Commons Chamber

Tuesday 15th July 2025

(began 1 month, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will let the Front Benchers We come to the statement,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State for Defence. I wish to make a statement on a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to make a statement on a significant data protection breach significant data protection breach from February 2022 relating to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. This led to the High Court renting an unprecedented super injunction and the previous government establishing a secret Afghan resettlement route. Today I am announcing a change to the policy, I'm closing this resettlement route, disclosing data loss and confirming that the court order was lifted at 12 noon today.

Members of this House, including new, Mr Speaker, and myself, has been subject to that super injunction. It is unprecedented. To be clear, the court has always recognised the Parliamentary privilege of proceedings in this House, the ministers decided not to tell parliamentarians at an earlier stage about the data incident is the widespread publicity would increase the risk of the Taliban obtaining the dataset. But as parliamentarians, and as government ministers, it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House.

I'm grateful today to be able to disclose the details to Parliament. I trust you and members will bear with me if I take the time to ensure the House now has the fullest information possible, something I discussed with you yesterday. The facts are as follows, in February 2020 to, 10 months after the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, introduced the Afghan relocations assistance policy, six months after the fall of Kabul, a defence official emailed a case working file outside of authorised government systems.

ARAP is the resettlement scheme that this country established for Afghan citizens who worked, who worked for or with the UK Armed Forces over the combat years of Afghanistan. Both in opposition and in government, we have backed this scheme. I know ARAP has also had the full support from has also had the full support from across this House. This official mistakenly believed they were sending the names of 150 applicants. However, the spreadsheet in fact contained personal information associated to 18,714 Afghans who had associated to 18,714 Afghans who had applied either to the...

Or the ARAP scheme on or before 7 January 2022, it included names, contact details of applicants, and in some instances, information relating to family members. In some cases, names of members of Parliament, senior military officers and officials were noted as supporting the application. This was a serious departmental error. It was in clear breach of strict data protection protocols and it was one of many data losses relating to the scheme during this period. Previous government ministers first became aware of this data loss in mid August 2023.

18 months after the incident. It -- they became aware of the loss from personal details of nine individuals of the dataset appeared online. Action was taken to ensure they were swiftly removed and an investigation was conducted and the incident was reported to the Metropolitan Police and the Information Commissioner. The Metropolitan Police deemed no criminal investigation was necessary and the Information Commissioner has continued to work with the department throughout. However, journalists were almost immediately aware of the breach and the previous administration applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent Court for an injunction to prevent the data loss becoming public.

The judge deemed the risk warranted going further, on 1 September 2023, granted a super injunction which prevented the disclosure of the very existence of the injunction. That super injunction has been in place for nearly 2 years. During which time eight media organisations and journalists have been served to And no government wishes to withhold information from the public, parliamentarians or the press in this manner. In autumn 2023, previous ministers started work on establishing a new settlement scheme, specifically designed for people in this compromised dataset who were not eligible.

Not eligible but nevertheless judged to be at the highest risk of reprisals by the Taliban. It is known as the Afghan response route. It was covered by the super injunction. That then government initially established the AR to resettle a cohort of around AR to resettle a cohort of around 200 principles but in early 2024, a combination of the ministers decisions on the schemes policy design and the courts views had broadened this category to nearly 3000 principles.

I want to provide assurance to the house and the British public that all individuals relocated under the Afghan response route or the home offices scheme undergo strict national security checks before unable to enter our country. And the full number of Afghan arrivals under all schemes have been reported in the regular Home Office meaning they are already counted in the existing migration counted in the existing migration figures. I was initially briefed on the AR are by the Armed Forces Minister 2023.

And issued with a super injunction at the start of that meeting. Other members of the Cabinet have an evidence of the data breach, the operation and the existence of the super injunction on taking office after the general election. By this time, the AR RAS scheme was fully established and an operation. By this time it was nearly 2 1/2 years since the data loss. I felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and public.

I felt it only right to assess the decision- only right to assess the decision- making criteria. So we began straightaway to take a hard look at the policy complexities, the costs, the risks, the court hearings and the range of Afghan relocation schemes that the previous government was running. Cabinet colleagues endorsed the need for new insights into the scheme. In autumn last year while the scheme kept running, and in December, I announce the streamlining of the range of schemes that we inherited into the ad to set time-limited entitlements and support to get the Afghan families resettled, and I would like to thank, on behalf of the house, colleagues and local government, without whose unified program would simply not be possible.

At the beginning of this year, I commissioned a senior former civil service and extremity director of the chief of defence intelligence to conduct an independent review. This review was concluded and reported to ministers last month. Today, I am releasing a public version of the review and I am placing a copy of that in the library of the house. I am very grateful to him for his work. Despite brutal human rights abuses in Afghanistan, the review notes the passage of time, nearly 4 years since the fall of Kabul.

There is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to commit a campaign of retribution against former officials. Those who pose a challenge to the Taliban and our greater risk of a reaction from the regime. The wealth of data inherited from the former government by the Taliban would already enable them to target individuals if they wish to do so. Which means it is highly unlikely that merely being on the spreadsheet would be the piece of information enabling or prompting the Taliban to act.

However, Roma is clear. He stresses the uncertainty in any judgement and he does not rule out any risk. Yet he concludes, given this updated context that the current policy we inherited appears in extremely significant intervention to address the limited net additional risk, the incident likely presents. It is not the sole element in the government's decision to change policy. To change policy, to close the AR are, and to ensure that court order is lifted today. Policy concerns about proportionality, about public accountability, about cost, about fairness, were also important factors to the government.

And this was not a decision taken lightly. It follows a lengthy process including the Rimmer review, detailed Ministerial Code discussions, and repeated consultations with legal advisers. And just as I have changed government policy in light of the Rimmer review, so the High Court today, in light of the Rimmer review, ruled that there is no tenable basis for the continuation of the super injunction. To date, 900 AR principles are in Britain or in transit together with 3600 family members at a cost of around £400 million.

From today, there will be no new AR office of relocation to Britain. From today, the route is now closed. However, we will honour the 600 limitations already made to any named person still in Afghanistan and their immediate family. When this nation makes a promise, we should keep it. Today, I am also restoring full accountability for the government Afghan relocation scheme to Parliament. And I would expect our select committees to hold us to account to the in-depth enquiries.

Let me turn to the practical action that we have taken as a result of this policy change and in preparation for the lifting of the court super injunction. My first concern has been to notify as many as possible affected by the data incident and provide them with further advice. The MoD has done this this morning. Although I have to say to the house, it has not been possible to contact any individual due to its out of date information.

However, anyone who may be concerned can head to our new dedicated website where they will find more information about the data loss, further security advice, a self checker tool which will inform them with other applications in affected and looking at the services centre which the MoD has established. This serious data incident should never have happened. It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government but to all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today on behalf of the British government.

And I trust the shadow defence secretary, as a former defence minister, will join former defence minister, will join me in this. Today, to date, 36,000 Afghans have been accepted by Britain through the range of relocation schemes. Britain has honoured the duty we owed to those who worked and fought alongside our troops in Afghanistan. The British people have welcomed them to our country and in turn, this is their chance to rebuild their life, to contribute and to share in the prosperity of our great country.

However, none of these relocation schemes can carry on in perpetuity, nor were they conceived to do so. That is why we announced that we will no longer accept new applicants. However, I will reiterate that the commitment we made to process every outstanding application and relocate those who may prove eligible. And we will complete our commitment to continuing the review of the triples. I recognise my statement will prompt many questions. I would have wanted to settle these matters sooner because full accountability and freedom of press matters deeply and freedom of press matters deeply to me.

They are fundamental to our British way of life. However, lives may have been at stake, and I have spent a lot of time thinking about the decision, the safety and the lives of people I will never meet in a far-off land in which 457 of our service men and women lost their service men and women lost their lives. So this weighs heavily on me. And it is why no government could take such decisions likely without sound grounds and hard deliberations.

Just this last week, sorry, during this last year, we have conducted and now completed this work. this work.
12:57
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, both for his statement and for receipt of the review. And can I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of the Armed Forces for briefing me yesterday and for briefing other Parliamentary colleagues today. Furthermore, given the nature of the super injunction, and the fact the timing and nature of this statement relates entirely to the courts lifting of the super injunction, I also recognise that it was entirely right for the Secretary of State to update the house at the earliest opportunity and welcome the opportunity colleagues have to scrutinise these matters.

To declare an interest, I was a minister at the MoD in August 2023 when the Department first became aware of the breach. My main role being to chair one meeting on the matter in August 2023 because I was the duty minister, but thereafter, they are sitting outside my portfolio and I had relatively minimal involvement. That said, the Secretary of State has issued an apology on behalf of the government and I joined him in that, and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols.

And I agree it is right that an apology is given to those whose data was compromised. It is nevertheless a fact that cannot be ignored that when the speech came to light, the immediate priority of the government was to avoid a very specific and terrible scenario. Namely, an error by an official of the British state leading to torture or even murder of persons in the dataset at the hands of what remains a brutal Taliban regime. As the Rimmer review confirms, that scenario thankfully confirms, that scenario thankfully appears to have been avoided.

Of course, the Rimmer review was set up in January and reported to the secretary of state in June as we understand. I want to be clear that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State has sought to update the impact on the threat on the ground that exist today, particularly for those persons and the dataset who had been concluded to be at greater risk of appraisals. However, the house will appreciate that when we became aware of this data breach, we did not have the luxury of six months to assess the situation.

As Rimmer says, the review notes of the passage of time is particularly relevant. And I know that my former ministerial colleague who led the response will have been focused entirely on what he saw as his duty of care to those at risk of reprisals, based on the threat assessment ascertained at the time. But any threat picture is constantly evolving, and as I say, I support the secretary of state's decision to remove the understanding of the threat and given the later situation as reported, we support his conclusion that the Afghanistan conclusion that the Afghanistan Turning to the super injunction, I see why this would be a subject of interest to newspapers.

We have an independent judiciary and it is not for me to comment on the decision to grant the injunction in the first place nor to lift it today. But it is surely telling that the review, paragraph 56, states that planning at the time the government came aware of the breach in the summer of 2023 was based 'on a risk judgement that were the Taliban to secure access to the dataset, the consequences for affected individuals may be serious.', Had that not been the case, the court would have been less likely to grant the injunction, certainly not the super injunction.

And the Secretary of State confirmed the leak was by a civil servant and ministers at the time took steps to change the casework procedure by not using spreadsheets to send by email, but moving to a more secure system fully within the entirely secure network. Can he confirm that although the dataset was circa 18,000, only a relatively small portion of the dataset was identified as being at high risk of reprisals and only a small number have been sent, which is why the cost is around £400 million, not the figure of £7 billion been reported elsewhere? Can I agree with him that now that these matters are in the public domain, given the reassessment of threat in the review, it will be appropriate for the Select Committee and others

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to look into the matter is further? Can he comment on one specific

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can he comment on one specific item being reported, and not referring to the person that made that leap, but another apparent third-party who obtained some of the third-party who obtained some of the data was engaged in blackmail? Did the original Metropolitan police the original Metropolitan police This, if not, would he consider This, if not, would he consider reopening it so the Metropolitan Police can look at that very serious point? We must recognise the huge role played by Afghan nationals in role played by Afghan nationals in support of Armed Forces.

The policy in this area must be balanced against our own national interest. We support the government in closing
13:02
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
We support the government in closing the AR or scheme. As we did with their decision to -- close the full ARAP program. The way that he responded. Can I join him in apologising to those whose data was compromised. Can I welcome his acceptance that he put is entirely appropriate for the Defence Secretary now to look at the departments assessment of the threat. I'm pleased to support Rimmer's conclusions and party judgements we have announced today. Rimmer gives us a revised, up-to- date assessment of the risk.

In particular, the risk to those individuals whose data may be on that spreadsheet. He does confirm, highly unlikely, that the name on the dataset increases the risk of them being targeted. He asks me three or four specific questions. He asks about the official, the defence asks about the official, the defence official. I cannot account for the improvements in data handling that the previous ministers may have taken. But I can say, when I did his job in a period of opposition, that job in a period of opposition, that this data leak was just one of many from the Afghan schemes at the time.

What I can say is that since the election, in this last year, we, as a government, appointed in new chief information officer. We installed new software to securely share data. We have also completed a comprehensive review of the legacy Afghan data on the casework system. On the question of the £7 billion, which I think you may have picked up from court papers, this was a previous estimate. It is not related simply to the Afghan recovery route.

It is an estimate of the total cost of all government Afghan schemes for the entire period in which they may operate. And the significance of the decision that I have announced today means that that cost to the taxpayer as a result of policy decisions we have taken today, compared to simply continuing the policy schemes we inherited, means the taxpayer will pay 1.2 billion less over this period. It means that around nine 1/2 thousand fewer Afghans will come to this country.

And above all, it means we have restored proper accountability in this House and proper freedom of the media.
13:06
13:07
13:08
Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister of the Armed Forces for his briefing on this issue this morning. I'm pleased this House now has the opportunity to scrutinise this alarming data breach. Government to introduce a new scheme to minimise the risk to the Afghan soldiers and their families caught up in this breach of the 18,740 individuals in total. It's the least we owe them given the sacrifices they made to support our campaign in Afghanistan. I welcome the apologies from both sides of the House as a result of the data breach.

It does raise serious questions on how this was allowed to happen under the Conservatives watch and the heightened level of risk it has created for those Afghans involved. Can the Minister confirm what steps have been taken to address the root cause of the breach and ensure it cannot happen again? Reporting from the 'Financial Times' suggested that an original relocation scheme considered for all 25,000 Afghan personnel could cost up to 7 billion. What assessment has the Secretary of State's department made of the figure and why this was kept hidden from the public? The priority must be to ensure the safety of those individuals caught up in this breach.

What assurances can the Secretary of State provide that lifting of the super injunction now does not heighten dangers for individuals concerned? What steps is he taking to ensure that individuals whose data was leaked are aware of the incident? What support is provided to them now the case is in the public domain? And can the Secretary of State outline when the casework and final relocations under this and the ARAP scheme will be completed by?
13:10
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:30
13:31
13:32
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:41
13:42
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:04
14:04
14:04
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
I beg to move leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of online providers of fertility and certain ancillary services by the human fertilisation and embryology authority, and for connected purposes. Having a child is variously viewed as one of the most life changing, exhausting, expensive, thankless, frustrating, but ultimately magical and rewarding things we ever do in our lives. My own two sons sometimes drive me round the bend, but I literally love them more than anything in the world.

And for many people having a child requires a form of fertility treatment, in fact one in six couples in Britain is affected by infertility problems. Over 52,000 people access fertility treatment in 2023, that's the most recent year statistics are available. For perspective, that's up from 6,000 in 1991. In the past 25 years a proportion of children being born by IVF has doubled. The regulator for the fertility industry reports there are now enough children born by IVF for their to be one in every classroom around the UK.

And that's for a number of reasons. Since 1991 it's worth celebrating social attitudes towards women getting into and staying in work have progress even further. There are now 10% more women in employment than at that time, sometimes building a successful career can make it harder to build a family. One in 10 fertility treatments are undertaken by single women, an average age of that women slightly older at 36. And with a proportion of young adults in the UK identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual doubling in the last five years the government amended the law which regulates fertility access to the first and only time since 2008, to remove barriers for female same-sex couples.

That is what we are here to discuss today. Apart from that one change, regulation has remained static while industry and attitudes of lifestyles has raced ahead. The human fertility and embryology act is a piece of legislation that regulates fertility clinics, and that despite the landscape modernising and moving with the times that piece of legislation has remained largely unchanged since it was passed in 1990, 35 years ago. The failure of this regulatory regime to adequately oversee a uniquely high-stakes world of modern fertility treatment was thrown into sharp relief recently with the unexpected closure of a pretty fertility.

It acted as a hub which connected parents to the complex web of fertility services, effectively a digital concierge service linking women with partner clinics and offering partner advice and support. It didn't actually provide any of the medical services itself. But days before Christmas on 20 December as a clinic notified customers they would be ceasing all operations from 1 January. So while families across the country were opening their Christmas presents hundreds of customers were opening emails that would ruin their Christmas and leave them in limbo at a very crucial point in their fertility treatment, including women who were just about to start IVF injections.

Patients scrambled for confirmation from clinics while they continued with their treatment, even a months delay can massively affect the chance of a successful cycle. In many cases, having already spent every single penny that they had in the world in the pursuit of having a baby, some were told by insurers they would have to pay thousands more upfront in order to continue their treatment at all. Now we know IVF is a physically demanding out incredibly emotionally fraught process, IVF cycles are more likely to be unsuccessful than successful.

This company boasted an above- average success rate of 46%. So as IVF.net stated, for hundreds of couples this company's closure was more than a logistical hurdle, it was a devastating emotional blow. Even worse, families who signed up with the company were not offered the peace of mind that a regulator provides, because the company is not regulated it was an unlicensed online clinic. That means the health -- help and advice on offer could have been complete rubbish, could have been backed by no expert knowledge at all.

These online services are expanding in scope and number. The EH FA has one for sometime a range of activities marked as fertility treatment have taken place outside of regulated clinics in a variety of settings including wellness clinics. Recently, they say the fertility market has had to move online in settings outside the regulator regime. More people are accessing fertility market and fertility treatments than ever before. And particularly in this way. Though the EH FA can't put an exact number on this precisely because such services fall outside their regularly scope, with 73% of IVF cycles being funded privately it's likely to be a very large proportion.

So in recognition of this changing landscape and with patient trust and safety in mind, the regulator recommended in 2023 that the act should be revised to accommodate development in the way fertility services are provided. I know that health Ministers have met with the chair of the regulator to discuss updating the regime around fertility treatment, but this change will require legislation. I have no commitment that the government is pursuing such a law, but there is an urgent need to safeguard patients rights to their data, their eggs and sperm.

This is a classic case of regulation not keeping pace with modern life, it's criminal that organisations that are in the business of making dreams come true can just disappear along with people's money and their hopes of starting a family. The Chancellor has made it clear she is no fan of regulators, but in the field of medical treatment and specifically the process of IVF a strong regularly regime is absolutely vital to ensuring confidence and security. So I urge Ministers and members across the house to support my bill to bring in the recommendations of the HFEA and to support women and families at one of the most important stages of their lives.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Kruger. The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of bring in the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill? It will be Katie Lam, Liz Jarvis,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will be Katie Lam, Liz Jarvis, Aphra Brandreth, SA Ashley Fox, Joe Robertson, Stijn Jardine, Jim Shannon, Sarah Champion, Florence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Human Human fertilisation Human fertilisation and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

embryology regulation bill. Second Reading what day? 12th of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading what day? 12th of I now come to motion number two of business of the house, Minister to move? The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. We contrary, "No". The ayes have it. We now come to the first Opposition Day motion in the name of the leader of the opposition on welfare, I informed the House Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments and I call the shadow Secretary of State call the shadow Secretary of State Helen Whately to move.
14:13
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. All of us have two make difficult choices in life about what we can afford. For many here we are fortunate one of those choices will have been the number of children we have. We may wish that such an important decision should not be tainted by something as unromantic as money, that's the hard fact of the matter. Children are wonderful and I say that as the mum of three teenagers. But bringing them up is an expensive business. As conservatives, we believe in the importance of family, personal responsibility, fairness and living within our means.

For each of us as families and as a society. That's why today we are calling on all MPs here to affirm our commitment to a policy which reflects those principles. Let me take a step back for a moment and reflect on the situation we are in as a country. We have 28 million people in Britain now working to pay the wages and benefits and pensions of 28 millions others. Receiving more benefits in kind than they pay in taxes, to spell that out more people are naturally so is than contributors.

That's right now. And every day that passes spending on benefits is going up and up. Health and disability benefits alone are set to hit 100 billion by the end of the decade. That's more than we spend on defence, on education and policing. While it may seem kind to spend more on welfare, it's not. It's not kind those trapped in the welfare system and written off to a lifetime on benefits. And as we embark on a doom loop of uncontrolled spending, higher taxes, struggling businesses, entrepreneurial exodus, rising unemployment and more people out of work and on benefits, it's not kind to those who lose their jobs and income in that cycle of misery.

And if the moment comes that we can't afford even to provide welfare to those in desperate need, then it most heavenly won't be kind to them, the people the safety net is therefore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She talks about kindness, does she agree that with the children's Commissioner for England who said Commissioner for England who said children in England are now living in Dickensian levels of poverty, and in Dickensian levels of poverty, and a principal element of that is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two child, what does she see present in that? I don't agree with the honourable member and I will talk about poverty member and I will talk about poverty in a moment. If he will just hold on a moment he will hear my view on a moment he will hear my view on that point. This is a ticking timebomb. If we don't solve this problem, our economy will collapse. Yet opposite me six members of this Labour government who have just shown us with the welfare chaos of the last couple of weeks that they will not, indeed cannot, fix this.

In fact, they are just making it In fact, they are just making it If you cast your mind back to early If you cast your mind back to early 2020, the party opposite were in the middle of a leadership election. The middle of a leadership election. The now prime minister made a clear and unequivocal commitment to scrap unity of sanctions the two child limit and the benefits cap. Then when he secured the leadership of the Labour Party and the election, he changed that June.

He said Labour were not going to abolish the two child limit. He abolish the need to make tough decisions and not make unfunded spending commitments and we can agree. But saying he will take tough decisions is not the same as actually taking them. For example, Universal Credit and PIP. Now just called Universal Credit Bill, which they voted through last week. It was meant to say £5 billion. Then the first U-turn brought that down to £2 million. The next U-turn brought it down to, well, the Minister on the front bench at the time could not tell us but the consensus is that it will now cost the taxpayer around

**** Possible New Speaker ****

£100 million. My honourable friend is making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is making a powerful speech. Would she agree that as a result of that bill, one of the things that is most shocking of the things that is most shocking is that, in due course, it will actually pay more to be on welfare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than to work full-time on the minimum wage? My right honourable friend X very important point about the problem of important point about the problem of a welfare trap, when people find themselves in a situation that they themselves in a situation that they would be better off on benefits instead of working full-time on the minimum wage. I will make a little minimum wage. I will make a little progress and I will be happy to give way to the honourable Lady. As I was just saying, last week's welfare just saying, last week's welfare fiasco saw a bill that was meant to save money become a bill that costs money.

You also have had the fiasco money. You also have had the fiasco of the Winter Fuel Payments cut, when he saw tough talk rode back when he saw tough talk rode back from is in fact taking money from low income pensions is not the way to make savings. And now here we are to make savings. And now here we are debating the future of the two child limit. Which cabinet ministers limit. Which cabinet ministers encoding the prime list have indicated is the next tough choice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they are not going to make. She has been talking about tough choices. Does she agree with me that families that are in work make tough choices every single day but what they can afford and how they spend their money? Does she agree that those who receive benefits should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really have to make the same tough choices? My right honourable friend makes a very important point, and it is a very important point, and it is exactly that. Many families, whether exactly that. Many families, whether they are living on benefits or on work would like to have more children have to make difficult choices about what they can afford. choices about what they can afford. This is a point about fairness. I know many of the Honourable members opposite passionately believe that opposite passionately believe that the limit should go.

They will make arguments today about child poverty, arguments today about child poverty, as if they are the early ones who care about that. For the avoidance care about that. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not true. A difference of opinion is about what difference of opinion is about what to do about it. But the Prime to do about it. But the Prime Minister, we would love to know what he believes in, but by contrast we he believes in, but by contrast we know what we believe in, we know why we are here.

That is why we have brought forward this debate today on the two-child limit because somebody the two-child limit because somebody has to make the case for fiscal responsibility, or living within our means, for fairness, for making sure means, for fairness, for making sure work pays and for keeping the two work pays and for keeping the two child cap. I want to be clear, we all, including us on this side of the house wants children to have the best start in life possible. Let's also be clear about what the two child limit is.

