reassure my constituents patiently waiting for much-needed social housing when they realise that they will have to wait longer because of the Chancellor’s decisions?

[James Murray]

We recognise that the decision on national insurance contributions is a tough one, but we also recognise that it was necessary for the Chancellor to set out a Budget that included a record set of promises on home building. We are set to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, investing in social and affordable housing. That is what will benefit the hon. Member’s constituents who need a decent home.

Winter Fuel Payment

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Nearly 22,000 of my constituents will lose their winter fuel payments. Currently, only 1,500 will receive it. That is a massive cliff edge for those 22,000 residents. While many of them may feel that they do not require that payment, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members, the vast majority of those pensioners fall into low and middle-income brackets because things do not have such high financial value in the south-west.

As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) alluded to, many properties are off-grid. Members may not have realised that 24% of homes across the south-west do not have gas, which is a much cheaper source of energy. They resort to using oil and logs to heat their homes, with the enormous costs that go with them. That is an additional challenge.

Concerns have been raised about those who are single, those in receipt of the older basic state pension, which is not as high as the new state pension, and those with health conditions. The first resident to contact me was a 74-year-old single man, on an older-style pension, who was just outside the bracket for pension credit or any other form of benefit, who was deeply concerned about this winter.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about those with health conditions. Does she agree that there is no provision in the proposal for those living with dementia or long-term frailty? Those are not means-tested diseases or conditions, yet the Government have not made any provision or assessment of how those living with dementia will miss out.

[Rebecca Smith]

I agree. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about those vulnerable older people who live with dementia; many of our constituents will be in that situation.

Why are we not looking at alternative ways to deal with this cliff edge? A couple of years ago, the Conservative party proposed the council tax rebate scheme, which used the council tax system as a mechanism to ensure the most vulnerable received support. Single-person households, those where someone had dementia, or households in receipt of council tax credit because they did not have a particularly high income received a discount through the council tax rebate scheme. That system could be replicated with the winter fuel payment, which would offer an alternative way of avoiding that cliff edge for so many residents.

Finally, I know that health has already been mentioned, but I wish to use this as an opportunity to highlight the fact that so many more elderly people will need hospital care this winter, but that is massively impacted and at risk because the Government will not confirm which of the new hospital programmes are going forward. In particular, the emergency and urgent care centre in Plymouth will be vital to providing the healthcare that our older people will need if they are unable to heat their homes or to look after themselves, and to ensuring that they have all the support they need.