I note that some members from other parties are confused. The two child limit, restricts the amount of additional Universal Credit that families receive for having children, to the first two children only some sensible exceptions like twins and nonconsensual conception. The cap does not apply to Child Benefit which is available to all families with incomes of up to £80,000 for every child regardless of the number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of children in a family. I am proud to be a member of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am proud to be a member of the party of Wilberforce and Disraeli who all understood it is essential who all understood it is essential to free people from the. The state can be a force for good. But in freeing people from need, we should not limit them for life of not limit them for life of dependency. It is entirely possible to believe that, whilst welfare can be a force for good, so can personal be a force for good, so can personal responsibility.

Responsibility means making the kind of choices that she set out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

set out. I could not put it better than he did and I thank him for the did and I thank him for the intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know bringing up children is we know bringing up children is expensive and important. When expensive and important. When working couples are having to make tough decisions about whether they can afford to start a family the first place, they should not be made first place, they should not be made to pay more in taxes to fund their neighbour to have 1/3, fourth, or fifth child.

If you are in a job, fifth child. If you are in a job, you don't get paid more just because you don't get paid more just because you have another child. If you're worried about people getting caught in a benefits trap, where it pays more to be on welfare than in work, how much worse would it be neither the two child benefit, nor the benefits cap? It means benefits increased by thousands, and the House of Commons has, that a family with five children would get more than £10,000 extra a year.

In a family with eight children would get more than £20,000 extra a year. That is more than the after-tax income of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

someone working full-time on the minimum wage. Does she seriously believe that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she seriously believe that any families out there anywhere in the country are going to take seriously the Conservative party seriously the Conservative party lecturing us on personal and fiscal responsibility, when this is the responsibility, when this is the party that not only brought the economy to its knees with the uncosted promises of Liz Truss's government, but also partied in the back garden of number 10 and the rest of us were under Covid

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restrictions? To She might remember when we came back into office in 2010 we had to bring down the deficit year after year to get the finances of the country under control. Giving children the best start in life is children the best start in life is not as simple as handing out more not as simple as handing out more money. It's about giving parents the community support they need as they encounter the challenges of bringing up a child, which is why we launched up a child, which is why we launched the family hubs.

It is about education. But schoolteachers around the country are being let go. It is the country are being let go. It is about growing up in a household with someone in work. But people around the country are being made redundant the country are being made redundant because of the Chancellor's jobs tax. I know I won't win over everyone here with the argument. For instance I don't expect to convince the four remaining Reform MPs. Their leader has said he would remove the two child limit.

Your member for Clacton believes that is the right thing to do Elysee is not finished yet on benefits giveaways. But asking the taxpayer for ever more in taxes to pay for their neighbours benefits is not the right thing to do. The country cannot afford this. Taxpayers cannot afford it. Future generations can't afford it. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, cabinet ministers have been unable to rule out more tax rises this autumn. Businesses, working people, pensioners, savers, homeowners, whose pocket is going to be picked next? Last week the OBR warned the U.K.'s finances are in a very vulnerable position.

Now more than ever we need the government to take the tough decisions but will they? I know Labour backbenchers are itching to vote to scrap the limit, where is the government on this? Would they take the position of the Prime Minister in 2020, 2024, or now? Will they have to abstain because they don't know? Soon we will see. Only the Conservatives understand the importance of personal responsibility, fairness, and living within our means. Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, the Green Party, Reform all voted for more welfare spending this time last week.

They do the same today or vote with us to back people getting up every morning going out to work doing the hard yards, making the hard choices and working hard to build our country?
14:25
Alison McGovern Portrait Alison McGovern MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Birkenhead, Labour)
-
-
The question is as on the Order Paper. I call the Minister. There we have it. As ever, all politics and no economics. When they come to this House, they don't talk about the people of this country but themselves. In March, we found out the truth of the Tory record on child poverty, which is highly relevant to their motion today. From 2010 until 2024, the number of poor children skyrocketed by nearly 1 million. 14 years in office and they left us 4.5 million of our children growing up without the ability to make ends meet.

This is what Tory governments do. Just like in the years from 1979 until 1997, when years from 1979 until 1997, when child poverty more than doubled. Leaving 4.2 million children in relative poverty for the party opposite can come to this House defending the failures of the last Tory government as many times as they like, as their motion does today. Every single time we will remind them of their record. I will give weight to the honourable gentleman if you apologises to the 4.5 million children in this country growing up in poverty.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister members opposite are in absolute denial of the states the country. With growth as the number one mission, what are they done? They brought growth to a shuddering halt, they have done what every Labour government does which is it Labour government does which is it increases unemployment. Who does that hurt the most? The porous. Who that hurt the most? The porous. Who does it hurt most from an age when to be? The young. 45% of the increase in Youth Unemployment increase in Youth Unemployment Committee start this country that the last Labour government left.

It was this side of the house that was this side of the house that outgrew Germany, outgrew France, outgrew Japan, and outgrew Italy over the 14 years we were in power.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She should be ashamed of her record even though it is only 12 months old. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I do thank your gentlemen for that lengthy intervention. I regret that lengthy intervention. I regret that he does not feel the need to look he does not feel the need to look his own record in the face. And more than anything to have something to say to the 4.5 million children in say to the 4.5 million children in this country without the means to make ends meet. I regret that very make ends meet. I regret that very deeply.

Emergency food parcels distributed by Trussell food banks distributed by Trussell food banks have increased by 164% over the last 10 years. And 1.1 million children living in households going to a foodbank in the last 12 months. In this country today we have more food banks than police stations was obviously proud of that record? I hope not. Nobody in this country should be begging for top no child should face the indignity of that, and the consequences are very serious. Over 80% of parents struggle to get basic support, like a GP appointment or to see a health visitor.

Schools are in an attendance crisis with one in five kids are missing one day a fortnight or more, and that is their record. The failures for children will echo down the years and will turn up in our nation's life expectancy, benefits will they say they care about, and worst of all, in the sense of hopelessness that far too many people in this country now have. Does the Conservative opposition have a response to their record? As we have heard, though they do not.

They apologised to families in the UK? As we have heard, no they do not. As a reflection of the record? As we have heard, no they do not. They bring a motion to this House to do none of the above but to agree the Tory party policy from 10 years ago. They are the same Conservative Party that created the mess that we are in now, and they have no regrets. Their motion talks of a benefits trap. And she repeated that. Madame Deputy Speaker, they are going to be awfully cross when they find out who spent £3 billion on the Universal Credit system they now say traps people into poverty.

They promised Universal Credit would get people into work. Instead it pushed people into incapacity benefits.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I gently say to her, her and her backbench colleagues do not have a monopoly on talking about poverty. monopoly on talking about poverty. Because if she really cared about poverty, she would not have allowed poverty, she would not have allowed the policy to be brought before this House last week before changing it that put 150,000 extra children into that put 150,000 extra children into poverty. She genuinely believed in poverty, why is she still standing poverty, why is she still standing at the despatch boxes the Minister she should have resigned for putting more children into poverty and her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposals? Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't believe for a moment that people in the Labour Party all you people that care about poverty in this country. care about poverty in this country. Former members of this House who were dispensed from their duty as a Conservative member of Parliament Conservative member of Parliament previous prime ministers. Others who have been in this House over different parties have cared about different parties have cared about this. I don't think it is just the this. I don't think it is just the Labour Party who cares.

I just think we should deal with facts in this place and I'm really repeating for place and I'm really repeating for the benefit of the House what the record of the Conservative government was on poverty. And I government was on poverty. And I would say to him, I'm going to cover the details of the child poverty Task Force in my speech. At any point, if he wishes to make the presentations to the task force of ministers dealing with child poverty in this country, I will happily receive his representations.

Let me Their motion speaks of the benefits culture. And I simply ask the party opposite this, who made that culture happen? Who was it that was in charge for the past decade and 1/2? Either the last Tory government was powerless to stop that culture being created, or they were responsible for it. So which is it? And I think until the party opposite can see the consequences of their own time in office, which they clearly cannot, and accept the damage they did, no one will hear a single word they say.

However, there are people in this country who do deserve a hearing. The children and young people who have experienced childhood under the last Tory government. And as has already been mentioned, by a member opposite, last week we heard from the children's Commissioner for England which I might point out she was appointed under the Conservatives, the children's Commissioner for England on her work capturing the opinions of children who have grown up in poverty thanks to the policies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

espoused by the members opposite. We heard that children think... She's making an important speech,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's making an important speech, many of us will agree with it on this side. My honourable friend will be aware of 59% of families with more than two children on Universal Credit are in work. That is far from the feckless parent caricature we have heard today from the have heard today from the Conservatives. Does she agree it's the children who should come first, the children who should come first, and because of that we should urgently scrap the two child limit as quickly as possible.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

as quickly as possible. I thank my honourable friend for that intervention. As he rightly that intervention. As he rightly points out, in the speech we've heard from the shadow Minister yet again we hear from a Tory party that again we hear from a Tory party that only wants to divide people, only wants to ignore the facts in favour of dividing people in this country, as they did for many years when in government. That is not what people government. That is not what people want.

People want this country to move forward together. I just want move forward together. I just want to mention a view of the contributions of the children's contributions of the children's Commissioner for England then I will give way further. We heard from the children's Commissioner for England children think free breakfast clubs and school meals for free are important, that's why we begun the rollout of free breakfast clubs and school meals in all schools. And lifting 100,000 people out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.

Young people told the Commissioner about how they absorb their parents money worries. One 16-year-old girl said, "I worry about money quite a lot, I see myself as quite approachable to my mum so she will tell me everything mum so she will tell me everything ". Children need to grow up without stress, so we introduced the fair repayment rate, the Universal Credit households so the debt to the government doesn't keep families poor, which will help 700,000

**** Possible New Speaker ****

households with children. I am mindful of two of her predecessors in Birkenhead, the predecessors in Birkenhead, the first Effie Smith a great Tory who talked about all of us must have talked about all of us must have prizes. Sometimes it feels in our modern Britain that more must have modern Britain that more must have state support. And the second, the late Frank Field, much regarded and late Frank Field, much regarded and revered in this House for his honesty on welfare.

She is right that successive governments have that successive governments have failed, but the truth is the relationship between the state and relationship between the state and individual has changed over time. We need a welfare system that focuses on those in the greatest need. She on those in the greatest need. She rejects that, requires bold welfare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform. Is she up for bold welfare reform or not? I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention and reminding for his intervention and reminding me of two of my predecessors. I can't claim to have known the can't claim to have known the former, but I did know Frank Field very well. Particularly with regards very well. Particularly with regards to Birkenhead, Frank and I talked many times about his belief in the many times about his belief in the value of work.

And he wanted to see our shipyard 's arrived, he wanted to see young people in Birkenhead grow up with a pride in employment. I like to think when the Prime Minister came to the shipyard recently to talk about the value of good work in Birkenhead, Frank would have felt very proud of that. All of the young people who spoke to the Commissioner could not have been clearer about the challenge of learning in overcrowded bedrooms. They were clear and direct about the shame of not always being able to keep clean from a lack of hot water.

I'm deeply proud we have committed funding to social housing to get children out of temporary accommodation, and expanded the warm homes discount for all those eligible on Universal Credit. And to make sure that the next generation of families experience a friendly face and have a place to play, we have expanded best start family hubs to every local authority. And as I responded earlier, these are just some of the changes being brought about because of the child poverty task.

Chaired by my right honourable friends for Leicester West and Houghton and Sunderland South. From the word go, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the family hubs, which I think are a great thing. The recent announcement, they have gone to announcement, they have gone to every local government. None have gone to South Yorkshire if I read the data correctly. Could you look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the data correctly. Could you look into this and see if we can get family hubs in South Yorkshire? I thank the honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, I will ask one of my fellow Ministers who looks after family hubs to work with him after family hubs to work with him on that suggestion he makes. From the word go, on taking office the the word go, on taking office the Prime Minister wasted no time in setting up the task. Ministers to setting up the task. Ministers to analyse the situation for our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children in poverty. From the get go if I recall correctly the Labour Party suspended seven members of its parliamentary group for voting to scrap the two child limit. Her colleague behind child limit. Her colleague behind her, the honourable member opposite, asked her very clearly whether she believes the two child cap should be believes the two child cap should be scrapped. She didn't answer, so perhaps now she will. Does she perhaps now she will. Does she believe the cap should be scrapped, yes or no?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will come to the two child limit in a moment in my speech, but I just want to correct him that the issue was members voting to amend the King's Speech. So from the word go, on taking office the Prime Minister wasted no time setting up the part -- task force of Ministers analysing the situation of children in poverty, and to identify the most cost-effective ways to help them experience better childhoods. Our child poverty strategy will be published later this year, but as I've said we've already taken steps we believe will help mitigate the worst effects of 14 Tory years.

And just yesterday the Chancellor announced the better futures fund, this is the world's largest social outcomes fund which will be backed by 500 million of government funding over 10 years to support vulnerable children, young people and their families. I have given way quite a lot, and I'm worried you are going to be quite cross with me if I keep giving way. I'm going to make progress. I did say I would give way to the honourable gentleman on the frontbench, then I can move on.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister is extraordinarily gracious. She has quite rightly talked about Universal Credit, what talked about Universal Credit, what she is saying is interesting indeed. I have constituents who are on I have constituents who are on legacy benefits who are migrating to Universal Credit. The trouble is Universal Credit. The trouble is that they have to wait some five weeks before they get their first cash. How to make ends meet? What cash. How to make ends meet? What about direct debits? How do they about direct debits? How do they make ends meet? I really worry about this.

With the wonderful group of Ministers looking at this perhaps they could look at that situation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because people have really caught the trap on this one. Thank you, I just say to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I just say to the honourable gentleman he is not the only person who worries about it. I will receive his intervention as a will receive his intervention as a submission to the task force. To submission to the task force. To come back to the child poverty task force itself, it's looking at all the levers across income, cost and the levers across income, cost and debt and local support we can pull to prevent poverty, including Social Security reform. Our Universal Security reform.

Our Universal Credit review is considering ways the system can improve in order to stabilise family finances, and stabilise family finances, and provide routes into good work. On the two child limit specifically, the consequences as I've said in my speech of the conservative choices made over the past decade and 1/2 are clear for all to see. We have said many times we will not commit to any policy without knowing how we are going to pay for it. Taxpayers in this country who include very many parents, grandparents and those who care deeply about the fortunes of the next generation have the right to know that they have a government that is going to help grow our country and our economy.

Poverty creates stony ground for that growth. It robs people of the dignity of being able to look after themselves, and it robs people of the choices about how to live their own lives. It robs children of what should be a worry free time, and makes them less able to take risks and try new things as they grow up. This makes bad beginnings for a country that needs its next- generation to be innovators, to be inventors, and to build our future.

And I say this is one of three in a family with hard-working parents where money was tight. We knew everyday in those years when I was growing up that the Tory government at the helm did not give a stuff about people like us. We knew that every single day. Families in this country who are struggling will know that this Labour government thinks about them every day, we have taken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

action to fight for these kids, we will fight for that every single day. I now come to the Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrat spokesperson. Children are 20% of our population in the United Kingdom,
14:42
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
population in the United Kingdom, but 100% of our future. And it is shocking that almost 1/3 of those children are growing up in poverty. That's why I'm delighted that as Liberal Democrats we believe that the two child limit should be lifted as well as the benefits cap. There are 4.5 million children who actually live in poverty in the United Kingdom, that's 1.5 million more virtually than the population of Wales, which is shocking in the 21st century.

44% of children live in a family where there is a disability. So that reflects our conversation we had around Universal Credit and PIP in recent weeks. 72%, the figure I've got it sounds slightly different from a colleague over the way, of a family where an individual are in work. It demonstrates people are in work yet children are in poverty. I reflect on a visit I made to a primary school in Paignton, where the Head Teacher said we have children who are coming into school who are cold, hungry and tired.

That visit was in the winter. So it's really shocking how this is impacting on children. I represent the most deprived constituency that has a Liberal Democrat MP. The fact of the matter is that children do not choose to be born into large families, so having a benefits system that punishes those children that do not have those options is perverse in the extreme. This has been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, whether it is rent that has skyrocketed or utility bills, those are all significant challenges that those youngsters have had.

I hear from the shadow Secretary of State who has said people have choices, but what if you are a couple and you choose to have three or four children. And everything is going well, then suddenly one of you is in an accident or one of you gets a significant disease that debilitate you, and your partner has to give up work to look after you and the rest of the family. That is not a choice, it's a sad circumstance for that family.

And we need as a society to make sure that safety net is there to support them. As Liberal Democrats, we have a manifesto commitment to lift the two child cap, and also to lift the benefits cap. And it isn't just as who believe this is the right way forward. The big four children's charities believe this is the best way, and most cost-effective way, to tackle child poverty. Also the Joseph Rowntree foundation, much loved organisation, they believe this is the best way to tackle child poverty.

So in conclusion, I would highlight that childhood is a very short period of our lives and therefore it's very sad that we have had that slippage of the children's poverty strategy. But I hope it will emerge in the autumn. I would like to reflect very briefly about when I was leader of Torbay Council, we turned around children services from failing to good within two years. Part of that was making sure we were using the whole of our orchestra of Torbay to support children.

I would say to the government that their biggest instrument is lifting the two child limit and lifting the benefits cap, because we desperately need to lift these children out of need to lift these children out of
14:46
Gill German Portrait Gill German MP (Clwyd North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Tackling the causes of child poverty is the reason why I came into this place. As a teacher, and then Cabinet member for education, I know only too well about the child poverty that has grown for over a decade. I can see it happening before my eyes. In Wales, much has already been put in place to mitigate the impact, and indeed in my own work. Long established free breakfast clubs, work to lower the cost of the school day, and universal free school meals in every primary school.

And there is also the incredible work that my local schools do. Family sports spaces, banks with winter coats and food banks, yes food banks in schools, to make sure that children go home to a proper meal. But the necessity of these in 21st-century Britain is a stain on our country. When I hear the party opposite talk about benefits culture, living people for their financial struggles, telling them to live within their means, I am frankly staggered. Because it is there in action and shoulder shrugging that has led us to where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we are today. I will give way. I wonder whether she will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder whether she will recognise that there are 800,000 fewer people in absolute poverty in fewer people in absolute poverty in the UK 2024 when we left power compared to 2010? 300,000 fewer compared to 2010? 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty. And 4 children in absolute poverty. And 4 million more people in work. Labour governments take us in the opposite direction and put people on the dole queue, make the whole country poorer and that is why this side of the House can be proud of its role in poverty reduction including four children.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

children. I thank the member opposite for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member opposite for his intervention. To be frank, I his intervention. To be frank, I don't recognise any of it. The Tories sat on their hands, and allowed low paid work to grow. allowed low paid work to grow. Access to work dwindled and welfare Access to work dwindled and welfare dependency deepened. And daily living, I have just given weight I will make progress, I came to this place because I did not want to mitigate the impact of child poverty any more.

I wanted to do something about it. With this Labour government, that is exactly what we are doing. By boosting the minimum wage, taking others on the pay scale up with it. By investing in getting people trapped outside the labour market into work, the surest route out of poverty for the long-term for them, and the generations that follow. By negotiating trade deals to bring food costs down, by expanding the Warm Homes Discount, so almost 1 million more families can afford to pay their bills.

And investing in our own clean energy to bring those bills down for good. By increasing the standard rate of Universal Credit above inflation, for the first time ever. And by establishing a fair payment rate for those who find themselves immediately in arrears to the point mentioned before. A recognised driver for foodbank use and an early action towards our manifesto promise to end mass foodbank dependent for good. This is what action looks like. Not indifference, not inertia, and not blaming those who are in need of support.

I know only too well that the drivers of child poverty are complex and multifaceted. But we must not shy away from this complexity, which is why I am proud one of the first actions of this government was to begin work on a child poverty strategy. Where, importantly, everything is on the table. To drive down poverty and drive up opportunity. I am just about to finish so if you would forgive me. I look forward to the findings of the Char poverty Task Force in the autumn.

More than that, I look forward to getting to work to make child poverty a thing of the past. So we can continue to act rather than blame. Like this motion does today. And put the child poverty into the dustbin of history where it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

belongs. We have two opposition debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have two opposition debate today, both heavily subscribed to in our starting ace be king limit of
14:52
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

four minutes. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate which at its heart is a debate which at its heart is a debate around fairness, and around what works rather than what sounds good. I believe that supporting families helping parents requires a balance system. But also ensures a sense of fairness to the taxpayer and the very many working families who do not see their incomes rise automatically they have more children. The previous benefit structure which adjusted automatically for family size is unfair to taxpayers who pay the benefits that being received.

Under the previous Labour government, one formally people spent years trapped in out of work benefits with 50,000 households allowed to claim benefits up to £500 a week for over £26,000 a year, higher than the average wage at that time. Taxpaying families often have to make tough decisions when choosing how many children do have, and many make the decision not to have more simply because they could not afford it. As others have pointed out, people may wish that is the case but it is.

We cannot ask those families making difficult decisions to pay the benefits of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

others not making those choices. My honourable friend makes an excellent point that it is about excellent point that it is about fairness was the it is about hard- working families who are trying to working families who are trying to take care of children watching some of the benefits having multiple children. It is about fairness and equity and welfare states

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dependency. I find it hard to believe that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I find it hard to believe that members opposite would allow and support the system where you can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the system where you can support them in having five, six, seven, eight, nine children paid for by someone else. I spoke earlier about Evan Smith

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I spoke earlier about Evan Smith who talked about prices and sharp who talked about prices and sharp swords. The sharp swords should make us braver to recognise there are us braver to recognise there are those absorbing welfare expenditure who should be spent on those needy people. That is what the government needs to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an ability to have difficult conversations at difficult points that puts members of the opposite side of the wrong side of opposite side of the wrong side of this issue and for taxpayers. I recognise some people are not able to make the same choice about the number of children their family has, for example children who are cared about or under kinship arrangements or adopted. There are many exceptions. The welfare system is already growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade.

Yet Labour, Reform and level Democrat or back higher welfare spending during scrapping to child benefit which will keep taxes high. The Resolution Foundation estimate The Resolution Foundation estimate scrapping the two Child Benefit, but this is really an appropriate time to put pressure on public finances?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The focus of the motion today is on the two Child Benefit limit. Yet on the two Child Benefit limit. Yet we heard not a single word for the Minister on it. It shows you how utterly listless and drifting the utterly listless and drifting the government is when it's Frontbench cannot tell the truth to this house cannot tell the truth to this house or to its Back Benches because the truth is the party opposite is riven in two and the Frontbench no longer has any power.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

has any power. As others have pointed out, they put forward reforms that were meant to save money but ended up costing money. This is get another attempt money. This is get another attempt to placate the backbenchers and the way we cannot afford. Our record in the last government is that we brought down absolutes child poverty brought down absolutes child poverty when we were in government. Members opposite having to quote the figures opposite having to quote the figures on relative poverty and take them at face value.

We quote the figures on absolute poverty and I don't want to absolute poverty and I don't want to hear it. I am clear that I care more hear it. I am clear that I care more about absolute poverty, how much someone actually has to spend on things they need than relative poverty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty. I thank, but for giving way does he also care about the poverty? The poverty went up to a point where four in 10 children in poverty under the were now in deep poverty for we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apologise for that? I think we need to look at the absolute figures and the differences absolute figures and the differences we can make those figures. And what we can make those figures. And what makes a difference to long-term poverty as employment. The perverse poverty as employment. The perverse decline implement we are seeing every day getting higher and higher under the policies. That is what is even more people into poverty. Your even more people into poverty. Your record on the economy and our employment was I want to finish my speech focusing on poverty is a speech focusing on poverty is a matter for governments.

There is a whole other side, an important site whole other side, an important site to child poverty in this country that people are too uncomfortable to talk about and that is the child talk about and that is the child maintenance and the absence of maintenance and the absence of single-parent families. 43% in single-parent families. 43% in single-parent families in the UK are living in poverty compared to 26% in couples families. We know poverty has many causes and there is no simple solution was there is clear evidence that when child maintenance is paid in full has a significant is paid in full has a significant impact in lifting children out of poverty was the research shows that it cuts the child poverty rate by 25%.

CMS report found 67% of parents 25%. CMS report found 67% of parents who care for a child had a child maintenance arrangement in place and so they did not receive the full amount. The amounts involved are significant. The end of September last year total curative arrears payments were formally expected so that 680 £200 million. They are due to meet £100 million by the end of the decade. The figures are based on what can be pitiful amounts that it is Noted that non-custodial parents have to pay either because they earn little or hide what they earn.

Figures don't include parents were not pursued for money by the custodial parent. Absent parents are denying children much higher amounts of money that we have any official figures. There is a deep unfairness to this was the custodial parents have chosen not to provide any resources to the child day care for and would face criminal sanctions for neglect was a non-custodial parent who does not give money, no such ramifications. I have no idea what we don't rate an expectation on the non-custodial payment to make the same efforts to find work and earn money as we do for out of work people benefits.

They're also creating a burden on the taxpayer. The Minister may know there is legislation to take steps to place nonpaying parents on detention and I would urge the government to look closely at that. People can't be bothered to go out and work and pay for their children and they don't live with them, they should not be allowed out on a Saturday night Street beers with their mates. That would help drive down the huge amount of money that is owed to children by parents.
14:59
Matt Rodda Portrait Matt Rodda MP (Reading Central, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in today's debate will stop I would like to speak in support of the policies outlined by my honourable Friend the Minister. I would like to discuss the crisis in the system, the situation in my own constituency of Reading Central, and some of the very important initiatives which are underway to get people back into work. Since the start, I think it is worth reviewing the scale of the crisis which the current current and government inherited after 14 years of the previous government being in power.

4.5 million children were living in poverty. 2.8 million people were on long-term sickness and disability benefits, and the cost of the sickness and disability benefits were up by £20 billion benefits were up by £20 billion since the pandemic. In addition, 1.8, sorry, one in eight young people were out of work due to long-term sickness. In short, the system that the government inherited this time last year was a system which was in crisis. And one which traps people in poverty.

In my own constituency, I have to say we are welcome to have a growing economy. We do have a town that attracts many new businesses. We grow our own businesses. However, that wealth is not spread evenly. Despite the impressive array of new buildings in the town centre, there is in stark contrast to the wealth of those businesses and some of the wonderful science parks on the edge of the town, in stark contrast between that wealth and the poverty which some of our residents living.

That is an issue to address. I believe the government has taken important steps I saw this also as a local councillor in Reading recently. This can include families struggling to get by in an area where the cost of living is particularly high, and where also the cost of housing is high and that's a crucial part of it. This is not just my opinion about creating more good jobs, that in itself is important and they need to be spread across the country, I believe the government is making real progress on that in terms of growing the economy.

Indeed, the UK economy has grown more in the first quarter of this year than any other comparable G7 economy. And that's in a difficult economic context around the world. Despite the need for economic growth there is also a need to improve access to those good jobs, that's one of the things I wanted to cover today. And indeed, to try to... I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will he agree with me that for too long disabled people in particular have been written off by the Conservatives, not given the Conservatives, not given opportunities to access work and good jobs, then indeed blamed by the Conservatives for some cheap headlines. Does he agree the headlines. Does he agree the transformation of job centres proposed by the Labour government and already underway in retraining and already underway in retraining dedicated work coaches will help people access those good jobs he talked about?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talked about? She is absolutely right, making an excellent point. I would like to move on, I would like to make some move on, I would like to make some progress. So I have discussed some of the challenges in my constituency, I think this is very constituency, I think this is very pertinent to the wider debate because even in areas where there is wider economic growth in parts of the UK we face real challenges the UK we face real challenges accessing some of that wealth.

What I hope we can see more of, and I I hope we can see more of, and I hope the Minister started to outline this in her speech and I hope she this in her speech and I hope she will say more later, the 17 initiatives to try to improve and encourage more people to return to work, building confidence, growing people's ability to access work, people's ability to access work, it's so important in my opinion. Many of my constituents unable to benefit from the great opportunities in my town are struggling with a series of challenges in their lives, not through their own lack of initiative, it's often because of pressures with childcare and many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other issues. I agree with the points the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the points the honourable gentleman is making on child poverty, in Northern Ireland it's grown between 35 and 40%. Many in Northern Ireland experience child poverty, in the last five years when poverty, in the last five years when never experiencing it before. When it comes to having this strategy, does he agree what we need is a strategy not just across Westminster strategy not just across Westminster but the whole of the United Kingdom addressed together.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

addressed together. The honourable gentleman is making a very important point. This has to be a strategy for the whole of the UK. I'm reflecting on the of the UK. I'm reflecting on the issues in my own community, where we are lucky to have a relatively high level of income and growth, but it level of income and growth, but it isn't spread evenly. What I would like to see is more detail from the Minister about the 17 exciting pilots, focused on offering this kind of support and help.

I would like to focus on some of the important first steps the government has made in this area. Some of these has made in this area. Some of these are policies that are not just within the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions but across government, I think it's important to see the context. As well as the biggest investment in employment support for many years, £3.5 billion invested in that important field, there's also the increase in the minimum wage to £12.21 per hour, measures to build more homes in this Parliament, vital to see that in my area.

One of the biggest challenges to families is the high cost of housing, so it's important we build homes posted by and went across the country, and that families can access that. It's also important families are supported in terms of childcare, that's a very important element helping particularly parents of young children to return to work. I'm delighted to see there will be a best start project in Reading. I know other initiatives provide similar support, free breakfast clubs are very important. I would like to see quicker rollout these programs.

I really am pressed for time. In conclusion, I think we see the wider context here, a very difficult inheritance for the current government. It will obviously take time to shift some of these persistent problems. The focus on helping people return to work is so important, I hope the secretary will say more about these important trailblazers. They seem extremely well designed. I thank the honourable gentleman.
15:06
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
The UK's benefit system is designed to act as a financial safety NAT. It exists so people in hardship, through no fault of their own, can be supported. Supporting families and helping people into work requires a balanced and fair system. It must revive meaningful support for those who need it most while maintaining a sense of fairness for taxpayers. That's why the Conservatives introduce the two child limit, and believe it should be retained. So people on benefits face the same choices as those in work.

The welfare system is already growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the decade. Does he acknowledge the words of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he acknowledge the words of Richard Hughes of the OBR, who said in the report last week that the UK in the report last week that the UK cannot afford the array of promises it has made to the public and debt is on a trajectory it cannot sustain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sustain. I am grateful to my honourable friend making a point, it's essential we put Britain's finances on a sustainable path. All benefits on a sustainable path. All benefits are funded by taxpayers or are funded by taxpayers or borrowing. Every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on taxpayers or the debt we place on future generations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future generations. My honourable friend is right about the cost, but he's also right about the cost, but he's also right to suggest they need to be directed to those in greatest need, to the most deserving. That's what we all want across this house. And sadly because of family breakdown, because of the fragmentation of communities, the state has stepped in to do what was once done in my early life by was once done in my early life by families, by individuals, by communities.

It's really important communities. It's really important this welfare reform is seen in that broader context and redirect the money to those with the greatest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need. And grateful to my right honourable friend making that point. honourable friend making that point. I know he like all Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, believe in personal responsibility, living within our means and fairness to the taxpayer. Many thousands of couples think every year about couples think every year about whether to have children. They make that choice on several factors, but that choice on several factors, but one of the most important ones is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to do that child as they would like to do so.

Under the previous system, pre- 2017, there was a fundamental element of unfairness in the system. element of unfairness in the system. A family in receipt of benefits saw those increase automatically every those increase automatically every time they had another child. That is not true for a family not in receipt not true for a family not in receipt of benefits. Why is it that someone on benefits should not have to make the same choices, and indeed the the same choices, and indeed the same sacrifices, as someone in work? Why should a taxpayer, who is unable Why should a taxpayer, who is unable to afford to have more children, why to afford to have more children, why should they subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not fourth or fifth child of someone not in work? The welfare bill in this country is increasing at an unsustainable rate.

Unemployment is now rising, thanks to the action of the government, and more people than ever are receiving disability benefits. This government seems completely powerless to do anything to reverse this trend. The Prime Minister says his welfare reforms now strike the right balance. But the truth is he was forced into a humiliating U-turn by his own backbenchers, and has had two totally got his plans. Scrapping the reforms means the welfare bill will make no savings at all. The total package will end up costing the taxpayer about an extra £100 million per year.

What a fiasco. The government sets out to save £4.5 million and end up spending more taxpayers money to buy off Labour rebels. Not a thought for the burden on the taxpayer. No thought of the extra debt they are incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on eight by our children. The fact that so many Labour members want to remove the two child cap is a testament to their own irresponsibility with which they treat their public finances.

Their solution is always to spend more money, preferably belonging to someone else. Now we have the spectacle of the leader of reform UK, the honourable member for Clacton, saying he also supports scrapping the two child benefit cap. That's despite being an unspoken supporter of it when it was introduced. I know that Reform supporters in my constituency are rather puzzled by his position, it suggests that he is guided not by any political principle but rather chasing votes in the red wall when he hopes to win seats from the Labour Party.

In my view, it confirms that he is wholly unserious about governing this country. There is only one party in this house that is serious about sound money, and that is the Conservative Party. We are the only party that is serious about stopping the creeping reliance on welfare, and that cares about seeing taxpayers keep more of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

money they earn. Thank you. We have seen today lots of colleagues taking interventions. From each other, across the sides of From each other, across the sides of this House. When I stand up to speak this House. When I stand up to speak I take interventions from another I take interventions from another source, from my mum. She will text me watching on TV, because she knows I will talk about my upbringing. She I will talk about my upbringing.

She knows I will talk about growing up
15:12
Tom Hayes Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
in poverty, caring for her and my father who was disabled, forced out of work because the NHS and social security system was nowhere to be seen when they needed it. I know that she will text, as she does always, to say I'm sorry I did my best. Because she doesn't always realise that poverty is systemic. It's about society and the structures we build. She internalises the shame and guilt, she feels she didn't do enough. I also fear she's going to ask me a further question, which is why some of those MPs are suggesting I'm a scrounger, that I'm a dependent person on the welfare system.

I don't think Members of Parliament intend to create that impression, but they should know the consequence of what they say is to perpetuate the shame and stigma of poverty, that is impossible to eradicate in one lifetime and its past from one generation to the next. It is why I stood for Parliament. It is why I am here to tackle child poverty, so the people of Bournemouth do not have to grow up with the same kind of childhood I had.

Living without very much, relying on the love of a mum and dad who sacrificed everything to get you where you need to be, when they should be able to depend on a wider social security system. I would ask members to reflect on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

language they use, because the outside world is watching. I wonder if he would agree with me that his mum and dad did a brilliant job bringing him up, that mums and dads in all sorts of mums and dads in all sorts of circumstances do their level best in bringing up their kids, and that they are proud as his parents no they are proud as his parents no doubt are of him. Of the job they have done and the contribution their have done and the contribution their children make.

And that your circumstances of birth do not define who you will become. I thank my friend for that intervention. I friend for that intervention. I always agree with her, and I always agree when she says I should agree with my mum. So I thank her for that. I agree that nobody's background should shape their future, actually we are here to create a better social security system, a better NHS, better public services, so children today can access support they need so they can access support they need so they can truly thrive.

So it deeply saddens truly thrive. So it deeply saddens me that my own constituency of Bournemouth East I have children growing up in poverty. 27% of growing up in poverty. 27% of children in my constituency are in children in my constituency are in relative poverty. 43% in the ward of Boscombe West, 46% in Springboard. That's unacceptable in 2025 in modern Britain. We should not be putting up with this. When I look out further than my constituency, a near record 2.8 million people are out of work due to long-term sickness.

300,000 people falling out of work every year because of their health, we know part of the reason is the underfunding of public services which leaves people on waiting lists. We know also that 4.5 million people, children, I in relative poverty after housing costs. Up 900,000 since 2010. We know the Tories presided over the worst Parliament ever recorded for recorded economic inactivity, rose by 800,000, 9.4 million people. We can hear from the opposite benches about the connection between work and welfare, but when they are presiding over such economic inactivity, such poor productivity, such sluggish growth, is it any wonder as a consequence we have people who are insignificant difficulty? Particularly when the certain social security and public services they rely on our cutback.

I was pleased to meet with the Minister last week to talk about my priorities which include trying to ensure play is not squeezed out of childhood and that we have a social security system to meet the needs in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my colleague for giving way. He talks about the issues outside of his constituency, he does not have to look far, only two not have to look far, only two Dorset West to see some of the inequalities. He will know from our inequalities. He will know from our beautiful part of the country that delivering services in rural Britain, and access to affordable Britain, and access to affordable healthcare is difficult and it makes it more important that we support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our community. He invites me to champion his work but I think I won't do that but work but I think I won't do that but I will acknowledge the hard work and commitment that he is put in and I'm pleased. The Child Poverty Taskforce pleased. The Child Poverty Taskforce will be critical. The report it will be critical. The report it brings forward based on the feedback brings forward based on the feedback to this house, and all of the civil society organisations will be so important.

I'm glad we are spending important. I'm glad we are spending time to get this right. It will be a once in a generational opportunity to tackle the causes of child poverty. I'm pleased that although poverty. I'm pleased that although we have launched the Task Force, the government is cracking on with the hard work. Just this week we saw the announcement of the better futures announcement of the better futures fund, £500 million from this government match by £500 from the government and the private sector.

The £1 billion fund will make a huge difference. Free school meals for all children with families in Universal Credit. It will make a significant impact on my constituents. I think we should talk more about this. A revamped Sure Start. We are bringing a revamped Sure Start with the money being given to it in all of our local authority areas we will be able to spot some of the hardships, physical and mental health issues that arise from poverty, to be able to tackle those root causes and tackle the symptoms.

To be able to give children a chance to grow, to play, to learn from each other to develop peer support. For the parents who have been starved of support from the Conservatives and to be able to get what they need. So we have a long way to go to reverse the decline caused by the Conservatives. The long way to go to lift as many kids out of poverty as possible. Together I believe across this House we have the solutions, and I hope we can take forward this debate in the right way can lift those kids out of poverty.
15:18
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. We must have a fair welfare system. A system that provides vital support to those who need it but does not create a barrier to finding work. We need a financially sustainable system that delivers fairness for the taxpayer and does not entrench dependency. The government Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill, or shortens now to the Universal Credit Bill, barely saved any money. We heard from the shadow Secretary of State that it will cost more money.

It will make no impact in helping people back to work. This highlights the complete failure in the government's ability to reform our welfare system. The welfare bill continues to rise, and economic growth is being strangled as a result. With thousands signing on to incapacity benefit every day, it is clear we must get serious and take control of welfare spending. We cannot become a welfare state with an economy attached. I will always stand up for those in my constituency who need vital support.

The two child limit is an important safeguard in our welfare system. It strikes a balance between support for families and helping parents into work, and ensuring fairness for working families who do not see their incomes grow as the families grow. Working families across the country are having to make difficult decisions on the size of their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families. Would be on board member except

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would be on board member except that even with his emphasis on parental financial response military, the two-child benefit cap punishes the entirely innocent party, the children who had no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

party, the children who had no choice in their existence. Isn't that the be unjust? I'm sympathetic to the point what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sympathetic to the point what I will get onto is how unjust it is to expect other families to pay for it. And to get onto that fiscal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stability and security needs the country. But I thank the honourable lady for the intervention. Does my friend agree it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does my friend agree it is actually about growth in the economy? It is about low tax and the welfare state being able to be there as a safety net, not as a path to dependency, in which the economy dependency, in which the economy that we have stifled and lacks any growth? And it is about children whose parents were card given the same privileges and same fairness as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anyone who is on welfare benefits. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for the intervention. I agree. It is important we get people into work today can look after their families and make the right decisions. Shifting the financial response put your children onto the state only risks entrenching inequality but risks opening the floodgates to unsustainable dependency, encouraging parents to have children beyond their means, under the assumption the state will bear the cost. It is neither equitable nor responsible for the state to incentivise larger families with the benefits system.

This is especially true as the cost of our welfare bill, and the burdens to the taxpayer continues to rise. The fiscal reality must not be ignored. Projections from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that removing the cap would create an additional £1 billion annual cost to public finances. As we grapple with considerable economic pressures, such a policy shift is simply not affordable. Removing the cap would force the government to raise taxes further, or even more money when borrowing is already out of control.

Or divert public funding away from other stretched public services. This government has lost control of the public finances, and working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families cannot afford to take the hit. I thank member for giving way. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank member for giving way. He mentions the raising of taxes. Does he accept that there are many ways to raise taxes and one of them is to to raise taxes and one of them is to look at large corporations?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look at large corporations? I accept the points that there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I accept the points that there are many ways to raise taxes. But my constituents and businesses in my constituency are paying far too much tax as it is. We cannot continue to squeeze corporations, squeeze businesses and squeeze hard-working people further to achieve your judgement aims. The government has lost control of public finances, and lost control of public finances, and working families cannot afford to take another hit. I recognise the take another hit. I recognise the sensitivity to this debate.

It is crucial that we support those in genuine need and we must work towards ending child poverty. However the state simply cannot afford to subsidise unlimited family expansion on the banks of working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. The speaking limit has been reduced to three minutes.
15:23
Deirdre Costigan Portrait Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

reduced to three minutes. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I visited a foodbank in Southall on many occasions and spoke to the blue volunteers. The people who find it hard to speak to me of those collecting food. Being poor, unable to feed the family is not something they want to shout about. You can see the distress on their faces was not those mums and dads have not decided to live in poverty for many of them have jobs but they cannot make ends meet.

The casualties of 14 years of Conservative government, of public services that were cut to the bone left people without the vital safety net when things go wrong. The jobs market left workers on bargain basement in terms of low terms and conditions and low-wage jobs. And it pushed people into relying on sickness benefits.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend. Does she agree with me that because of the problems we should all welcome the uplift to the basic rate welcome the uplift to the basic rate of Universal Credit that will lift

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the income of 6.5 million families? I welcome that point. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome that point. The Conservatives put 1 million more children into poverty. With 800,000 children into poverty. With 800,000 children are living on food banks and relying on them to eat. The motion today, they have the barefaced cheek to blame those families, as if parents choose to let their kids go hungry. The only let their kids go hungry. The only people to blame for this are Liz Truss's Conservative Party who gambled with the country's finances. The pine the sky promises the new The pine the sky promises the new that they could not afford and how the economy crashed down overnight.

Families in my constituency are suffering the consequences with 40,000 of them having to go to the 40,000 of them having to go to the foodbank this year. Under this Labour government we want to make food banks the exception and not the norm. That is why Labour has opened new breakfast clubs in Southall, expanded nurseries, extended free expanded nurseries, extended free school meals, and also for those on Universal Credit, and reduced energy bills by £150 over half a million Londoners. We know we need to change the whole busted system that puts people into poverty in the first place.

That is why Labour is ending the low pay bargain basement jobs of the low pay bargain basement jobs of the Torreira. Our employment rights bill will end zero hours contracts, with families no longer wondering from week to week if they can get enough hours to afford food. We are stopping fire and rehire, extending sick pay to low income workers, we raised the minimum wage for 3 million working families. Our next step is to address the injustices faced by those working in the gig economy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to honourable Friend for giving way to stop she is talking about other areas of public pussy which affect welfare. The pussy which affect welfare. The other side of the coin that 2.8 million people out of work due to million people out of work due to long-term sickness. The state of our NHS, and the fact that waiting lists are coming down month after month

**** Possible New Speaker ****

after month and this Labour government will also help people get back into work who are currently on benefits? I have severe agree with my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have severe agree with my honourable Friend. We are making huge progress on reducing those huge progress on reducing those waiting lists. We are also fixing the broken welfare system that the Conservative left behind. We are increasing the basic rate of Universal Credit, to help those families who rely on it. So it starts to become enough to live on and they don't have to use food and they don't have to use food banks. We have changed the rules so banks.

We have changed the rules so you are no longer that of sickness benefits. That is how the Conservatives left the welfare Conservatives left the welfare system, but we are the Labour Party we believe in good jobs as the best route out of poverty. And we have put over £1 billion into helping put over £1 billion into helping people find those good jobs. What does the party opposite have to say for itself? No apology to the almost for itself? No apology to the almost 1 million children they pushed into poverty.

They left them reliant on poverty. They left them reliant on food banks. No apology to the almost 3 million people on long-term sick living on benefits and many wanted to work. And no apology to the tens of thousands of families struggling to get by on bargain basement jobs. They created the problem, and as their motion shows today, they have no plan to fix it. All they can do is blame the very families their policies have forced into poverty. It is clear.

Only this Labour government is serious about getting Britain working. Ensuring those who can't work in a decent living income and ending reliant on food banks for good.
15:28
15:29
Luke Murphy Portrait Luke Murphy MP (Basingstoke, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the opposition for bringing forward this debate, as it enables us to discuss the most critical issues facing our nation, top poverty. Every child growing up in poverty represent a future diminished opportunity denied, and potential unfulfilled. And every child deserves the very best start in life. So they can earn and achieve and go on to live the best life that they deserve. That is why tackling child poverty is now firmly back in the top of this governments agenda.

For 14 years previous government presided over a shameful legacy that directly led to this crisis. As others have said, they left us with 4.5 million children in relative poverty including 3000 and own constituency of Basingstoke. Since 2010, child poverty increased by a staggering 900,000 children. Instead of trying to tackle this, the Conservatives decided to abolish the target to eradicate child poverty in 2015. Their motion and the rhetoric alludes to the idea that government should Make Work Pay, when they were government there were sore the first Parliament on record with living standards lower at its end than at the start.

And some within the Conservative ranks have shown a shocking disregard for this issue. They have talked of personal responsibility. But their position on this appears to be lecturing others on it rather than lecturing others on it rather than They would come to this house and explain why it by 9000 children. Was it a matter of policy design or policy failure, was it indeed the fault of the children themselves!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would he agree with me that people who live in disadvantaged or poor areas will have overcrowded and poor areas will have overcrowded and poor quality rented accommodation poor quality rented accommodation that they live in. This away to be commended of tackling child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commended of tackling child poverty?$$NEWLINE Particularly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty?$$NEWLINE Particularly and socially housing, there is a massive investment in the social massive investment in the social housing programme. It to this housing programme. It to this government to full to the mass that the government left behind, committed to driving down poverty committed to driving down poverty and driving up opportunity at every part of our country. Delivering the change that the country desperately change that the country desperately needs. And we have already made a considerable downpayment on the comprehensive strategy on child comprehensive strategy on child poverty that is due later this year.

Providing free school meals for all children in households on Universal Credit which so many of my colleagues on these benches campaign for for many months and years. Delivering free breakfast clubs in schools, reforming Universal Credit deductions with the new fair deductions with the new fair repayment rate as outlined earlier. Hundreds of pounds back in the pockets of 7000 of poorest families. Increasing the standard allowance of Universal Credit. And then looking ahead, our plan to get Britain working involves the biggest investment in employment support in a generation, including an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament for work, health and skill support through a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pathway to work offer. Thank you to the gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the gentleman for giving way and he has rightly highlighted the terrible record of the previous government and the the previous government and the number of children who went into poverty, including 250,000 extra children going into poverty as a children going into poverty as a result of the introduction, so would he add to the list of things that my government is looking to do in terms of scrapping the Child Benefit, and of scrapping the Child Benefit, and would he bring figures in supporting the introduction of a wealth tax for the introduction of a wealth tax for the superrich so that we can fund support to tackle inequality and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the most vulnerable. I thank the member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for his intervention. I won't get ahead of our Chancellor in terms of what our Chancellor in terms of what announcements will be made in terms of taxation later this year, and I am confident that the Frontbench no that they have our full support in delivering the final recommendations of the child poverty task force later this year. This government later this year. This government will never allow young people to be written off as the Tories did for years, so I welcome again that the Conservatives brought this bait, giving us a chance to discuss child poverty and their record on welfare, both of which are shocking.

I just lament the fact that they failed to have recognised the scale of their failure today. But I am pleased that this government is getting on with the job of getting people back to work and ensuring social security as their for those who need it and tackling the moral stain on our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society that is child poverty. I find it deeply shameful that we must see our constituents suffering under the cruelty of the two childbirth. It punishes children for the circumstances of their birth and the circumstances of their birth and it has no place in a civilised society. Outside the walls of the society. Outside the walls of the Treasury building, I received testimonies from the families that must live with the reality of the must live with the reality of the two Child Benefit.

53% of children in my constituency live in poverty.
15:35
Ayoub Khan Portrait Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)
-
-
in my constituency live in poverty. That is more than 3000 impacted by this. These are not just a to 6. They are lives and icon silly receive heartbreaking testimonies from families. Let me tell you what that means in real life. It means a mother skipping meals so her children can eat. It means children sharing beds because the heating bill must come second of food. It means school uniform being bought two sizes too big because they need to last years and at a time when food prices are soaring with energy bills and spiralling out of control rent, council tax is rising.

This government has actively chosen to make life harder for struggling families was no child's future, no child's health, no child's dignity should depend on how many siblings they have, yet under this labour of ministration, that is exactly the situation. It is not just an economic failure, it is a moral one. Working families, more than 50% are working and they rely on some benefits. Those doing everything asked of them are being abandoned in their hour of need, and it is happening under Labour's watch.

The IFS has stated outright that ending poverty wouldn't just relieve families but when ease the pressure on food banks, schools, charities, organisations that have been forced to pick up the slack where the government has abdicated responsibility. Yet despite all of this human suffering, this Labour government refuses to act, time and time again, they have shown where their priorities lie. Protecting billionaires, large corporations from paying their fair share while children go to bed cold and hungry. The government says they are The government says they are committed to solving the issue but they continue to fail the British public at every turn.

At current projections, this government is on track to be the only Labour administration in living memory to oversee an increase in child poverty rates. It would be a shameful legacy to leave behind and the deepest betrayal of our future generations, so I urge the government and the ministers, change your stance, stand on the side of British families and end the two child limit. We face a child poverty emergency and it is up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to us to respond. Thank you. In the Black Country,
15:38
Antonia Bance Portrait Antonia Bance MP (Tipton and Wednesbury, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. In the Black Country, we work hard. We are proud. We don't lack for personal responsibility. But forces bigger than any But forces bigger than any individual, deindustrialisation and the cruel 14 years of austerity mean that good folk unless, our second, have fewer chances and fewer choices than people elsewhere. Standing here every day in this place, the kids living behind the doors that I knocked on during the general election and every week sense live in my heart.

Because one in two of them, one into in my ends grew up in poverty. Every second family, every second door, every second kid. In the 12 most deprived borough in the country. Our share of the 4.5 million kids growing up in poverty in this national emergency. Now, I want to thank the churches, the mosques, the community organisations mosques, the community organisations in my ends serving dignity, love and solidarity alongside food parcels, warm clothes and hot food, but I will say this.

When the state walked away from us, took money from our councils, cut the Social Security that we have paid for, watched as good jobs in heavy industry fled and nothing replace them, we picked ourselves up. We helped one another. We kept the wolf from the door but now, community, self defence is exhausted. So I say to those children, at long last, the cavalry children, at long last, the cavalry is coming. In this rich country, no one will go without the basics, and every child will matter again.

Just look at the start that we have made. Building council homes, banning zero hour contracts and this autumn, you will see the scale of our ambition will see the scale of our ambition in the child poverty strategy. The down payments we have already made, free school meals for every family on Universal Credit. Free breakfast clubs including John Bosco primary school in West Bromwich my constituency, family homes in every town, every single town. Fixing local government finance so it takes account of deprivation and places

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like mine. I think my honourable friend for giving way and she is making incredible speech about the incredible speech about the resilience of her community and the action that this government is action that this government is taking. Constituents like mine are being lectured on personal responsibility, but she share my astonishment that, despite the astonishment that, despite the opportunity to take some responsibility themselves for a mini budget that crashed our economy for 3 million people out of work for a welfare system out of control, we are hearing no apology or personal responsibility from the party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite. The memo for Southampton will be unsurprised to hear that I am awaiting the apology that is coming for the points that he has made and for the 900,000 more children in poverty under the last government. poverty under the last government. As I say, that is a downpayment on the child poverty strategy to come, and I know that I don't need to urge and I know that I don't need to urge ambition to my friends on the frontbench who carry the children who didn't eat last night in their who didn't eat last night in their hearts every day.

And know that whether or not you have dinner this evening should not depend on how many siblings you have. There is no need to listen to the benches opposite who pushed up child poverty by 900,000. Come, walk around Friar Park or Princes and and meet those kids and tell them why someone's choices far away here in London mean they have no T2 night. It is time they apologised to the children of this country, and there is no point listening to the bandwagon Johnnies, the absent reform.

If they could be people on low wages, they wouldn't have voted against increasing statutory sick pay, banning zero hours contract or increasing the National Minimum Wage. As always, it is Labour who stands for working- class families.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Poverty robs children of their future. It limits their life chances, it impacts their long-term chances, it impacts their long-term health, it reduces their ability to
15:42
Caroline Voaden Portrait Caroline Voaden MP (South Devon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
health, it reduces their ability to participate in the bits of childhood that widen their experience that build resilience and teach new skills. We may live in a beautiful part of the world but the children in South Devon who go to school hungry, who live in unsuitable accommodation, whose parents are working to all three low-paid jobs just to make ends meet, they are the children whose lives have already been limited by the situation they are growing up in. Emma Hopkins from the mother's manifesto group in Totnes told me they had heard from others who are regularly skipping meals so they could feed their children, living on the corrupted anxiety.

The mental health impact of this is enormous. One mum of two filling up on tea was worried her eldest child just didn't believe her when she said she had eaten. This isn't some thing we should hear in 2025. It sounds like something from a Dickens novel, but over 5300 children in South Devon were living in poverty and 23, facing daily challenges no child should have to endure. If the government lifted the limit today, families across my constituency and everywhere else would feel the difference immediately and surely, if we want to reduce the welfare bill in the long-term, then giving children the best chance to grow up healthy with the best opportunities they have to go on to have meaningful work, we have to lift them out of poverty now.

4 1/2 million children across the UK are living in poverty, and the limit is one of the biggest drivers of rising poverty amongst children. Alongside this, the benefit disproportionately harm some of the most vulnerable in our society, single parents, disabled households and family struggling with housing costs are penalised regardless of their actual needs. And in an area where the nation out of income cost is one of the highest in the country, families in South Devon are particularly hard-hit.

This is not just unfair, it is a failed policy that is causing real harm to children and their families. The Lib Dems believe these arbitrary limits must be removed. We would replace them with an evidence led approach to social security, one that recognises the complexity of family life and the genuine needs of children. Investing in children is not only right, it makes economic sense. Supporting families now reduces future strain on social services and the justice system. It strengthens community, saves public money.

The government must end the limit and the benefit. It is the most effective way to raise thousands of children out of poverty and we are with you our children to do better.
15:45
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Pessimism is understandable when brutality is overpowering and just over a year ago, the British public tried to shake off that pessimism and emerge from the brutal reality of life in Britain after 14 years of relentless cuts that upon apart the social safety net of our country. It is little wonder why people felt so The motion before us today is the continuation of austerity. And 2010, 30,000 people needed an emergency food parcel but now that figure is over 3 million and rising.

Nearly 80% of people that are relying on food banks are in work. And while the very richest received taxbreaks and enjoyed seeing their wealth row at eye watering rate, we saw the creation of a new strata of society. That called the in work poor. It is telling that the politics of the country -- of the politics in this country, that we have so many people relying on the generosity of others to survive. That is pure political failure. Morally, it's just not right.

Having a child is a blessing. Not a blessing everyone receives. The two-child cap is an inherently cruel policy that punishes the least advantage. The idea that 1/3 and fourth child are worthless in the first two is beyond we could. -- a third and fourth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government has not set out its policy on the set. If they decide to scrap the two-child limit...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limit... I thank him. The government should lift it immediately. Of should lift it immediately. Of course we should. It was wrong of the government to make it part of the King's Speech. The wording in the King's Speech. The wording in the motion. Benefits culture is a the motion. Benefits culture is a term that is both lazy and classes. Not to mention ignorant, either wilfully or not from the Conservatives as to the struggles millions in this country experience.

I would expect that from some in the Conservative party. I agree that the Conservative party. I agree that the welfare system is broken. It does need changed but the changes it need changed but the changes it needs are not to be found in this motion this or by what the government put forward to the house government put forward to the house only last week. Like thousands of fellow members, I don't expect that from the Labour Party. Last week's from the Labour Party. Last week's vote was a stain on a great party that should be defending and fighting for the people that this motion seeks to belittle.

I want to say before I finish that improving living standards should be the priority of this government and every government. We are not doing nearly enough, not yet. We are a year into government and people do not need MPs creating a living standards course in group. What people really need... -- living standards coalition group. I urge the government to resist going down the road of putting -- putting all people -- pitting people against each other.
15:49
Danny Kruger Portrait Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
-
This brings us to the frontbench spokesman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much indeed. It's been a very good debate. I'm grateful to all Honourable members who have contributed on all sides. who have contributed on all sides. To steer -- still no clearer to us what the government intends to do about the two-child cap. It's been about the two-child cap. It's been great to hear strong voices on both great to hear strong voices on both sides of the House. We don't know what the prime minister himself what the prime minister himself thinks.

In order to win the general election, he campaigned to keep the two-child limit in now under two-child limit in now under pressure from his backbenchers, and I pay tribute to the real powers in I pay tribute to the real powers in the Labour Party, he is sending his going to scrap it after all. At a cost of £3.5 billion. Add to that cost of £3.5 billion. Add to that the 4.5 billion they have to find the 4.5 billion they have to find because they have abandoned their welfare reforms.

In the 1.3 billion they lost on the U-turn in Winter Fuel Payments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to clear up some of what the Minister believes in. Expanding the Minister believes in. Expanding school meals. Expanding family hubs, something the previous government never funded. Rolling out free access clubs and primary schools. Limiting expensive school uniforms Limiting expensive school uniforms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

23 and the items. -- to three. And intervention should not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his speech read out in speed. They are incapable of cutting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are incapable of cutting spending. We know where this is headed. Tax rises in the autumn. Tax headed. Tax rises in the autumn. Tax rises we are going to have unwell. Wealth is the product of economic success. It's what happens when success. It's what happens when people risk their capital and make decisions that people. Wealth makes more jobs commit makes more tax more jobs commit makes more tax revenues, it means we can reduce debt and invest in more businesses and wealth taxes, which are going to and wealth taxes, which are going to and wealth taxes, which are going to be coming, will lead us to that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happy to give way. I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. According to the latest giving way. According to the latest data, over 11,800 children in my constituency are living in poverty. This is not abstract. It's not inevitable, it's a direct result of policy choices by the previous government and the maintenance of that policy under the current government. One parent shared, and I government. One parent shared, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quote an ellipse -- and I quote... I will come in a moment to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will come in a moment to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will come in a moment to the issue of child poverty. The Lib Dems issue of child poverty. The Lib Dems who can't seem to see spending opportunity without grabbing it with both hands and the honourable member, there spokesman, he spent member, there spokesman, he spent £4.5 billion just on his speech. And of course the SNP who have presided of course the SNP who have presided over higher economic inactivity and missed all of their targets for child poverty, and they still child poverty, and they still clamour for more money for welfare.

clamour for more money for welfare. And, of course, the Reform party, sadly absent. I agree with them on sadly absent. I agree with them on lots of things. But there is a problem. There is a problem. The problem. There is a problem. The problem is this. They would spend money like drunken sailors and I am money like drunken sailors and I am worried. There going to end up in an electoral pact with the Liberal electoral pact with the Liberal Democrats. I joint ticket to welfare Democrats.

I joint ticket to welfare spending. -- A joint ticket. Others have cited widening poverty rates. 4.5 million children was repeatedly raised. They are talking about relative poverty. The fact is that relative poverty increased under the last government because of role the economy grew. More people became more prosperous. As the median income rises, more people come hundred. That's how it works. Is relatively -- if relative poverty goes down, it is because they have shrunk the economy.

Relative poverty is not a real measure. What we need to look at Israel poverty, absolute poverty. Because we rescued the public finances and grew the economy. -- What we need to look at Israel poverty. That fell between Israel poverty. That fell between 2010 and 2024. We had more people in were, a higher employment rate, fewer workless households. We should thank Honourable members from the opposition for that. Happy to give opposition for that. Happy to give In 2023, he said that the narrative the public has firmly adopted that over 13 years things have got worse is when we have to acknowledge and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

admit? Of course, many things did get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, many things did get worse over the last decade and 1/2. As much as a consequence of the As much as a consequence of the global economy about them. We spent years fixing the deficit they left years fixing the deficit they left us. I just want to quickly cite another important fact, talking another important fact, talking about the previous government's record. In 1997, youth unemployment stood at 650,000. By the time and stood at 650,000.

By the time and Brown had finished, it was up a Brown had finished, it was up a third. When we left office, we had almost halved it. That is the almost halved it. That is the Conservative record. I will conclude shortly. To those who want to lift the cap across the house. You are the cap across the house. You are asking taxpayers who themselves have asking taxpayers who themselves have had to take agonising decisions on whether they can afford to have another child, given the taxes that they pay, to fund benefits for people who receive more from the system.

Happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes the point about the state funding children. Does he accept that 1 million families have children of three or more who receive child benefit presently and receive child benefit presently and receive child benefit presently and if he accepts that point, does he not accept the principle that not accept the principle that actually those children come first? What is the difference between Child Benefit and Universal Credit? Does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Benefit and Universal Credit? Does he want to cap Child Benefit at two children? Child Benefit is paid to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Child Benefit is paid to everybody. It's universal entitlement. What we need to ensure entitlement. What we need to ensure is that we are not creating added is that we are not creating added incentives in the system to live a life on benefits. I fully recognise the point of the Honourable gentleman makes. Let me proceed. gentleman makes. Let me proceed. When I say that some people receive more from the system then they pay, I'm not trying to stigmatise those I'm not trying to stigmatise those people.

That is not the case. I'm not stigmatising people who receive more on benefits than they pay in more on benefits than they pay in tax. Indeed, I agree with points made by some members that we should be thinking more about social structures and fiscal transfers. I do say that when it comes to fiscal policy, there is a limit. Reciprocity matters. When talking about money, it is right that people living on benefits for something of the same realities as people who pay for themselves.

We still have too many families trapped in welfare. What we need is more families and larger families supporting themselves through well paid work. We need a tax system, like that in Europe, America come across the world, which recognises families. We made an important step with the income changes. We have to have good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities. He talks about trade-offs in public finances, growth and child public finances, growth and child poverty. In 2015 -16 there was zero poverty. In 2015 -16 there was zero progress on poverty. Does he not think the central trade-off was between a Tory government and a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thriving country? The story of the last 14 years is easily told. And 2010, there is a easily told. And 2010, there is a budget deficit. We had almost fiscal bankruptcy. We spent years restoring bankruptcy. We spent years restoring public finances. At great cost. We created a balanced budget and then created a balanced budget and then the pandemic it. And welfare, we had a proud record of producing -- reducing unemployment. This reducing unemployment. This government has failed to conclude.

His review should not wait until His review should not wait until autumn. We need proper plans to fix the welfare system, not just decrease spending. I urge the house to support the motion that we have laid. Every member who doesn't, is voting for welfare dependency and national bankruptcy. Although the national bankruptcy. Although the Conservatives have a plan to fix it. Conservatives have a plan to fix it.
16:00
Andrew Western Portrait Andrew Western MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Before turning to some of the politics of this debate demands, can I begin by thanking all Honourable members who have taken part in this important debate today? I am appalled by the level of child I am appalled by the level of child There's been an increase in child poverty since 2010 with 1.1 million children using food banks to eat. I want to particularly thank my honourable friend from Reading Central.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure he wants to give a balanced overview, and of course, we all wish to see fewer people in relative poverty, notwithstanding his support last week for a measure his support last week for a measure that would have put it up by 1/4 of a million, but does he recognise the number of children in poverty number of children in poverty dropped by 300,000 between 2010 and 24, just to have a record of the balanced manner?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I was accepted at the party opposite, because of their shameful record made a fundamental change to record made a fundamental change to the way that poverty is assessed. We have returned to the internationally recognised comparator that exposes their shameful record. We will not their shameful record. We will not run away from that. It is on much that we will be judged and it is on that that they absolutely must be judged also. Turning again to thank judged also.

Turning again to thank you colleagues on the side of the house who spoke on this side of the house who spoke on this side of the debate about the work of this government that we have already seen on child poverty and of the shameful on child poverty and of the shameful record of the party opposite, members from Ealing Southall, Basingstoke, Reading Central, and Basingstoke, Reading Central, and the member for Grangemouth, he and I may not agree on the process that is being followed by the government to tackle child poverty wherever we see it, but I do not doubt his commitment and support for doing so.

I particularly want to take the opportunity to thank my honourable friend friend Bournemouth East for a personal testimony of his own upbringing about the stigma of poverty and the shame that many parents feel in requiring extra support. Like him, I grew up in modest circumstances for a period in a single-parent household, we were dependent on tax credits, child tax credits, the maintenance allowance, and I am not going to allow the privately educated spokesperson to talk about the plight of struggling families up and down this country, not caring at all about the part that they played in putting many of those families into crisis.

But I think what is low is that, in 2016, the record on child poverty is cheap and low, and the honourable gentleman can continue to talk to a position, so let me come to the shadow Secretary of State. Like many of the contributions to the party opposite, the shadow Secretary of State was in total denial of the Conservative trial and the enormous spiralling scene since 2020, but children in poverty and they come here with this motion today.

No recognition of the fact that almost 60% of families affected by the two child limit are in work. No understanding of the lack of parity in their motion. It does not specify that this relates only to Universal Credit or child tax credit this is children should not receive any additional funding, so whatever DLA for children? This is not the policy of the Frontbench. They talked about personal and fiscal responsibility. Quite unbelievable, from the part of the crash the economy.

Let the welfare bill spiral. They take no responsibility for their actions at all they seek to lecture others on how they should live their lives. The shadow secretary of state talked about giving families broader support such as family hubs. How many centres closed under the previous government in their first 10 years alone? 1300 sure start centres closed. Only the Conservatives understand living

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. In Wales, we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the United Kingdom and some of the the United Kingdom and some of the highest across Europe. Why is that? Why is poverty so stubbornly high in Why is poverty so stubbornly high in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why is poverty so stubbornly high in We will look at this in the round, and when we come forward with our child poverty strategy, will be looking to lift children in Wales, looking to lift children in Wales, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in England out of poverty because that is a moral mission for because that is a moral mission for this government. And we have already started. We have all ready started started. We have all ready started that important work. Free breakfast clubs, free school meals for families on Universal Credit.

The families on Universal Credit. The proposed changes to the honourable proposed changes to the honourable gentleman and the child may service, direct pay, created by the party opposite that were left 20,000 children out of polity. But I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cover, on that point. I was deeply moved by the Minister's commitment to reducing poverty. Can he explain why he supported the government's proposal of the impact assessments to increase poverty with Universal Credit the last week?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman will be aware that there was £1 billion worth of support alongside those measures, but the impact of which measures, but the impact of which are yet to be stored by the budget responsibility. But we are serious responsibility. But we are serious about getting people back to work as a route to tackle poverty, as well as providing an important safety net as providing an important safety net for those who need it. In terms of the other contributions that we the other contributions that we heard, the honourable gentleman for Bridgwater asked why should others subsidise third, fourth or fifth trial? And I would just say gently to the party opposite that it is never the child's fault.

1/3 child has the same right to thrive as the first two and all three children suffer as a result. A hungry child suffer as a result. A hungry child is a hungry child whatever their is a hungry child whatever their is a hungry child whatever their background. The honourable gentleman tempted me to speculate about tempted me to speculate about decisions around taxation. He was just as way above my pay grade and I hope you will be patient enough to wait for the next fiscal event to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get an answer to his question. Point of order.
16:08
16:09
Andrew Western Portrait Andrew Western MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
-
-
child poverty task force. But will come forward in the autumn. But just to finish with the opposition spokesperson for East Wiltshire about controlling welfare spend because yet again, we heard that the four years post COVID were not an appropriate time to tackle the spiralling welfare bill that they created, but just what the party opposite get through in that time? Three Prime Minister's, for long years, five ministers for health and work, six Secretary of State for education, and the welfare bill continued to spiral.

Certainly not the best way to tackle child poverty. So, this party inherited the party opposites disastrous levels of child poverty, and a broken Social Security system that failed to command people's trust. We have started the urgent work to fix these problems, to drive down child poverty as the last Labour government did. In partnership with devolved Administrations, charities, local authorities and others who built a fairer, more sustainable Social Security system that helps people build better lives by giving people the right incentives and support.

We will do that important work because tackling child poverty is a moral mission for this government, and we will oppose this motion today because all levers are under active consideration as we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seek to do so. Before I put the question, can I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I put the question, can I just remind the Minister that, like the shadow minister, he should not the shadow minister, he should not be referring to members by their name in the chamber, but by their constituency. The question is is on
16:11
16:26
16:26
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
the speaker -- I informed the House that the speaker has not selected any amendment. Mel Stride to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper. This is the government of broken promises. This is who said during the last This is who said during the last general election that they would do nothing on taxation, and yet they came straight in and placed £25 billion worth of taxation on businesses up and down our country. We know the consequence of that. Had We know the consequence of that. Had killed growth nearly stone dead. It killed growth nearly stone dead.

It has cost around to have thousand pounds for the average working pounds for the average working family up and down the country -- family up and down the country -- 3,500 pounds. Pull Johnson has been 3,500 pounds. Pull Johnson has been on the airways describing it not on the airways describing it not just as a breach of the Labour Party manifesto but a blatant breach of manifesto but a blatant breach of the Labour Party manifesto. And we had the then Defra shadow secretary had the then Defra shadow secretary reassuring farmers.

Reassuring the president of the NFU saying that when it came to inheritance tax, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour government. How wrong they were. There Winter Fuel Payment tobacco -- debacle. They reassured the country they would not be means testing the Winter Fuel Payment. And before somebody jumps up inside it only excluded billionaires. I did not. Some 80% of those pensioners living below the poverty line were delayed denied payments and had to go through a long and cruel winter -- were denied payments.

When it came to council tax, we know that in Opposition, the party opposite said they would freeze council tax. Yet we have seen in the Spending Review some £7 billion increase in council tax levied across this Parliament, according to the IFA's, the largest increase in council tax in a generation. -- ISS. -- IFS. Do they not think that working people pay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

council tax? I'm grateful to the shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the shadow Does he believe that a toolmaker is a working person?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a working person? He is right. We need to stand up for everybody, even our toolmakers. for everybody, even our toolmakers. Let's be frank. We have had to come forward with this motion today, which seeks to do nothing other than reaffirm the commitments that this reaffirm the commitments that this party opposite has already made. And why? Because of the litany of broken why? Because of the litany of broken promises I have just shared with the house. I will certainly give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the shadow chancellor agree that following the welfare U-turns, public finances are today in a far worse state than they were a year worse state than they were a year ago when the government came to ago when the government came to office? But there is a crucial difference which is a year ago, this side of the house were taking difficult decisions to bring taxes down and to grow the economy, because they are failing to take those decisions. There is only one way taxes can go and that is up.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable and gallant friend is absolutely right. Under his stewardship, things were so much better. He rightly points out that better. He rightly points out that the government has resigned from any attempt to control the welfare bill. attempt to control the welfare bill. Attacks commitment of £5 billion cost of that plus the U-turn on cost of that plus the U-turn on Winter Fuel Payments. Over 6 million unfunded commitments that this government is responsible for. Unfunded commitments they said they would never see themselves making.

would never see themselves making. would never see themselves making. He is right to say that he left the highest growth for our economy in the G7. We had near-record levels of the G7. We had near-record levels of employment, we had no records of unemployment. Inflation had been unemployment. Inflation had been brought down for over 11% due to the brought down for over 11% due to the Ukraine were. To bang .2% on the day of the general election. Where is of the general election.

Where is inflation now? I will give way to the Honourable gentleman then I will the Honourable gentleman then I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Don't you think that the British people needed to get rid of you and that is why they did?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is why they did? I'm not sure they were seeking to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get rid of me. I think that was a gross impertinence. He also referred to you as an absolute shower. Which is totally unreasonable. I have a ways totally unreasonable. I have a ways been a great admirer of yours, as you know, and always will be. But you know, and always will be. But look, we have a government that is look, we have a government that is also grossly incompetent. As soon as they came into office, what did they they came into office, what did they do? They talked down the economy and it is no surprise that we have the it is no surprise that we have the British Chamber of Commerce saying the number one concern of its members are high taxes.

It's no surprise that the ICA EW shows surprise that the ICA EW shows business confidence down. But for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the fourth survey in a row. Amidst his right exposition on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amidst his right exposition on the subject, does he have not a bit more pity for the ministers on the frontbench opposite because after last week, it is quite clear that they are no longer responsible for the running of this government. His been handed to the hard left you have no interest in balancing the books. It is absolutely out of control.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is always confusing whether to address the frontbench of the backbenchers because they are never quite in the same place. But the big quite in the same place. But the big mistake that the government made was to talk down the economy by going on about this black hole of £22 about this black hole of £22 billion. Something that the OBR has billion. Something that the OBR has already debunked, and they should already stop using that number. They already stop using that number.

They are the ones who created a black hole of some £6 billion as I have just set out. They should focus not on the black hole that they have invented but the black hole that invented but the black hole that they have created, and it is that black hole that is creating the black hole that is creating the speculation across the summer as to what will happen now in the autumn. what will happen now in the autumn. Damaging competence and damaging businesses up and down the country, and I give way to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gentleman. Does he not accept that, regardless of the actual size of the regardless of the actual size of the black hole left by the previous government, it is a significantly government, it is a significantly larger number than that which he is talking about in respect of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

welfare bill? I'm not sure I fully understand the point that the gentleman was the point that the gentleman was making but he did seem to accept that there is a real black hole when it comes to this government of at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it comes to this government of at least £6 billion, and I will give way to the right honourable gentleman. Does my right honourable friend find it extraordinary that the government made a big play of putting the OBR on a pedestal because they didn't like the news, they now want to dismiss it and water it down?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

water it down? Well yes, exactly. They will look to any floating branch to cling onto to any floating branch to cling onto in order to try and look a little in order to try and look a little bit better than they truly are, but when it has also come to spending, when it has also come to spending, we have seen a government that has indulged in spending like it was the 1970s. The result of this has been 1970s. The result of this has been to push up inflation.

That has led to interest rates being higher and for longer than a have otherwise for longer than a have otherwise have been, and it is all very well the members opposite to trumpet the fact that there have been four interest rates cut since they came interest rates cut since they came to office. The reality is, if they have not lost control of inflation, there would have been more and a to become more quickly. The headroom that they have against fiscal targets is wafer thin.

This is the usual labour way. Spending on spending and spending until they run out of other people's money. I give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to the honourable lady. I think the shadow chancellor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the shadow chancellor forgiving way. He was talking about interest rate rises, and I wonder if he wonders whether we should be taking lectures from his party about taking lectures from his party about a Shadow Cabinet who served in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government of Liz Truss. I think it would be sensible for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it would be sensible for the right honourable lady to look at her own frontbench and asked the her own frontbench and asked the question why is it that he takes these appalling businesses, and the these appalling businesses, and the answer is that hardly any of them has any experience of setting up has any experience of setting up company unlike on the side of the house, whether it be myself or the shadow Home Secretary or the business secretary and others who actually understand the real world of business.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

of business. Gentleman makes a good point. Is he surprised by the Federation of Small Businesses that has come out Small Businesses that has come out and said more small businesses will contract and will grow since 2008, since records began. Is he is worried about what signal that takes those small business owners who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trying to grow for our economy? The reality is that if you tax something, you tend to get less of something, you tend to get less of it, and this government has tax business and is not surprising that the economy has been damaged as a the economy has been damaged as a consequence. But enough and fair question asked of us on this side of question asked of us on this side of the house is what would we do, and let me answer this directly now.

We would have taken very different would have taken very different choices. We would not have loaded up taxation on businesses and stifled taxation on businesses and stifled growth in the way the party opposite has. We would have focused on productivity. We wouldn't have come productivity. We wouldn't have come into office and given junior doctors 22% with no strings attached 22% with no strings attached whatsoever. We were told by the Health Secretary during the run-up to the general election that we have to get around the table and settle and the problem would go away.

The junior doctors are back for more. And of course, we would have tackled And of course, we would have tackled the welfare bill, as we did when we the welfare bill, as we did when we were in office. £5 million worth of savings are stored by the office for budget responsibility, and 450,000 fewer people going onto long-term sickness benefits as a direct consequence of our policies. And we had a clear plan to go into government and save £12 billion a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I thank the shadow chancellor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the shadow chancellor forgiving way. While he is engaging in such fascinating what about a route from the despatch boxes, I wonder if he would take this opportunity to say which the tax increases and the last Parliament he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increases and the last Parliament he regrets or would undo ?$$NEWLINE

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regrets or would undo ?$$NEWLINE I think it is about the new government, and there was the small matter of COVID which came along and shrank the UK economy by 10% shrank the UK economy by 10% overnight. And people speculated overnight. And people speculated that we would see mass unemployment, and through our intervention, we and through our intervention, we made sure that that did not happen. Likewise, when the Ukraine Russia wall brought through inflation to wall brought through inflation to our shores at the back end of 2022, we took the tough decisions along with the Bank of England to bring with the Bank of England to bring that inflation down, and in the meantime, we protected many families meantime, we protected many families across the country for the consequences of that inflation, and that came with a £400 million pricetag.

So it is not surprising that some taxes had to rise in order to pay for that. to pay for that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Isn't the danger that if you don't actually have a prudent don't actually have a prudent financial decision, you end up in the decision we are now seeing from the government where the interest on the government where the interest on government debt goes up and up and we are now paying around 10 billion-a-year more than we would be at the general elections.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the general elections. My friend is absolutely right. If you look at the increasing government debt to which this government debt to which this government is constantly adding, and you look at the higher interest rates for the longer that they are responsible for because of their extravagant spending, we are spending about £100 million a year spending about £100 million a year simply servicing that debt. That is twice what we spend on defence. It twice what we spend on defence.

It is not sustainable and things will get worse on this government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get worse on this government. I wonder if he might elaborate on the national day in 2010 that the the national day in 2010 that the previous government inherited versus what we inherited last year. what we inherited last year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We left with a deficit 10.1%. Clearly we had to get on top of the deficit. It is a fact of economic life that the debt increases. But by the time of COVID, the time of COVID, we had largely settled that deficit, and for the reasons that I gave a moment ago, of course we added to the debt and the deficit at that point because we had to intervene to stabilise the economy, but it was the inheritance we received in 2010 that was the star of that debt climbing, and the honourable gentleman should acquaint himself with the economic history.

So, what is the approach that this government can take in the autumn? It will not be saved by growth. That is for the birds. The OBR, the IMF, they have all downgraded growth. The ONS has announced the second month in a row in which we have had an economic contraction. So, how else might the Chancellor make the numbers add up? Despite ministers insisting that their commitment to the fiscal rules remains nonnegotiable, there are reports of potential changes to the broader fiscal framework, including the early use of the flexibility of a no .5% of GDP for the current budget target which would allow 12 to 13 billion of extra borrowing, but that would be a breach of fate.

There are similar reports that ministers might move to just one OBR forecaster year to avoid an embarrassing emergency budget like we saw in March. But that would completely abandon the commitment not to sideline the OBR. So when the Minister comes to the despatch boxes, can he reconfirm that the government's commitment to the fiscal rules applies to the fiscal framework as well and that we will continue to have two OBR forecasts per year? The government should be looking for not more borrowing but to be reining in spending, but the welfare debacle shows that they are utterly incapable of doing that.

So, that just leaves taxes. The motion today simply asks the ministers to confirm the commitment made by the Chancellor not to extend the freeze on tax thresholds, the Chancellor said in her budget speech that such a move would hurt working people. She said it would take money for their payslips. While the right honourable gentleman, when he comes to the despatch boxes, confirmed that he too holds that position? And when he comes to the despatch boxes, will he rule out wealth taxes? We have already seen tens of thousands of people leaving our country, high net worth individuals, who I know socialists may say good riddance to them because they are wealthy, the reality is that the Adam Smith Institute calculates that the top tax foregone as a consequence of their departure is equal to the tax paid by about half a million people on average earnings.

And the party opposite has no plan to stem this exodus of talent and wealth creation. But whatever decisions are taken, in the autumn, they will be bad ones, and they may even, as nervous markets look on, prove disastrous. It may be that this government takes us to a dark place. It is hoped not, but if history is any guide to the future, the lights are surely flashing red, and the British people, those hard-working men and women, the businesses, the Entre nos, the farmers toiling all hours, the charities, hospices, our veterans, those who embody the best of all that our country can be, surely they deserve answers about the promises made to them and about whether their pay packets, their pensions and their savings are safe, and surely they deserve better than this wretched, rotten and defunct

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour government. The question is is on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is is on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is is on the order Thank you. Can I congratulate the Shadow Transfer on another theatrical performance? One that I know we all enjoyed across the know we all enjoyed across the House. I remember fondly the Shadow Chancellor's previous attempt to try Chancellor's previous attempt to try to weave the story of Alice in Wonderland through his previous interventions. The only conclusion I interventions. The only conclusion I can draw today is that he has not quite found his way through the rabbit hole just yet.

He made a rabbit hole just yet. He made a number of points in his speech this morning, this afternoon where he morning, this afternoon where he seemed to rewrite history. It was seemed to rewrite history. It was all the fault of Russia invading all the fault of Russia invading Ukraine, no mention of Liz Truss. If everything was so hunky-dory under the Conservatives, why did they the Conservatives, why did they suffer such a loss? We had hope in that moment when he said " I will
16:47
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
tell the House what I would do tell the House what I would do differently". " I will focus on differently". " I will focus on differently". " I will focus on productivity." Not one apology, not one suggestion. Not one thing. In contrast, this government was elected with a historic landslide on elected with a historic landslide on a mandate of change. The members a mandate of change. The members opposite question our historic landslide.

They should check how many seats we have on this side of many seats we have on this side of the house and how many seats they have. I would encourage them to remember that the aim of the game is remember that the aim of the game is to get members in this house. It was a historic landslide of the Labour Party at the last election elected Party at the last election elected on the promise of change. Putting pounds in the pockets of working pounds in the pockets of working people and delivering for the renewal of Britain.

At the budget last year, we fixed the foundations, last year, we fixed the foundations, stabilising public finances after 14 years of conservative waste. I know the members opposite don't want to hear it. Every time a member of the Opposition gets up to speak it's as if they've forgotten about the £22 billion black hole they left in the public finances. Rather than act to fix it, they left it for us to clear up the mess. This Labour government will never repeat mistakes of the will never repeat mistakes of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He said the name of the game is to get the maximum number of seats. Can I gently suggest to him that is Can I gently suggest to him that is not the name of the game. The name of the game is to serve the British people. Honour... Look at him, he people. Honour... Look at him, he thinks that is amusing. And honour the promises you made to them. His the promises you made to them. His majority came with a series of promises which one by one have been broken.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

broken. I roll my eyes because evidently all of my Honourable friends on this side of the house put themselves side of the house put themselves forward and stood to serve the country. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it the Prime Minister has made it clear. You change the Labour Party to make sure that we are putting the to make sure that we are putting the country first. He makes the case that the aim of the game is not to get members elected to this house get members elected to this house full stop if that is the case, and he obviously did well because the party opposite failed to do that party opposite failed to do that miserably.

At the Budget, we took the decisions necessary to stabilise the country and get our of our public services a vital injection of cash. -- Give our public services cash. -- Give our public services cash. -- Give our public services are vital injection of cash. This was underpinned by changes to the tax system to make it fairer and more sustainable, whilst protecting working people against higher taxes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in their payslips. I give way. Maybe he could help me out and explain to me what is a working person?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

person? It is someone who goes to work. In our Manifesto, we made a very In our Manifesto, we made a very clear commit and to protect working people through the taxes they pay and their payslips which is and their payslips which is something we experience when we go to work. We did more than that. We raise education standards, raise education standards, supporting over 90 % of children to achieve and try. We removed the achieve and try.

We removed the outdated concept of domiciled status so anyone who is a long-term so anyone who is a long-term resident in the UK pays their fair share of taxes, ensuring the tax system remains internationally competitive. We take further action competitive. We take further action by raising the higher rates for additional dwellings, for stamp duty land tax to support first-time buyers and giving homeowners a buyers and giving homeowners a competitive advantage. We pave the way for the clean energy transition. This government introduced the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap entering more individuals and businesses pay the taxes they owe.

That you want ...? Sure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. He talks about the taxes... I will talks about the taxes... I will start again. I thank the Minister start again. I thank the Minister for giving way. Across my constituency, spoken to small businesses were really feeling the businesses were really feeling the impact of last year's tax rises. They are concerned about the uncertainty moving forward and not uncertainty moving forward and not setting out clarity. Does he understand the impact that last understand the impact that last year's tax on small businesses are having and how devastating they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having and how devastating they are for local constituencies? I thank him for his intervention. Of course we engage with businesses Of course we engage with businesses small and large. As members of the house now, employer National house now, employer National Insurance... The introduction of the employer national insurance contributions was weighted to try to reduce the burden on small businesses, recognising we were honouring a promise to working people in their payslips not to increase taxes and income tax and national insurance.

Moving to pensions, like with other benefits which replace income, the state pension is taxable. However, personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic state pension. This means that pensioners who so income means that pensioners who so income is the state pension will not pay any income tax. The State Pension continues to be the foundation of the support available to pensioners back by this government's commitment to the trouble of. This year, over 12 million pensioners benefited from the increase on their basic pension.

This means they will be getting additional funds. Over the course of this parliament, the new State Pension is projected to go up based on the office -- OBR forecast. The party opposite has not said the nation should get less money or that we have too many teachers, nurses or police officers. If they support us bending plans, how would they pay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for it instead? I thank my right honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right honourable friend for giving way. Along with my constituents, I welcome the investment into my constituency for the long awaited regeneration of the long awaited regeneration of Kirkcaldy town centre. Town centre which only went one way under 14 years of Conservative rule and 18 years of Conservative rule and 18 years of the SNP. They talk about support for small businesses but what really happened is clear. Does what really happened is clear. Does he agree it is only possible to do this because of decisions we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taken to raise revenue? I wholeheartedly agree with my honourable friend who is an excellent champion far constituency. excellent champion far constituency. She is right to point out that the investment announced her constituency was as a consequence of the decisions taken by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the decisions taken by the Chancellor and this Labour government to invest in the renewal of Britain. I'm not sure what financial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure what financial qualifications he has if any but in qualifications he has if any but in last week's report suggested that privately ministers are briefing their backbenchers that they will their backbenchers that they will introduce a wealth tax that calling it a wealth tax. Can he confirm that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is true? I can confirm that any tax

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can confirm that any tax changes will be announced at this changes will be announced at this dispatch book -- box in the autumn. Maybe they disagree with our fiscal rules. Are insurance to financial rules. Are insurance to financial markets that we will live within our means and reduce government debt. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I think one area the site will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think one area the site will be looking at is coherent reform of the welfare system that will actually change the pathway to entitlement to change the pathway to entitlement to benefits in order so we can get that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits in order so we can get that budget under control. That will make a meaningful difference to the fiscal position the government is in. I thank him for his intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his intervention. As he knows, my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are taking these measures forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taking these measures forward. Third shadow minister in a row to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

refer to a colleague by name. It's because the review was named after the member. The Timms review will be taking forward that work and coming forward with proposals in due course. As I say, I invite members opposite. If they wish to challenge the fiscal rules, to do so. Will it be wise to let that balloon year on year, ultimately spending more and more on debt interest and less on the priorities of working people? In contrast, our fiscal rules are nonnegotiable.

There are the foundation for stability and for investment. The first role is for stability. Day-to-day spending should be paid for by tax receipts. That is a sound economic choice and it is also a fair choice. It is not right to expect our children and future generations to pay for the services that we rely on today. This first role allowed at the budget last year to allocate billions of pounds more to public services over the course of this Parliament.

The second fiscal has enabled discovering to invest in Britain's economic renewal was getting public debt on a downward path. This role has the Chancellor to increase public investment by over £100 billion in the autumn and a further £13 billion in the spring. Investment to rebuild our transport network, to rebuild our defence capabilities and to rebuild our energy security. Insert, to grow our economy, improve living standards and put more money into the pockets of working people in every part of the country.

-- In short.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me be clear. The legacy left behind by the last Conservative government is want to be ashamed of. government is want to be ashamed of. Their incompetence and governing left schools and hospitals crumbling, social care cripplingly underfunded and record levels of sewage in our lakes and rivers. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and record levels of inequality. We know that this government has inherited a mess and we know that because of that mass was years of reckless economic was years of reckless economic mismanagement.

But that cannot be allowed to serve as cover for measures which damaged -- damage businesses and because suffering in businesses and because suffering in our society. The national insurance jobs tax will damage small-business, other people's living standards and other people's living standards and it undermines the government's own ambitions for growth. People hundred years of Conservative mismanagement which is why this new government which is why this new government should be doing far more to grow our economy, create new jobs and improve
16:59
17:00
17:00
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
make. However comment as -- instead National Insurance and cutting benefits, they should be taking bold and ambitious steps to grow our economy which is the best way to raise tax revenue and boost living raise tax revenue and boost living standards. That's why we have been calling on the government to ignore the scaremongering from the Conservative benches and urgently Conservative benches and urgently negotiate a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union. We all know that the customs union. We all know that the government is now desperately looking for ways to raise revenue.

Might I encourage Treasury ministers Might I encourage Treasury ministers to take a look at the matters set out in lesser's Liberal Democrat manifesto, measures which ensure that revenue is raised in a fair that revenue is raised in a fair way, taking into account the huge amount of economic inequality that we sadly see across the United Kingdom. There is huge inequality in Kingdom. There is huge inequality in our country, threatening to rip our our country, threatening to rip our social fabric apart, and that is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a better way, raising revenue fairly, doing so practically and tackling inequality.

We propose tackling inequality. We propose taxing the biggest corporations, ensuring wealthiest people doing business you are taxed fairly by raising the digital services tax. Ensuring that the 0.1% wealthiest can afford to pay their fair share. These steps could happen immediately so I hope that ministers might The Labour government's job tax has only made things even harder for them and their workers. High street businesses are the beating heart of our economy at the centre of our local communities, and they create the jobs that our communities rely on.

The changes to employers National Insurance contributions announced in the autumn budget are an unfair job tax that will have highly damaging impacts across many sectors, and social care providers, and GPs, on the hospitality's in annual costs through the cumulative impact of the changes announced in the autumn budgets. Lib Dems have faced against the changes to employers, National Insurance contributions at every opportunity, and I once again urge the government to scrap these measures. As this motion looks to examine the economic challenges faced by people and businesses across the country, perhaps surprising omission is the ongoing disastrous damage caused by their pitiful Brexit deal.

The appalling agreement negotiated by the last Conservative government has been a complete disaster for our country, particularly for high street businesses. They are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions. The dismal picture of the financial impact of the Brexit trade deal is becoming increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period.

Small businesses have been badly affected with 20 %, and goods exports are full and by 6.4% while the Lib Dems welcome the steps taken to rebuild our relationship with the EU, I urge them to recognise that this should only be a first step towards a bespoke custom union. Independent analysis has shown that a closer analysis has shown that a closer trading relationship with the EU could boast GDP by 2% and that would bring in roughly £25 billion of extra tract revenue every year which would be crucial for fixing the public services which the Conservative party (.

More broadly, as we look at measures that will ease the pressure felt by so many businesses to boost the economy as a whole, we continue to call on the government to introduce vital reforms to business rate systems. In 2019, the previous government promised a fundamental review of the business rate system but they failed to deliver it, meanwhile, the current government pledge to replace the system in the manifesto but still no action has been taken. The current system penalises manufacturers when they become more productive.

Pubs and restaurants have high tax bills and puts local businesses at a disadvantage compared to online retail giants. The Lib Dems call for an overhaul of the unfair business rate system to replace it with a commercial landowner levy which would shift the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. Our proposals would cut tax bills, breathe new life into local economies and spur growth. Equally importantly, it will provide certainty for long-term businesses which is what every body across the UK once.

We on these benches know the extent of the challenges that this government faced when they came into office. We acknowledge that they inherited a dire landscape. Challenges now exacerbated by an unreliable actor in the White House and an aggressive Russia but this cannot be an excuse for the mistakes this covenant is making. They must take bold action to boost our economy. As such, we support the calls in today's motion to scrap the job tax and reverse changes to agricultural property relief. People across the country are still struggling with the cost of living crisis.

Just a small businesses remain burdened with skyhigh energy prices now compounded with an unfair job tax and an unfair system. The Lib Dems will continue to urge ministers to go further and act with more urgency. Properly funding social care and boosting growth through negotiating bespoke EU customs union to give our economy the boost that it so desperately needs. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak against the opposition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak against the opposition. My right honourable friend the chancellor of the exchequer has chancellor of the exchequer has raised taxes and has done so to stabilise the public finances because the public finances that the because the public finances that the Labour government inherited has been invested in public services, particularly the NHS and schools particularly the NHS and schools because public services were left. She has done so to invest in
17:05
John Grady Portrait John Grady MP (Glasgow East, Labour)
-
-
national security and has done so to invest in Scotland. I right honourable friend has raised taxes because public finances need to be managed carefully. We cannot keep pretending that we have got money when we don't have it. My right honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It seems to me that Labour likes to pretend that the COVID pandemic never happened, the 400 million, the £400 million spent by this £400 million spent by this government to protect the country which Labour supported and asked us which Labour supported and asked us to go further on didn't happen. Will he at least acknowledged what actually happened in the very recent past?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

past? I'm very happy to reflect that the Kovic pandemic happens, but Liz Truss, mismanagement. The Conservatives lost the last election Conservatives lost the last election because they made a mess of the economy. They have lost their reputation for economic competence reputation for economic competence and that is why they have lost so many MPs and suffered an extinction many MPs and suffered an extinction event. I read in today's times that it was fought the common crane had been extinct for over 500 years in Scotland but times today reports that there are more than six or that there are more than six or seven left in pairs in Scotland, more than we have Conservative MPs more than we have Conservative MPs in Scotland, and there may be a reason for that.

Today's motion implies a reversal of over £20 implies a reversal of over £20 billion of taxes. The opposition billion of taxes. The opposition needs to explain how they would fund this. What cuts would they make? And what effect will this have on the businesses they claim to support? Would they reverse the investment in the NHS? It is essential to businesses and what many businesses have said to me is that they want to see the NHS addressed and invested into get down the waiting list and see it reformed, and this is exactly what my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for health is doing.

And the destruction caused to NHS waiting list is significant and they are now coming down. If only the same could be said for Scotland. The party opposite needs to explain. When they reverse the investment in education because businesses say to me every week they want to see investment in skills. They need skilled workers to grow their businesses. This is essential for economic growth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder whether he may wish to defer slightly with his frontbench defer slightly with his frontbench which is how they should be no new licences for Northsea oil and gas. This doesn't mean that we will consume a drop less oil and gas, simply that we will imported from simply that we will imported from abroad with higher emissions, tens of billions of tax lost, tens of thousands of jobs lost, surely he thousands of jobs lost, surely he should speak up his constituents and say come on, let's get this licences

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going again. What I say is that Northsea oil and gas produced for many years to come, and the government is supporting that, and also, the government is supporting investment in industries of the future under in industries of the future under the Conservative government where there were no successful bids. there were no successful bids. Setting back our access to fixed Setting back our access to fixed vice electricity. They turn their vice electricity. They turn their noses up, little wonder we are in such a mass.

I would like to make progress because there are many speakers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to follow-up on his talking down of Scottish skills and training classic will stop how does he reconcile the disparaging characteristic that he paints of Scottish skills, entrepreneurialism and training in Scotland, for 10 years running has been the highest destination for direct investment outside of London? What is it that foreign enterprise can see in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scotland that no Labour MP for well? I can't recall seeing anything disparaging about Scottish education. I did criticise the NHS. education. I did criticise the NHS. The reality is that businesses are absolutely petrified of the way the SNP dealing with Scottish education. We have insolvent universities, We have insolvent universities, colleges and crisis and education colleges and crisis and education standards are plummeting. These are the facts, and this is why the Scottish government will lose in Scottish government will lose in 2026 and we will have a new first Minister.

The party opposite and meant to be Patriot. How is the meant to be Patriot. How is the investment in defence to be paid for? With the Conservatives reverse for? With the Conservatives reverse the record settlement for the Scottish Government? I think they should explain. Well they reverse it should explain. Well they reverse it given that we have got Scottish elections next year? I would like to elections next year? I would like to make some progress. Our GDP ratio is make some progress.

Our GDP ratio is almost 100% and we inherited that from the party opposite. Members from the party opposite. Members opposite, they object to tax rises were wanting tax cuts, while wanting increases in public spending, was objecting to spending cuts. This is not realistic. We know this from the disaster of Liz Truss and the budget. We must manage finances carefully. Some members opposite suggest that we want to get rid of the Office for Budget Responsibility. They suggest that we should do this while the Conservatives shunned the OBR when they put forward their budget, and we know what happened, so it is quite surprising that we still have Conservative members who want to get rid of it.

The conservative approach to the economy simply does not grapple with a serious state of the public finances. It inhabits a world of wishful thinking, a world of higher inflation, higher government. And higher interest rates. The huge inflation unleashed by the last government caused immense misery to my constituents. The interest rate crisis under the last Tory government made life a misery for hard-working families who bought their homes in Glasgow East. This is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to focus on appropriate management of the economy, and not wishful thinking.

The real question is what has the Conservative party come to? Will they ever return to seeing things as they are, rather than proposing policies that bear no relationship to reality? Their proposals, as I understand them, are a form of magical realism, which is why the electorate have cast them into 100 years of solitude. into 100 years of solitude.
17:12
Andrew Mitchell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Andrew Mitchell MP (Sutton Coldfield, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you very much. I can make a very short speech today because my right honourable friend, in his brilliant intervention at the beginning, has set it all out so clearly, and both these opposition debates today, there's a common theme across them. One of those common themes is that the government has lost control of expenditure and the second team which I want to develop very briefly is that the government, the executive have failed to listen with appropriate care to watch people in this house have said, and on the first of these points, my right honourable friend from Salisbury put it very well in his eloquent intervention just a few minutes ago.

It is to work out how to fix last weeks fiasco with the welfare bill. Far from saving money, this is virtually another spending measure, and it is important to remember that the former Chancellor, my right honourable friend who intervened, set out very clearly in the general election and since that the Tories would, had we been successful in winning the last election, reduce the number of working age welfare recipients to pre-covert levels, thus saving £49 billion by the end of this Parliament.

And the reason I focused on this welfare issue is because it is the welfare expenditure that the government has got to get to grips with, and has failed to learn the lessons of the past. I was a very junior welfare minister in what was then the Department for Social Security. Between 1995 and 1997. And I learned three very important lessons which this government would do well to consider. On all three of these points, welfare reform is extremely difficult.

First of all, the first of these key messages is that you cannot take away from poor people benefits that they are already receiving, and I think I am right in saying that no Conservative government has ever reduced the ability of benefits in payment, but the party opposite did not absorb this vital lesson and that is why they got into so much trouble last week. The second lesson is that if you want to reduce the benefits bill, there are only really two ways of doing it.

The first of those is to freeze the level of benefits that has been done in the past, the way that is not full into the trap that the government fell into last week, and the third way of doing it is to narrow the gateways into those benefits for future recipients and I urge the government to absorb these important lessons because they will have to return to the issue of welfare expenditure if they are to welfare expenditure if they are to The second point I wanted to make was in huge praise for the Labour rebellion on its backbenchers last week who have hopefully toured the executive are most useful lesson, and that is to listen to backbenchers with respect and close attention.

Is a former chief whip, I deprecate rebellions. It usually takes years for the executive to get into the habit of treating their backbenchers with contempt and derision, as an elected Downing derision, as an elected Downing Street advisers strut up and down. This government have managed to accomplish this extraordinarily quickly and they have now learned the hard way not to treat their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backbenchers and elected members with so little respect. I give way. I thank him for giving way. Sinks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. Sinks working at Oxfam, I have admired his work. -- Since working at Oxfam. work. -- Since working at Oxfam. Would he acknowledge that this Government did face a difficult inheritance? Would he also acknowledged that in the time since acknowledged that in the time since we came to power, we are facing a changing world with tariffs, sluggish global growth, raising sluggish global growth, raising authoritarianism, democratic backsliding, and as a result, it is a hard job for this government? Will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a hard job for this government? Will he acknowledge that so that we can start to think about how we take forward shared improvements? He brings me elegantly to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He brings me elegantly to my final point on this which is, having praised and encouraged Labour praised and encouraged Labour backbenchers for speaking out, by one ask is that they will now stand one ask is that they will now stand up for their election pledge clearly set out in their other fixed -- set out in their other fixed -- election manifesto. What I ask the backbenchers to do is to show the same zeal and enthusiasm to bring same zeal and enthusiasm to bring back the .7 which astonishingly the Prime Minister has cut down -- point 7.

When the house comes back in September, I urge him to join with others in saying to the Executive, " We will not put up with this. We set out in our election manifesto that out in our election manifesto that we will restore the point 7." they cannot proceed in the way they planned with development spending. I urge the Labour backbenchers to ensure this rethink takes place in the autumn with the folly of what has happened will be even clearer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right Honourable member for Sutton Coldfield has set the tone in Sutton Coldfield has set the tone in terms of length of speech. If all members could stick to six minutes, everyone will get in. Joe Powell. everyone will get in. Joe Powell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I congratulate the Shadow Chancellor for securing this debate with this motion. When the debate with this motion. When the government came into office, this government, it found Britain's public finances vandalised. The economy wrecked, debt soaring, skyhigh mortgages, cost-of-living crisis that touched every household crisis that touched every household in this country, and a mismanaged pandemic rife with dodgy contracts pandemic rife with dodgy contracts and corruption. Yet the party opposite stand here today pretending they have discovered fiscal responsibility.

We all remember the responsibility. We all remember the increased taxes -- the increased increased taxes -- the increased taxes 24 times during their time in taxes 24 times during their time in Parliament. There has not been a government in living memory that had government in living memory that had a worse economic inheritance than this one.... No credible I will just finish this point. No credible economic plan for the debt, no credible plan for growth, no credibility whatsoever with the British public.

What the Conservatives did to the public finances and the national debt even before the pandemic is unforgivable and I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members opposite seem to pretend that 2010 was your zero. In 2010, that 2010 was your zero. In 2010, there was a deficit of 10% of GDP on government spending. That means the government spending. That means the government was borrowing 1 pound -- four. For every four it was spending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in 2010. I thank him for his intervention because I think it is important to talk about that. I was disappointed with the Shadow Chancellor's Anne's with the Shadow Chancellor's Anne's earlier because he failed to acknowledge that the inheritance in acknowledge that the inheritance in 2024 with total national debt as a percentage of GDP of close to 100%. percentage of GDP of close to 100%. That was up from 60% in 2010. When That was up from 60% in 2010.

When we talk about the debt payments that this government is having to make, which as others have reference, is which as others have reference, is now close to £100 billion in annual debt repayments thanks to the economic inheritance of this government, that is 8.3% of total government, that is 8.3% of total public spending. Imagine what we could do with that money if we spent it on the NHS, on our schools, on it on the NHS, on our schools, on fixing the housing crisis. This goes much deeper than that alone.

The truth is we inherited a sick economy. Living standards and wages, public services and no plan for growth. And yet, while they left Britain with rising debt, the Conservatives now stand here opposing the very measures that this government has taken to fix their mess. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to correct him, we had the highest growth in the G-7. That is a highest growth in the G-7. That is a fact. I know that is hard for fact. I know that is hard for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backbench Labour MPs. Of course when you have tanked

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course when you have tanked the economy, increasing it from a low level to a slightly higher level low level to a slightly higher level is relatively straightforward. What this government is trying to do is this government is trying to do is fix the mess, including measures worth over 20 billion a year to repair our public finances by addressing the black hole and investing in public services that were wrecked by austerity, poor management and wishful thinking.
17:23
Joe Powell Portrait Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)
-
-
management and wishful thinking. They have the nerve to pretend they would do it differently now. My constituents tell me the same. And did, a local resident called George has been vociferous about the lack of credible economic plan from the party opposite. He won't stop sharing his views on the airwaves. Even the former Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the party opposite has no answers for the fiscal challenges that this country faces. There is plenty that George Osborne and I disagree on but on this, he is absolutely right.

At every turn, the party opposite is backing the blockers and preventing a plan for economic growth, whether it is the leader of the opposition blocking new energy infrastructure in her own backyard or the shadow business secretary signing letters to delay vital transport infrastructure. It is no wonder that our economy has been held back for so long. And the other parties as well have nothing to offer. Reform once Liz Truss's irresponsible -- wants. Economics the Liberal Democrats promise benefits decisions without a way to pay for them.

Your fantasy economics. I'm glad the government... It will fall on the Labour Party to fix this mess, rebuild our economy and deliver the secure growth that Britain needs. Nowhere is the cost of failure clearer than in the broken housing system. London boroughs now spend £4 million every single day on temporary accommodation. A massive waste of taxpayers money. And they locked us into the billions of overinflated asylum hotel contracts, another egregious waste of taxpayer money inherited by the party opposite.

And that is the direct result of planning to invest and plan for the long-term ism, the price of short-term and a failure to plan for the future. We have ambitious planning reform delivering the greatest impact on growth at no fiscal cost. We have the biggest investment in social and genuinely affordable homes in a generation. Leasehold reform, protection for renters and Decent Homes Standard all opposed by the party opposite. Because this government is making those tough choices to raise revenue.

They talk about businesses. I talk to businesses all the time and understand the pressure they're under. They tell me it is vitally important the NHS waiting list fall so that their employees are able to access the treatment they need. That we have modern infrastructure in Britain including transport and energy. That their staff can afford housing options and that we agree an EU mobility scheme to support in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular are hospitality industry. When businesses in his constituency are making people redundant, do those employers explain to their constituents that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explain to their constituents that they have to do that to save the NHS? I'm glad that business confidence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm glad that business confidence is at a nine-year high and that is at a nine-year high and that businesses... Those decisions that businesses... Those decisions that he refers to are already making a difference. I don't know if he difference. I don't know if he opposes the 4 million extra NHS appointments we have managed to secure so far in this government or secure so far in this government or the free-trade deals with the US, India and EU that the Conservative party failed to get over the line.

party failed to get over the line. Or the interest rate cuts or the efforts to close the tax gap or the efforts to close the tax gap or the fact that wages have grown more in our first 10 months in office than under the last 10 years of the under the last 10 years of the Conservative government or the Conservative government or the effort to support low-wage workers or the expansion of free school meals, lifting children out of poverty. This motion before us today offers no ideas, no credible plan.

Of the party opposite were serious about economic growth and tax, they would do some reflecting on the record, apologise to the British people, and get behind the Labour plan to get in's economy booming again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. When we look at
17:28
Alec Shelbrooke Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. When we look at today's motion it's about simply today's motion it's about simply asking the government to commit to what they put in their manifesto. It seems like we are having every speech do everything but address the point. Let's take the National Insurance rise. It is extraordinary to try and believe that businesses who are in the constituencies of the member opposite saying they are delighted the taxes have gone up. In fact, I am sure that they are very keen to go up -- to see their taxes go up again.

I think a bit of reality has to come to this conversation of where you have businesses either cutting people's arbours or they are given redundancy or they are going into liquidation. A company in my constituency after 30 years of training when into liquidation last month simply because they could no longer cope with the National Insurance rise. It was the straw that broke the camels back. 12 people made redundant immediately.... Number taxes from business, no more income tax, no more benefits being paid on top of that.

It is quite incredible to listen to the speeches opposite as if nobody has left the country, no money has been withdrawn, no person has taken the assets elsewhere. These are literally the headlines in the Financial Times and other the Financial Times and other newspapers day after day after day. And we have a lot of harking back to the past rather than recognising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they have now been in power for over a year. He makes an excellent point about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes an excellent point about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes an excellent point about growth. Those that are wealth makers are simply taking their money out of the country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the country. She sums it up perfectly. Which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She sums it up perfectly. Which terrifies me is that they don't seem to be taking any notice of this whatsoever. They are talking about whatsoever. They are talking about bringing in more taxes. They don't bringing in more taxes. They don't care, they like to see more people care, they like to see more people go. Someone from the opposite go. Someone from the opposite go. Someone from the opposite People are scared People are scared first People are scared first of People are scared first of all People are scared first of all to invest in capital equipment.

That's the first thing. How are they going to pay these bills? Is it even worth passing farms on? So let's pause our investment. And that ecosystem in my constituency is not just about the farmers, and it's not just about the farmers market. It's about the businesses that actually service farm equipment, about the businesses that supply mechanical support, about the businesses that are involved in every single aspect of the supply chain around farming in my constituency, and the worry and concern that is going throughout the communities means that they don't spend any money.

And it means that now the government is losing out on now the government is losing out on VAT, on other taxes, so what is their answer? Let's bring in a wealth tax. Let's tax more. It quite frankly is frightening. In fact for this debate today, I'm actually terrified of where this country is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heading. 80% of millionaires in our country want to pay more tax, want to contribute to our society. They want to contribute to our public services. So while the right honourable member agree with me where people want to pay more tax where people want to pay more tax

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they should be an opportunity? I'm sure it slipped the honourable gentleman's mind that they do have the ability to do that. they do have the ability to do that. In fact famously when Stanley boarding was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he gave 1/3 of his wealth to the country to try and help with the national deficit, and he did it behind-the-scenes and just signed at FST, didn't actually signed at FST, didn't actually declare it was himself, so people can pay more tax if they wish.

What can pay more tax if they wish. What they can't do is sit in an unfair they can't do is sit in an unfair position when they see we don't have the most competitive taxes in the wild, otherwise people would stay wild, otherwise people would stay here. It is blatantly obvious what is happening. If I was to throw a party at my House, and I knocked party at my House, and I knocked everybody in halfway through and they were trying to tunnel under the they were trying to tunnel under the fence or get out from a hotair balloon, I wouldn't say that's going really well.

Let's lock some more really well. Let's lock some more doors. This is an absolute overall assault on the lifeblood of the economy of this country. And all this motion does today is say what the government be sticking to their manifesto promises? You see when the Chancellor came to the despatch box back pain last July about a year ago, she kept talking about the OBR, talked up the OBR, can't ever have a situation where the Tories ignore the OBR.

She announced £22 billion the OBR. She announced £22 billion of taxes for the alleged black hole. The OBR immediately came out and said that's not true, it doesn't exist. At best it was £9 billion and most of that's been caused by giving their pay rises to the public sector because allegedly that will solve the problem. What we want on these pages that without reform they will come back and boy, have they come back. Boy, have they come back. And back. Boy, have they come back.

And the reality is that if they want to be believed that there was a £20 billion black hole, one, why did they raise taxes by 44 billion? Two, why do they then do another £30 billion of borrowing? And three, how can we now have a £33 billion hole? That's £100 million created hole in the economy since 12 months ago. How can anybody say that they have taken responsibility for the economy and building it up. Somebody said in the opposite benches about we were trying to rewrite history.

They are trying to rewrite the last two weeks. The only party I have known to come to the House trying to cut welfare and increase the bill. Increase the bill. And it's literally where is the money coming from? And so what are we here? We must get rid of the triple lock, it's now going to cost £15 billion instead of £5 billion. I tell you what, how about we stop people self declaring for reasons just to have time off work and get an Universal Credit, which is costing £40 million coming forward and not hit the people on fixed incomes who don't have the ability to do other things, and again actually when you look at a great number of retired people in this country, carrying the burden of supporting their families to be in work and look after their grandchildren and do those things and paid.

We should be grateful to pensioners in this country, not to say you are the ones whose taxes we have to cut because we've let -- sorry, income because you are letting welfare run out of control. And finally, it doesn't stop at what they've done to businesses in my constituency. It doesn't stop at what they've done to the ecosystem relying on a rural economy, doesn't stop with wanting to put solar panels all over credible farming land and push those businesses out even further.

They've brought in VAT on school fees. And they've done that through pure ideology and envy. And my constituents in my area are not rich people. They have cars which are 15, 20 years old. They don't go on holidays. They've been putting money into give their children the best education, and they are withdrawing those.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point, the Labour Party have decided to tax hard-working families. On the point of choice for education. It means that people can no longer send their child to win SEND school. They can no longer have the choice to use the money because the Labour Party wanted to take a the Labour Party wanted to take a little more tax from them. Does she agree it's not a fair process and is actually excluding people who want to protect their children in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future? I'm just wrapping up, and she makes a very powerful point, and I makes a very powerful point, and I tell you this, I'm a compressive schoolboy and not going to take any lessons of the private schoolboy on the frontbench who tells me that the frontbench who tells me that it's unfair that we are taxing, that we are not taxing people trying to do the best for their children. Talk about pull up the ladder, I'm all about pull up the ladder, I'm all about pull up the ladder, I'm all right Jack.

So overall the economy is being destroyed under this government, and we are going to have a political kickabout this afternoon, but I'm terrified of afternoon, but I'm terrified of where we are going. The 1970s is back good and proper. Public sector strikes, ridiculous pay demands, strikes, ridiculous pay demands, consulate bringing the government down, 240% debt to GDP ratio down, 240% debt to GDP ratio predicted on this path. More and more taxes to come, more and more wealthy leaving. You saw what happened by 1979, 1977 when we went off to the IMF, the situation was so bad the IMF said no.

We are on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

path. And it terrifies me. Order. It's become apparent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. It's become apparent already. That if we're going to get already. That if we're going to get everybody in, we will have to put in a formal time-limit comes after the next speaker I'm going to put a six next speaker I'm going to put a six minute time limit on. If there are a lot of interventions I will of course add in time, then that will reduce very slightly to five and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possibly even four. Thank you. A pleasure to speak in this debate and to do so on behalf of my Bolton West constituents who dutifully pay their taxes in the dutifully pay their taxes in the expectation that they will receive a fair deal in return. Today's motion from the official position implies the efforts this covenant has
17:38
Phil Brickell Portrait Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)
-
-
the efforts this covenant has undertaken to deliver that fair deal are not in their interest. I reject that premise entirely. Instead Labour in government has consistently and quite rightly stuck to ensuring those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden. And that approach has secured over £20 billion a year of revenue to pay for schools, the NHS and our national security. The Chancellor has restored responsibility and credibility. I will make some progress given the time limits. Finally putting us on a strong footing to me from irresponsible and reckless chaos of Liz Truss is mini-Budget and a litany of unfunded spending commitments left behind by the previous administration which had no intention of implementing them.

I must begin by reminding the House of what they've inherited from the official opposition as the Chancellor walked through the doors into number 11 just over a year ago, a national debt at nearly 100% of GDP, the highest since the 1960s, living standards falling for the first time since the 1950s, anaemic growth left is second to last in the G-7 and the UK is the only G7 country where the employment rate hits do not recover to pre-covert levels by the first quarter of 2024.

That was the conservative legacy, a legacy of economic mismanagement and a tax system weighed down by loopholes, complexity and under enforcement, so I will be taking no lectures on fiscal responsibility from the architects of that wreckage, and we on these benches won't indulge the fantasy that the path to prosperity lies in slashing public services, making unfunded promises or claiming we can borrow endlessly without consequences. Our constituents deserve better and under this government, led by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, we are getting on with what a Labour government always provides, government of service.

First the abolition of the outdated non-dom regime. For too long our tax code allowed the very wealthiest to live in this country can enjoy our services, our infrastructure, our rule of law and yet contribute only a token amount to the national purse. That ended quite rightly with this government. The new residency- based regime as a matter of principle. If you live here, you pay here. Second we've increased the rate of capital gains tax on share sales. Not to punish wealth but to deliver fairness.

Many of my constituents contact me to say they see no reason why wealth, assets, stocks and shares should be taxed less than work. There is more to be done in this regard but I welcome the measures taken so far by this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. I will give way. With the Labour Party and what they are saying very clearly, it's they are saying very clearly, it's useful to have clarified, it doesn't matter for those who scrimp and save to have decided to give money, give to have decided to give money, give their home to their children and save their farm for the children. No, you will be the one punished No, you will be the one punished under Labour, not those who were scrounging on benefits, those you have saved the money and make choices, you are saying those are choices, you are saying those are the people you will publish.

-- Punish. Thank you for saying and clarifying that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarifying that. I will get onto taxation soon, but I would appreciate if you didn't take that condescending tone, having take that condescending tone, having spent more than a decade working in the financial industry is myself. This is simply the right thing to This is simply the right thing to do. I nursing Walton Hospital is paying a higher effective tax rates when making millions in properties when making millions in properties or shares, the system is not as broken, it's unfair. Third, the House cracked down on tax dodging House cracked down on tax dodging with more funding for HMRC to go after tax evaders and bring down the after tax evaders and bring down the stubbornly high tax.

That gap, the difference between what the government is owed and what it actually collects currently stands actually collects currently stands at close to £50 billion. That figure, 50 thousand million pounds figure, 50 thousand million pounds is almost the size of the entire defence budget in 23 /24. So constructively unlike the dearth of policy proposals from the party opposite, I implore the government to continue tackling the enablers of dodgy tax schemes, firms that promote aggressive tax avoidance schemes will now be held to account with fines of up to £1 million, and I welcome that measure in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular. Just on that very point, thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just on that very point, thank you to my honourable friend. On that point, I just wanted to ask, would you agree with me it's really you agree with me it's really important that HMRC is keen to work with local authorities, particularly to take action on tax evasion from to take action on tax evasion from High Street stores that are not acting fairly like some of the awful Harry Potter stores there are in my Harry Potter stores there are in my constituency. I'm worried about the impact they are having on the High Street and worried about the impact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they having another tax. I thank her for her contribution and she makes a very valid point and she's a fantastic champion on tackling this issue in the House. tackling this issue in the House. The opposition would have us believe that taxes rate large drag on growth, but the truth is more nuanced. What stifles growth is nuanced. What stifles growth is instability. What propels investment instability. What propels investment is unpredictability. What corrodes trust as a tax system that awards trust as a tax system that awards avoidance while underfunding our schools, hospitals and our police.

So Labour is quite rightly putting So Labour is quite rightly putting more money in people's pockets, boosting the minimum wage for 3 million workers, with wages growing million workers, with wages growing more in our first 10 months than in an entire 10 years under the Tories. But I would urge the chief secretary not to rest on his laurels. There is more to be done and so I would like to propose three policy priorities I hope the Treasury will give serious consideration to. First, reviewing and reforming current tax reliefs, £204 billion was spent on tax reliefs in 22/23.

That's 1/4 of all tax revenue, yet many of these reliefs are uncosted, and scrutinised and susceptible to abuse. Indeed the Treasury's committee was radical for a rationalisation of these reliefs. We must order them for efficacy, eliminate those that serve no public interest, and crackdown on those that have become vehicles for avoidance. Secondly, I like to draw the Minister's attention to the issue of tax dodging in our own backyard. At the end of last month a number of British overseas territories, including the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands, missed yet another deadline to introduce registers of public beneficial ownership.

The Minister will know this is a long-running issue now. BBI in particular have missed deadlines in 2020, 2023 and 2025. As the right honourable member of the Sutton Coldfield nose too well and has campaigned very strongly on this issue over many years. In January this year the Bureau of Investigative Journalism working alongside the BBC and the Guardian revealed that Roman Abramovich, former owner of Chelsea for the club may oh the Treasury up to £1 million in unpaid corporation tax penalties and interest.

And that's from corporate structures up to the value of $6 billion setup through an offshore web of hedge fund vehicles, primarily registered in the British Virgin Islands and Cyprus. In what looks like an ultimately watched a 10 to reduce tax liabilities, so any Russian oligarchy allegedly manipulates British secrecy jurisdictions to obscure profit, made from UK-based centres of control, this undermines the credibility and fairness of our tax system so we need every British overseas territory to adopt full public beneficial ownership registers so that sham structures like Abramovich is can be traced, Dirty money, both -- flows beneath the system.

I call on the Minister not to shy away from a challenge of tax abuse hidden in the knots and crannies of our own backyard. My third and final recommendation for the government, this is an often overlooked distortion in our system around pension tax relief. This long-standing relief disproportionately benefits higher earners, it's been my view for a number of years we must look again at how it operates. Currently higher rate taxpayers enjoy 40% relief on pension contributions, while the very highest earners enjoy 45% relief.

Basic rate taxpayers enjoy a great of just 20%. Total pension tax relief cost circa £40 billion per year according to HMRC. Of that total, two thirds is relief for those on income in the 45% tax bracket, which represents 12% of the adult population in 23/24 according to the IFS. That highlights the inequity here. The system of relief which is tilted to those who need it least, not to incentivise putting into pensions for moderate earners, to support those on the highest incomes.

Can I urge the Minister to consider a move to a flat rate model of say, 30%. So every saver get equal recognition for securing their own retirement. Finally addressing tax evasion before I came to this place I would like to address the siren calls of a broader wealth tax being made by a number of colleagues on these benches and elsewhere in the House. Increases in capital gains tax to align closer to income tax are welcome. Wealth and work should be taxed at similar rates, in my view it's as simple as that.

If you words of caution to proponents of wealth tax. The wealth tax commission acknowledged it could incentivise the wealthy to hide assets behind legal vehicles using expensive lawyers and jurisdictions. Set against that backdrop, HMRC is already chronically shortstaffed, under resourced and hamstrung by complexity. Without dismantling the complex web of ultimate beneficial owners, offshore trusts, and secrecy jurisdictions, we are at risk of opening a game of whack a mole which would likely see the government lose to high net worth individuals who can run circles around HMRC and secrete their assets elsewhere.

Instead my view is the government should crackdown on tax evasion, simplify the tax code, streamline existing release and bring capital gains tax levels closer to income tax. In this final measure the centre for tax analysis said this could raise £14 billion for the Exchequer. An ageing population, creaking infrastructure, rising global instability and the urgency of the net zero transition. We know public services are under strain. We do need to these funds in a way that is both fair and promotes the growth we need to get our country back on its feet after 14 years of Tory decline.

So let's be clear, taxation is not merely a tool for revenue. It is the lifeblood of our social contract which is why we desperately need responsible and a workable tax system to ensure education is a right not a privilege, that healthcare is free at the point of use, and the most vulnerable in our society are protected.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Straight to line 1 on the Tory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Straight to line 1 on the Tory motion gets to the word manifesto. I accept the premise that that is what this is about, it's about not increasing taxes for working people,
17:50
Dave Doogan Portrait Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)
-
-
increasing taxes for working people, not increasing National Insurance or the basic or higher rates of income tax. I don't think that's a tall order. The next one on the list is VAT. Never mind the headline rate, the concern now from comments inside government is that which is going to be dragged into VAT, or have its reduced rate increase. There is no clarity on that from the government and there's been no indication, much less any reference to it in their manifesto, that Parliament or taxpayers across these islands can taxpayers across these islands can take any comfort or otherwise from.

The motion calls on the government to reaffirm the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that personal tax thresholds will be operated. Fiscal drag is a serious thing to inflict on people. It erodes people's incentives to get on and progress, and there was a real concern given the fiscal misadventure that seems to be one farce after another with this government, one U-turn after another, they talk about introducing stability to the fiscal dynamic. I'm holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

But I think I'm making a mistake in that pursuit. And worst of all, actually it's not worst of all but it's really bad, the changes again not in their manifesto which I sincerely would urge the Minister on the frontbench to pause and have a review on, agricultural property relief. As was articulated by others. This was clearly something that the Treasury officials put in front of every new Chancellor, and every new Chancellor to date has had the wit to say I'm not doing that, except this Chancellor.

Lacking in wit and much else. She just said I will go ahead and do that, clearly failing to understand the agricultural economy as it exists. In my constituency it's the garden of Scotland, the highest reductive agricultural land in Scotland. There's an ecosystem that exists around that farm enterprise of recruitment, training, plant sales, feedstock, markets, fuel sales, it all exists and revolves like satellites around the farm business. Those farmers are now saying, why would I invest? What owners would I invest for? Why am I investing my hard earned capital into increasing technology, lowering the cost of production so I can get more competitive food onto the shelves of supermarkets to help with the cost of living that this government is completely incapable of doing anything about, so that my asset values go up so that when I die and my assets transfer my tax bill goes up.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's giving a very powerful speech. I was at the great Yorkshire show last week, there we have not only livestock and farmers but the whole supply chain around it. And the only conversation there was exactly as the honourable gentleman describes, of a whole industry describes, of a whole industry brought low because of this misconceived measure. He talks about chancellors being presented with it, chancellors being presented with it, a caravan tax was resented in 2012 a caravan tax was resented in 2012 and it took the backbenchers on our side to persuade the frontbench to change their path.

I hope members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite may do the same. That's a comprehensive roundup of some of the broader issues around some of the broader issues around this. It speaks to that fiscal in numeracy that says we can just help ourselves to that and it will have no impact. As was already pointed out by the honourable member for Weatherby, speak to any rural plant sales dealership and they will tell you sales have gone off a cliff. And you sales have gone off a cliff.

And all the VAT, employment and income tax and insurance that goes with it. It speaks to a Treasury under It speaks to a Treasury under Chancellor who have a passing understanding of the price of everything, but couldn't identify value in a lineup. The motion goes on to talk about pensions. This is difficult, I don't believe for one minute we should pool our pensioners into tax. Neither do I believe that by being a pensioner you should get tax relief on the same income that someone who is earning is not going to get tax relief on.

The government is in a difficult position on this, a position of their own making. Unless and until they guarantee to operate and protect people from fiscal drag. Where I diverge from the movers of the motion, it had to come and I am relieved, it's on wealth tax. I see that in a state where poverty levels amongst our children is rising, and every country within the UK except Scotland. But in Scotland it costs us £150 million per year, that will be £200 million a year by the end of the decade to mitigate for Westminster's mismanagement of child poverty.

You cannot say that people with assets over £10 million who are trapped and annual modest rate on those assets is somehow punitive. I think it's reflective of the highest tax burden that ordinary people have been paying since the Second World War. And that was the case before the election incidentally, from my colleagues over here, and the Labour Party have just knocked that into the stratosphere with their misadventure. No talk anywhere in this chamber today about Brexit. I remember Theresa May, she was asked repeatedly what does Brexit mean? And she said, Brexit means Brexit.

Which is as nebulous as it sounds. But we all no in 2025 what Brexit means. What it means is enduring child poverty,, flatlining growth matter who is in charge of the Treasury in the United Kingdom, a common purpose between Labour and the Conservatives to have a neurotic policy on immigration. What it means is pale imitations to substitute European EU programs such as substituting Erasmus with the pointless cheering system. Or EU structural funding and other funding with levelling-up.

What it means is a permanent drag on business. The further we get from COVID the more we see that the fundamentals that are wrong with this economy are due to Brexit. The Minister in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

summing up... It's all rather desperate from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's all rather desperate from the party opposite. Honestly I the party opposite. Honestly I thought the pantomime season was in the winter, clearly not. I will defend the decisions taken by this government to help working people to grow the economy and fix the mess we inherited from the previous government. And we did so and are doing so with fairer tax at the core doing so with fairer tax at the core of what we are doing. I use the term government regarding the last
17:58
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
government regarding the last administration loosely. They round the tank dry, they were running the factory without maintaining the equipment. Last minute repairs knowing things will breakdown again, and they did. An astonishing 234 schools were found to contain RAAC, almost disintegrating before our eyes. Prisons reaching capacity and the government did very little or nothing. The police saw 20,000 officers cut, reversed only at the last point. Because that's what the last government was, crumbling and shambolic. Residing over a country whose public services were on their knees, whose people haven't seen their prospects get better for many years.

So woeful was their record, they vacated even the territory they used to occupy. They became the week on defence Tories, the soft on crime Tories, and the high tax Tories. Which brings me to my second point, they increased the tax burden to its highest level since the Second World War, it was stable at 33%, from 2010 to 2019, and 2019 the parliament saw the biggest rise in the tax take in recent history. It reached 36% by 2024. Then they engaged in a reckless, unfunded cut to NI at a time when the economy was still stagnant.

And they did this deliberately. It was in my view a poisoned chalice for this government. The Conservatives knew that the last Labour government's commitment not to raise tax on ordinary working people would mean that we could not and would not reverse that reckless tax cut. They knew full well that they were leaving behind a black hole. They may not like to hear it, but they knew that. They knew that the public services were on their knees, and they didn't care about this. They cared only about their electoral fortunes.

Which didn't work out so well actually. But this Labour government is not afraid of difficult challenges and addressing those difficult challenges. We actually believe in the concept of government. And the responsibility of government. The responsibility to take the difficult decisions, to fill the unforeseen £22 billion black hole we inherited. And we therefore believe we must raise revenues through taxation, as the chancel outlined in her budget last chancel outlined in her budget last And I would like to add that despite the accusations of the party opposite, this has not been to the detriment of working people and also it is not the case that we are not asking the wealthiest in society to pay more.

The opposite is true. We have raised taxes on wealth. Private jet passengers now face a 50% tax increase. VAT added to private school fees. When raising £2 billion more from inheritance tax by closing reliefs used by the wealthiest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

During the opening, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

During the opening, the secretaries Treasury said that working people are people who go out to work. The farmers go out to work?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to work. The farmers go out to work? Of course they go out to work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course they go out to work. They do go out to work, and I believe that my right honourable friend has answered that point earlier in the debate. But thank you for your intervention. I will add to for your intervention. I will add to my list... I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. I had to lady for her intervention. I had to my list non-dom status has been largely scrapped, capital gains taxes have increased, stamp duty and taxes have increased, stamp duty and second homes now stands at 5%.

These measures help raise the revenue for massive public investment, benefiting working people, not making them worse off. The clue is in the name of our party, Labour. We are the party of work, also the are the party of work, also the party of getting our country, economy, our public services economy, our public services working. So I ask honourable members opposite to look forward to the summer recess with optimism in their summer recess with optimism in their hearts. Don't let the doom mongers and the gloom mongers fill their hearts for change has only begun.

And it's made possible by my right honourable friend the Chancellor's budget and spending review. We are facing the NHS. We promise to million additional NHS appointments in our first year, and we've delivered 4 million. Waiting lists delivered 4 million. Waiting lists are down by 260,000. 1,900 more GPs have been recruited. We are putting more money into people's pockets. We boosted the minimum wage for 3 million workers, wages grew more in our first 10 months than in the entire 10 years of the previous administration.

A testament to their incompetence and weakness when they were in government. We are fixing the foundations of our economy, for interest rate cuts, three triggers, business confidence at a nine-year high and in the first quarter of this year the UK growth was the highest in the G7. We are tackling child poverty, opening the first 753 breakfast clubs and expanding free school meals. In one day this Government took action to take 100,000 people, children out of poverty, so I come to today's motion, which implies a reversal of over 20 billion a year of revenue raising policies, so I ask honourable members opposite if you oppose the measures we have taken, which of these investments I have just mentioned would you reverse? Is it the free breakfast clubs? Is it the investment in the NHS? Shorter waiting lists, extra police? Or tell me, perhaps more pertinently, given the title of today's debate, how would you pay for it? The Chancellor is not ducking difficult decisions, and I'm confident that if people observe her actions, they will see that she and this Labour government were correct.

I call it a zoom out and dial down approach. If people zoom out and look down, they will see that the challenges we face as a country on tax, reform of many kinds requires to take action, and if you dial down the endless noise of discontent, whipped up by social media and sometimes in the media, and by our political opponents, people will observe a country whose people have immense talent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Earlier this month the cells witnessed this Government lose control of swathes of its own party. They are just over a year in office and yet the cracks could not be and yet the cracks could not be clearer. In this last year the clearer. In this last year the country has had to endure U-turns, tax increases and the stagnant economy and yet the Chancellor and Prime Minister have been pushed by the disapproving back and she's into the disapproving back and she's into the inevitable.

But they will have to break their fiscal rules and manifesto commitments. The OBR have
18:05
Bradley Thomas Portrait Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
-
-
manifesto commitments. The OBR have warned of up to £12 billion in cost of the watered-down welfare reforms. Labour promised to stop the chaos and support business through a stable policy environment. That was in their manifesto, yet employs, national insurance contributions, increased in April, another pledge disregarded. But in the national insurance redemption for Indian workers transferred to the UK. The Indian government said this was a competitive advantage to them. The Leader of the Opposition opposed such a deal as Business and Trade secretary, yet this government continues to sell out British workers.

Whose side is this Government on? It's deals like this, decisions like this that explain why 73% of voters believe that the government does not have things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under control. This is the government that have trade deals that the party opposite failed to do, saved hundreds of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

failed to do, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. Are you saying that you wouldn't have signed those deals? Are you saying? Order. I'm not saying anything. Please address the chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please address the chair. Thank you. The government hasn't seen a success. Where we've seen tariffs imposed on this economy the government has reduced them. There is a competitive disadvantage as a result of what we are seeing in the global economic climate. What we're global economic climate. What we're seeing is that when Labour government suffers, Britain suffers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government suffers, Britain suffers. Grateful. The trade deals came

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. The trade deals came up. It turned out that you are entirely excluded with the US, excluded the British bioethanol industry. Until the present of the United States found that the Prime United States found that the Prime Minister and to unilaterally give away the entirety of the market, putting hundreds of jobs on the putting hundreds of jobs on the Virgo, thousands in the supply chain and all at risk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and all at risk. Another failure by Labour. My message to this Government... I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. There are two fundamental macroeconomic problems facing this country, productivity and mass immigration used to displace investment in domestic skills. This budget did nothing about those, and yet the tax system could be used to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

address both. The right honourable gentleman is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right honourable gentleman is very experienced. He should have been here at the start of the debate if he wanted to intervene.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend this absolute spot on and the message to this Government is clear, you cannot taxiway to prosperity. I've been taxiway to prosperity. I've been generous with interventions. Over half of business owners nationally are planning to have made further cuts to staff numbers in response to increased employer national increased employer national insurance contributions. In May, one have my 1,900 jobs were lost in a single month. When you tax jobs out single month. When you tax jobs out of existence, the fiscal rules are not really stretched, they are shattered.

The Chancellor will have shattered. The Chancellor will have to either break her campaign promises and raise taxes or admit promises and raise taxes or admit that her rules are broken. Either way it means that working families and working people across the and working people across the country will pay the price. A fortnight ago the government rejected calls to protect those whose only income is the State whose only income is the State Pension. From paying income tax. This retirement tax will hit one million at our lowest income pensioners.

This is not wealth, these are modest often meagre these are modest often meagre incomes relied upon to heat homes, buy food and see a doctor. One in five single pensioners have no other income. Beyond the State Pension and basic benefits. And yet this Government resists the plea of its most vulnerable citizens to fill a fiscal hole that they themselves have created. I've been generous with my interventions. As the Chancellor grows increasingly desperate to save the sinking ship of her fiscal rules there was now whomever wealth tax to compound this Government's contempt not only for work if you will but leaders and innovators as well for top this is not conjecture.

Lord Pannick only last week said Labour should be willing to explore such disastrous measures. Let's be honest, a wealth tax really means attacks on hard- working people. It means an attack on pensions, and people who have done the right thing and you want a sense of fairness. And anyone who has accrued anything will pay the price. I've explained I won't give way any further. The nation deserves better, deserve a government that trusts enterprise, brains and the bloated state and lives within its means. I urge the House to support this mission and send a clear message.

Scrap the jobs tax, fix the welfare overburden, protect pensioners and give work in Britain the honest Conservative growth plan it deserves.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We live in a country where wealth is hoarded by the few
18:10
18:11
18:11
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
for being ideological about that. These are steps in the right These are steps in the right direction, but as shown by reforms to welfare, they are far from enough to stop cuts. Because the truth is to stop cuts. Because the truth is these policies do not come close to tackling the grotesque level of tackling the grotesque level of inequality in our country. Nor will they generate the revenue needed to repair the failed ideology of repair the failed ideology of austerity, privatisation and no austerity, privatisation and no small amount of political cowardice in the face of corporate greed.

The 2010s was the decade the super rich 2010s was the decade the super rich one. They were handed tax breaks, shielded by loopholes and watched shielded by loopholes and watched their wealth explode while wages stagnated and services crumbled. Millionaires and billionaires Millionaires and billionaires flourished. And as I said in an earlier debate this afternoon in one earlier debate this afternoon in one of the richest economies in the world, millions of people in full- time work relying on food banks to survive is a national disgrace.

They survive is a national disgrace. They go to work, do they shift, and still they are left to rely on the charity of strangers to get by. This didn't happen by accident. It's the result of deliberate political choices. Austerity, privatisation, suppressed wages, and a tax system rigged in favour of the ultra wealthy. Even now with Labour in power we have been told to temper our ambition. How can we when there is 13 years difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest in Scotland? When thousands of children are growing up cold, hungry and facing an uncertain future? But there is an alternative to relentless cuts.

An alternative to balancing the books on the backs of the poorest. There is an alternative to managed decline as we watch the state become bankrupt both financially and morally. That alternative is genuinely progressive taxation alongside investment in people and communities. And I find common ground with my honourable friend from Bolton West and as much as it, I also support equalising capital gains tax with income tax. Currently many earning their living through work are taxed more than someone profiting sitting on their wealth.

Equalising those rates could raise an additional £12 billion a year. My honourable friend from Bolton West and I do disagree however on an annual wealth tax. Since coming to this place I have campaigned for an introduction of a 2% annual wealth tax on those with net assets either £10 million. This single policy could raise £24 billion per annum. And the notion that the wealthy will flee en masse if we ask them to contribute fairly is a tired and dishonest argument.

Even among the ultra wealthy, there is recognition that inequality has spiralled out of control. Many are willing to contribute more. The tax of UK payers and wealthy donors can pay this, but the government have to you have the bravery to do it. We build a fairer country and a stronger economy. Children do better to find new and just ways to fund welfare, to fund the green transition, to fund public services to rebuild the country. The labour movement was not built to tinker around the edges.

It was built to transform, and if this government is serious about real change, the change we promised, then we must be bolder than we've been so far. Because redistribution of wealth and power the benefit of workers and communities and wider society should always be the driving mission of any always be the driving mission of any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real Labour government. The damage that this Labour govern has dealt our economy is a real kick in the teeth for all those real kick in the teeth for all those who voted for them last year and those you didn't vote for them but actually wish them well and believe actually wish them well and believe their words at the general election. Time and time again my right honourable friend the four Richmond honourable friend the four Richmond and Northallerton and many others on the side of the House warned that the new Labout government's the new Labout government's priorities and promises on tax were not to be trusted and the members of not to be trusted and the members of the public should take their words with a bucket of salt.

The Labour with a bucket of salt. The Labour Party Crown -- cried foul, diving to the ground premiership footballer screaming blue murder what has screaming blue murder what has actually come to pass is actually far worse than many on the side of the House imagined. For all its talk the House imagined. For all its talk of fixing the foundations, I have been painted to watch the suffering, been painted to watch the suffering, distress and anxiety that this government has wilfully chosen to inflict on the British people by inflict on the British people by hammering the small businesses on which they rely for their jobs.

As Business Property Relief,
18:15
Richard Holden Portrait Rt Hon Richard Holden MP (Basildon and Billericay, Conservative)
-
-
agricultural property relief, VAT changes, dual count taxes, business rate rises only the national insurance tax rise. In particular when it comes to the national insurance tax rise, I cannot in conscience think of a policy so woefully constructed and so disastrously executed. This government claims to be elected on a platform of promoting growth. But it chose in doing that to boost growth by blowing up Mrs so inexplicable that it rightly calls into question the government's ability to govern. Particular when this tax rises, people it hits hardest other people starting out in those first jobs it would be hit by those from thresholds, those part-time workers, often women trying to get back into the labour market.

And it's those people who are seeing the highest prices in unemployment since the It's because of the choice to raise taxes the businesses today are cutting back on hiring staff. Shelving expansion plans, closing their doors, I've seen this in my own constituency. Within the last 12 months unemployment is up around 16 since the general election. It's because of our choice that inflation is also up, growth is down. It's because of that choice, choices made by the Labour Party opposite, that this country will continue to miss out on investment opportunities and economic security.

That means it affects the people who will feel it most acutely. People doing jobs in the spirit of service in horrendous conditions, care home workers, teachers and hospice workers. What kind of labour government willingly chooses to punish those who represent the heartbeat of the nation? Recently I heard from a woman in my constituency who runs a small childcare business, which she kept going through the pandemic. She wrote to me that because of the tax rise she has had to cut back her assistance hours and turn away parents, the government pretends to be increasing wages while cutting hours on the other side.

It's affecting every constituency up and down the country. This is the real cost of this government's choice. Because this National Insurance tax rise means less money for schools and teachers. For hospices and staff, for the very healthcare workers that are applauded, those working in the difficult circumstances. The Labour government is so keen to paint itself as the more friendly and cuddly party, but trying to fix its own failures on the backs of those key workers and volunteers. Literally a government raising taxes on hospices they are supposed to stand up for.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right honourable gentleman for his defence of gentleman for his defence of teachers. And sure he would welcome their pay rise for teachers of 5% last year, 4.4% this year, funded by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Budget. Is the honourable gentleman well no, that is not fully funded by the no, that is not fully funded by the budget. Because actually we are seeing National Insurance hasn't seeing National Insurance hasn't been fully covered. He might shake his head, you should look at the his head, you should look at the statistics on this. We are seeing it in my constituency and it will in my constituency and it will happen in his constituency, they will cut support staff and teaching assistants in order to meet the black hole his government has black hole his government has delivered to its own workers.

The government raising taxes on hospices is something particularly is something particularly pernicious. I visited Sulur Luke's pernicious. I visited Sulur Luke's hospice in my constituency. They are literally having to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more, of thousands of pounds a year more, money that would be going into care of the most vulnerable at the end of their lives in order to pay for a tax rise that that side of the house today is going to vote to maintain when this side of the house is saying it should be removed.

My saying it should be removed. My colleagues and I will always raise these issues as we have done, whether it comes to farmers, food security, or the mind-boggling plans to drive away wealth creators to fill up the Treasury's coffers. We will continue to do that from this side of the house. What we are asking for is the government to listen to us. We want the government to change course and do the right thing. We want the government to actually not drive the country off the edge of a cliff.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the spirit of listening to him, I would be very grateful to him, I would be very grateful to know which of our investments in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public sector he would cut. Thank you for making that point, the Chagos DL comes to mind as one of the first ones. Which the of the first ones. Which the government seems to be so keen on, handing over British taxpayer money handing over British taxpayer money for something we already owned. I think we wouldn't have made the same decisions as this government made. decisions as this government made. We made it very clear when in government that we wouldn't hand pay rises without the need for reform to train drivers, or indeed junior train drivers, or indeed junior doctors who have come back yet again doctors who have come back yet again with a double-digit pay demand.

I think the honourable gentleman needs to think about these things, we to think about these things, we actually said it before it happened. We set the same with the Chagos We set the same with the Chagos deal. We are the ones that are financially responsible, he is financially responsible, he is handing away money to Mauritius so they can cut their income tax. On they can cut their income tax. On this side of the house can guarantee they absolutely will raise taxes later in the year.

I call on the government to look again to their own manifesto, the government should choose to back enterprise, to reward work, do not punish those who help out in places like hospices. To create growth, to create opportunity in every corner of our country and back those who do that. Instead of taxing everyone and everything it possibly can. Otherwise I fear this Labour government will face the same fate as every other majority Labour government which has existed in history, leaving unemployment higher than when they left off.

Not exactly the Labour Party that people in my constituency voted for, or those across the country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, the motion before us today really shows a before us today really shows a difference in values between the two sides of this house. Because their motion speaks of wealth creators specifically says only a you are specifically says only a you are thus create wealth. Whereas on this side of the house we think every side of the house we think every single worker creates wealth in this country. And we have seen the consequences of 14 years of their values in action.

Falling waiting
18:22
Jeevun Sandher Portrait Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
-
values in action. Falling waiting lists, -- falling living standards, higher waiting lists. The last Labour government left us with a stronger, wealthier and prosperous nation. Taxing the wealthiest is something we all rely on, a more prosperous and stronger nation is what we left last time and it's what we are building this time as well. We have seen the damage of the last 14 years, as expressed in this motion. We have seen what their values mean in practice.

They believe that if a feud did well, if you tax cuts for those of the top would make our country wealthier. It started in 2013 and continued, in reality at the end of those 14 years no one did well. The longest squeezing wages since Napoleon threatened our shores, the only high-income nation to seasickness rise after the pandemic, the highest energy bills in Europe and the worst connected country in Western Europe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is their record. I believe the honourable member wanted to make an intervention. I would like to ask, he said the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to ask, he said the last Labour government left the government in some kind of fantastic government in some kind of fantastic state. I mentioned this before, the massive deficit left behind, unemployment higher than when they unemployment higher than when they took office, does he not understand that there deficit of over 10% of GDP was a horrific legacy to leave GDP was a horrific legacy to leave in peace time? Also that unemployment being higher was actually a betrayal of the people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually a betrayal of the people that he claims the stand up for. The global financial crisis affected every single nation across affected every single nation across this world. I don't deny how difficult things were in 2010. We difficult things were in 2010. We also left an economy that was also left an economy that was growing, record low waiting lists, investment in our nation, a plan to insulate our homes. Because they didn't follow through on our plans, didn't follow through on our plans, what happened? We had the worst insulated homes in Western Europe and some of the highest energy bills and some of the highest energy bills with it.

We left you in a difficult moment but with a strong foundation moment but with a strong foundation to go forward. Poorer, sicker and slower is where the other party slower is where the other party opposite has left us. And with their record on tax in the worst cost of living crisis in a century what did they do? Attempt to cut taxes for the wealthiest. Everybody thought Liz Truss was mad on this side of the house, I don't what they believe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that side of the house anymore. I'm sure he wouldn't want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure he wouldn't want to mislead the House. He will recognise that in 2010 fewer than 12% of homes in this country were properly insulated, EPBC or above. When we handed over power last year it was handed over power last year it was over 60%. He can look at those over 60%. He can look at those numbers, can I ask him never to misrepresent the record in this House on those numbers, because that's the reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's the reality. That was as David Cameron put it, as he cut the green crab. You soy as he cut the green crab. You soy the moment leaving office, we saw it through the 2010s. It's why we have the one homes the importing, it's why million more homes will be why million more homes will be insulated under this government getting energy bills by hundreds of pounds. We speak about that pounds. We speak about that insulation, it's funded by the very tax rises that the other side of this House opposes.

And time and time again we ask you, what would you like less investment in? And you like less investment in? And time and time again, no answer is time and time again, no answer is given. Every moment, our values on this side of the House and the country we are trying to build is each one of us doing well, being better educated, being healthier, finding it easier to get around. Those are the building blocks of our nations wealth. To build that wealth takes investment.

It takes investment that must be funded. And those that benefit most from our nations productivity should be asked to contribute more. That's exactly what this government is doing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would he recognise that the fundamental bedrock of contributing fundamental bedrock of contributing is having a job? And that the jobs tax is actually causing mass unemployment and business closures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unemployment and business closures. Employment is rising. It's risen since the last general election, and since the last general election, and in terms of unemployment the reason unemployment is rising is because unemployment is rising is because more people are entering the labour force being less inactive than before because we are getting before because we are getting waiting lists down. I would rather people be looking for a job than on the other side being out of the labour force entirely. That's labour force entirely.

That's exactly the kind of country we want to be building, one where people are to be building, one where people are able to work. Increasing employers National Insurance, as we did in the last Budget, we did so while last Budget, we did so while protecting the smallest businesses. We made sure the ultrarich couldn't We made sure the ultrarich couldn't escape taxes to Leupolz, that's why we ended the non-dom tax break. Yes, increasing taxes on private jets as increasing taxes on private jets as well, getting more energy giant profits into the public purse to profits into the public purse to invest in things we all need.

We know the party opposite will constantly complain about the things we are investing in, or rather the things we are raising money for, but they will never say what they will cut. Because we saw what happened over the last 14 years. We saw the weaker nation they left in their wake. We are doing on this side of the house is investing to change that for good. We have been left after the last 14 years a weaker and more divided nation, a nation where each of us produces less.

Where each of us is drawn inward and finding it more difficult to paid bills. That's exactly what we are fixing on this side of the house, what we are investing in. I'm proud of this government, and proud of this country, most of all I'm proud of the country we will build when we recognise that our common strength is found in our common prosperity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. A few months ago I met with a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A few months ago I met with a former civil servant. He said to me that he was working in government in the run-up to the 97 election. And the run-up to the 97 election. And Ed balls would come into the
18:29
John Glen Portrait Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)
-
-
Ed balls would come into the Department and say, this is what our manifesto says but here is the three-page memo on what we are actually going to do in government. In fairness to that government, quite a lot was achieved. In those first two years of course they stuck rigidly to the Conservative spending plans. Tony Blair's economic adviser said they had a golden economic legacy. I have listened carefully this afternoon to the speeches of the members opposite, and of course I can acknowledge where we were in terms of the economy and what the country wanted, they wanted change.

I recognise that. But members opposite failed completely to acknowledge the scale of a once in a hundred year COVID experience. And what that did to our public finances and the challenges it gave us in the Treasury in terms of the tough decisions we have to make, and the scarring that inevitably occurred for the economy. I will just finish my point then give way. The typical refrain is then to say, what about Liz Truss? I wasn't in Liz Truss's government, my colleagues who were unsure they did the very best they did.

She was in office for seven weeks. I acknowledge that politically it was catastrophic for my party, and there were lots of lessons we will have time to reflect on. But the notion that the dominant reason we lost the last election wasn't related to the scarring of what happened with COVID, and the fundamental challenges and acknowledging that properly, doesn't acknowledging that properly, doesn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reduce it on their Treasury

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reduce it on their Treasury Select Committee together. I will say he's an incredibly kind and brilliant Member of Parliament and brilliant Member of Parliament and has been very kind to me as welcome as I would like that on the record as well. But in terms of the experience coming out of COVID, our intention is not just around Liz intention is not just around Liz Truss, around the fact we have the highest inflation and energy group bills because we are dependent on, bills because we are dependent on, what sets the price 98% of the time, natural gas was 50 to 70% more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

natural gas was 50 to 70% more expense of the wind and solar, so it's the investment in clean energy that was lacking the left is with higher inflation and made us poorer. I want to address the fundamental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to address the fundamental dynamics of spending and that area in particular, but I want to festival draw his attention back to festival draw his attention back to the subject, but I will give way unlike the honourable gentleman he unlike the honourable gentleman he didn't give way to me earlier, but I will say this, and the Treasury will say this, and the Treasury Select Committee the Chancellor Kent was in November and said we have now set the envelope the spending that this month and we are not going to be coming back for more tax increases or indeed with more borrowing.

We now need to live within their means we have set out, within their means we have set out, set ourselves in the budget and allocations of the spending totals. What has happened in a year? Of course events occur. I recognise that events occur and I've referred to them under the previous government. And that presents challenges, but the fundamental problem of the party opposite is understanding the effect of high burdens of tax on wealth creators and their motivation then to invest in employing people, to invest in the productive capacity of the economy, more jobs, more tax revenues from lower rates.

And what this government is doing is saying well, we can just do a little bit more on national insurance, can put a few more burdens of regulation there. The long-term investment for this 100, 190 capital investment, billion of capital investment will transform our economy. But what I hear from businesses in Salisbury, small or large, is that the motivation to grow a business, to employ more people, to actually say I am determined to grow my business because there are some rewards from this is rapidly diminishing.

And what we hear now is more speculations for the next three months about which additional taxes, and today members opposite have suggested equalisation of capital gains tax, of flat rate of pension relief, or a wealth tax, a higher band to council tax, although they seem to may have been ruled out. The overall effectiveness on the top of what we have already had is for businesses to say I'm not going to do this any more. And we've now had two consecutive months of negative growth.

That may well continue. And that is bad for everyone. It's bad for the sort of capacity that we have as a country to invest in the transformation that we all seek to deliver on, and some things we will agree, but it's not sustainable. If the government does not recognise that businesses will not grow and expand. We will not grow the economy if that tax level rises beyond a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certain amount, and I will give way. I think, particularly that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, particularly that I apparently didn't give way apparently didn't give way previously. Otherwise I would have given way if I knew it was him trying to interview me. I recognise what he's saying about COVID. I think as a country we have not yet come to the terms with the true impact of COVID and I think we went for a long time because it still for a long time because it still feels very near to us, and I think as a House, as a new member we are to understand the true impact so I take the point completely, but the take the point completely, but the concern for me and perhaps for colleagues on this side is that by trying to focus only on COVID, and trying to focus only on COVID, and not to focus on the economic and fiscal impact of Liz Truss, whereas he was talking about the political impact, our conservatives will never impact, our conservatives will never learn against the lessons of the Liz Truss moment, and I think we do not want to lose sight of the lessons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to lose sight of the lessons that can be learned. Absolutely. I won't be taking any more interventions but I will say this, that the insight that Liz Truss had about the imperative for Truss had about the imperative for growth means that actually it's right. We do need to look for right. We do need to look for growth. What she didn't do is examine the conditions to do that in a way that the market could understand, and it had catastrophic effects.

But we now have a Labour government. We now have working people who have been massively affected by those tax changes. We have Andrew Bailey, the government -- governor of the Bank of England saying the businesses have made their reaction to the national insurance changes. They've made changes to employment, and that means firing people. We had pulled Johnson downgrading the growth prospects alongside virtually every other independent analyst. The Winter Fuel Payments were an absolute disgrace. The changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief were put on my desk at every fiscal event.

You just say no because they are the wrong thing to do. And the political capital that has been lost and the reputation lost to the government for stewardship of the economy is catastrophic. So I just say to the benches opposite we are facing some pretty tough challenges as we approach this next budget. The choices that the government needs to make around taxes will define the future of this government. What happened last week was the worst possible situation. Several times today we've had what would you do? What we would have done, and what we would do now.

Is take a root and branch look at the welfare system in this country, to see what the government should do and focus on the most vulnerable, look after them well, but recognise one of the legacies of COVID is that pathway into benefits has gone fundamentally wrong. And we as a country cannot afford it. And unless we gripped that, the major driver of cost in this country, we are going to see taxes rise and rise and rise to meet those ironclad fiscal rules.

And we are going to be in a spiral of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decline. On 3 December 2024 the Chancellor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On 3 December 2024 the Chancellor made a commitment. She told a conference of business leaders that
18:38
Joy Morrissey Portrait Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
-
-
conference of business leaders that she would not need to raise taxes. It was a foolish claim from a Chancellor out of her depth. She then taxed the engines of growth in her budget. Businesses and entrepreneurs who create jobs. She sent high earning taxpayers fleeing our country in record numbers. She tax to jobs with her betrayal not to raise the national insurance contributions. This has brought charities, small businesses and entrepreneurs to their knees. She has destroyed the family farm with her family farm tax.

She has taxed hard-working families with the VAT attack on independent schools. Having broken her promises and made false claims to businesses, she is now coming for pensioners. She is coming for the people who have worked and saved, who have paid their tax and contributed to this country. She's the only Chancellor who claims to be an economist but doesn't understand the Laffer curve. It's time for the PM to realise what he has and act. A week out of her depth, Chancellor who is sending our country on a one-way street to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Allister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Allister. Thank you. A substantial level of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. A substantial level of political knockabout is inevitable. political knockabout is inevitable. In a debate such as this. But I do have to say, when it degenerates to have to say, when it degenerates to a Punch and Judy, it's your fault, yes it is, no it's not, it's not yes it is, no it's not, it's not really doing anything for my really doing anything for my constituents. Who live in the moment of this government, and therefore this debate properly should be a
18:40
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
this debate properly should be a focus on what this government is doing in respect of our economy. And when it comes to that in Northern Ireland, we have and are continuing to fail might feel the brunt of many of these measures. Some of them were cited in this motion. The inheritance tax provision on family farms. I agree entirely with the analysis that we heard from the right honourable member for Wetherby and Easingwold as to the depth and the long-term consequences that that is having on family farms.

But I want to focus for a moment on the other side of the inheritance tax imposition. Namely that on Business Property Relief. Because that has not had the same attention but is having equal detriment of respect of many businesses. Particularly in Northern Ireland where we have the staggering statistic that 89% of our businesses are micro-businesses. 89%. According to the UK average, it is 23. In Northern Ireland it is 89. And that translates into the reality that most of those businesses are therefore small family businesses.

And though small family businesses by virtue of what is happening to them in the Business Property Relief, instead of planning for growth, they are now having to plan for death, for inheritance. And that is having a suppressive effect upon our economy. And then when you add the fact that we in Northern Ireland live subject to the pernicious RAC border with all the costs that that brings. I heard some honourable members lamenting that we got Brexit.

I them and the fact that in Northern Ireland we didn't get Brexit. We were left under the use clutches and controls. And let me illustrate with a very practical illustration that's just come to light, because in Northern Ireland we live under EU rules, live under the GSR rules, the general safety regulations, that now means that a purchaser in Northern Ireland who wants to buy a new car from a car salesroom in Northern Ireland will be charged £4000 more than his counterpart in Great Britain.

Why? Because the GSR regulations have to be met. And that is but another illustration of how individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland are being oppressed by the lack of Brexit and continuance of the Euros. I heard talk today about wonderful trade deals, wonderful trade deals which mean that goods coming from those countries into Northern Ireland are treated as coming into the EU, and therefore if there is a differential in tariff, they pay the EU tariff.

You wouldn't pay it in GB. You might have zero tariff or 10% tariff, but if you are bringing those goods from the US from India into Northern Ireland, you pay the tariff. Some say you can claim it back. Well if you go through the hideous paperwork, of every claim, you can eventually if you prove the goods you brought will never end up across the board in the EU, you can eventually maybe after a year get a refund. What does that do? The cash flow in any business? Those are the realities, and those are realities from Northern Ireland that this government is refusing to face up to.

It's causing trade diversion, and yet this government refuses lamentably to deal with it. So I do say that this motion carries considerable merit for me in that it draws this government's attention to what it promised. And the contrast with what it is delivering. It's very substantial indeed. And I say to government, you might have a huge charity, but it's about governing well, not governing just because you have a huge majority in whatever way takes your fancy or take the fancy of your backbenchers.

Do the job, do it right as far as Northern Ireland

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to take part in
18:46
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate. And it's worth reminding the House of the situation reminding the House of the situation in July of last year. When we did have the fastest growth in the G7, employment was 4 million higher than it was in 2010, up to 33 million people in employment. Inflation was on target at around 2%. And the UK had grown between 2010 and 2024 faster than Germany, faster than France, faster than Japan or indeed Italy.

That was the legacy of conservative stewardship. I've asked members opposite to give a more rounded picture, which they sadly almost always refused to do. But of course we had seen debt to GDP go up significantly, partly because of the massive deficit we inherited in 2010, more than 10% of GDP. Phenomenal, it had to be brought down over time. Partly because of COVID and Ukraine where we intervened to pay half of everyone's energy bills. That surrounded picture, but overall we managed to help people through COVID, through the energy crisis with a remarkably high level of employment.

Yet now, just a year later, under this Chancellor's watch, that strong foundation has crumbled. What the party opposite needs to do is recognise that the economy was recovering, and let it grow. Instead by being held on the one hand by the manifesto commitments not to put up the main taxes, yet on the other hand actually thinking they were being clever in some way by imposing National Insurance rises on business but not individuals, that they were somehow keeping to their pledges.

They actually had the most bizarre and perverse effect. The 25 alien hit on the economy created by the jobs tax actually comes down to around 16 billion after behaviour change according to the OBR, then after compensation from the public sector comes down to about 11, then people had to scrabble around for hospices and GPs et cetera, net is probably about 10 billion, and that's before the depressing effect on the economy. Almost certainly single figure billions. Yet the OBR says 60% of the hit next year comes out of ordinary people's wages.

That's the situation, they have in fact imposed a tax of 19 billion on ordinary people's earnings. In order to generate less than 10 billion of tax revenue. It's utterly insane. I really would ask members opposite on the backbenches to have a look at that, come back, I would love to hear if those numbers are wrong because I would love to hear we are not doing something as suicidal as we appear to be doing. I wish I could drink the Kool-Aid like the honourable member for rugby, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection, unlike some of his colleagues he gives every impression that he believes it himself.

I give way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable gentleman. I am certainly not drinking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am certainly not drinking Kool-Aid, I do believe what I say. I believe it firmly and I respect the right honourable gentleman as a colleague, even though he is from a different party. No Kool-Aid for me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different party. No Kool-Aid for me. The honourable gentleman, I thank him for that. The economy has him for that. The economy has contracted for two consecutive months, shrinking by 0.3% in April months, shrinking by 0.3% in April and 0.1% in May. A textbook sign we are or could be heading into recession. Employment is down as recession. Employment is down as well, ONS data shows payroll jobs has fallen by over 100,000 in a has fallen by over 100,000 in a single month, with around 274,000 fewer jobs in Perth last year and unemployment lining to 4.6%.

Following the excellent speech by Following the excellent speech by the right honourable member. Lets look at the big picture -- honourable member for Salisbury. There was a magnificent victory for Labour last year in the election, 400+ MPs. It really is up to Labour 400+ MPs. It really is up to Labour members to recognise just how scary a position we are in. Because we do have debt to GDP at around 100%, we've got a world in which the fastest growth is to be found in developing states some of which are quite hostile to us and our values.

The truth is that no rich country, no powerful country has some divine right to stay that way. Wealth does not just come down from the heavens. Even in the 14 years we were in government too often this place would obsess over how to spend money, from the moment we got up in the morning until we went to bed at night we would talk about how we would spend the money. You've got to generate it first. And it doesn't matter whether your number one concern is alleviation of poverty, or the defence of the nation or education or the health service.

You've got to have a strong economy. That's why the government was right, one of the reasons it may have got that majority, its mission was economic growth. It doesn't come through in the speeches now from the party opposite. The number one mission is economic growth, we should be sweating in select committees or party on the floor of a house, Westminster, sweating over how we deliver that economic growth. We are not going backwards, we have to grow the economy, we have to accept which will be tough for members opposite most of whom who have not had at sector experience, who just think wealth creators will endlessly be offered haircuts and put up with it, the art of government is to recognise the realities.

To align the incentives with the public goods we want to see. And after year there are so many flashing red lights showing warning signs that the government isn't getting that right. He needs to be prepared to think again. In my experience, and I was involved after the omni-shambles budget of 2012 I was part of helping the then Chancellor see his route to a better path forward. It is important members opposite recognise it, the country is in a very serious perilous position, potentially.

We have no divine right to be a wealthy powerful nation, and it is the next four years that are important. I hope and expect there will be a Conservative government afterwards, but whatever happens the next four years are important. I hope members opposite will give more nuanced speeches in order to influence the frontbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Despite promises of economic competence and the brighter future competence and the brighter future at the election, the tax rises this
18:53
Llinos Medi Portrait Llinos Medi MP (Ynys Môn, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
at the election, the tax rises this government has made has undermined economic growth in Wales. Over 99% of all businesses in Wales are small and medium-sized, the increase to employers National Insurance Contributions hit them incredibly hard. It has raised operating costs, meaning businesses are less able to whether times of hardships. It limits their ability to invest and expand. The impact has also been felt in our hospices. Yesterday we received the devastating news of the temporary closure of the hospice do you do -- do you to financial pressures.

This is having a direct impact on our communities. One policy the government can stop before it is implemented is the proposed changes to agricultural and business property relief, set to take effect in April 2026. Listening to the voice of family farmers and local businesses it is clear this policy will cause huge damage. As the farmers Union of Wales says, if the reforms to API remain unchanged the consequences for farmers, rural communities and food production in Wales could be devastating and irreversible.

Plaid Cymru has been clear there should be a Wales specific impact assessment before this policy is pursued further, given the importance of agricultural land small businesses to our economy and communities. Instead there were damaging policies such as raising National Insurance and cutting API, we should be making the tax system fairer. We must follow the principles that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden. Instead of taxing small businesses and trying to plunder benefits, the government should look at a wealth tax on assets over £10 million.

To raise billions in revenue, that's needed to support the public finances. Taxis are a political choice, applied, would make choices on the side of communities in Wales. -- Plaid Cymru.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This Labour government has begun

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This Labour government has begun a full-scale assault on the British economy. They punished workers, hammered businesses and betrayed hammered businesses and betrayed every promise they made on tax my constituents. Let's look at the
18:55
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
constituents. Let's look at the facts. National Insurance up, a 1.2% rise for the IFS confirming it will largely fall on working people. Agricultural property relief Agricultural property relief slashed, this is threatening farms and food security. In my own constituency farming is not just a way of life, it is the bedrock of our community. When I visited Kilsyth farm he said his business is now laying off staff just to meet the new tax burden, that's not policy it is economic sabotage.

Business property relief, if you are a small business owner you now face a tax penalty simply for owning your own premises and hoping to pass it on. This threatens continuity for family firms across the country. The result of all of this, inflation stuck at 3.4%, well above the Bank of England target of 2%. Unemployment up to 4.6%, the highest in four years. Borrowing at 17.7 billion in May, and public debt forecast due to hit 90% of GDP with annual debt interest soaring to a hundred 30,000,000,000 x 29/30.

The tax burden heading to a historic high, the highest in record in fact, yet Labour still refused to rule out new taxes on homes, pensions or savings. The Chancellor won't even say whether the small business owners are people, and the Prime Minister dodges the question altogether. In Farnham shop vacancies rose 10.5% in 1/4, in Haslemere and Bordon employers are telling me they are freezing and cutting hours. And shooting stars Children's Hospital that serves my constituency they will have to spend £90,000 in new unit costs enough to hire three nurses, now going straight to the Treasury.

That's not just wrong, it's unconscionable. Meanwhile Labour's VAT raid on education pushed more than 13,000 pupils out of the independent sector, 10,000 more than the government predicted. That means more pressure on already overstretched state schools, crowded classrooms, more exhausted teachers, more children falling behind. Labour promised competence, instead they delivered confusion and chaos. They broke promises National Insurance, council tax, farms, education, now they are breaking Britain's economic future. This is self-harm, this isn't change it is collapsed. This isn't what the British people voted for, they deserve better.
18:58
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-
In my constituency there are dozens of hard-working family businesses who are the backbone of our local economy. And they are key to our local identity. These are business owners who get up early, go to bed late, work weekends, employ hundreds of local people, and contribute hugely to our local high streets and communities, and our local economy. This government seems desperate to squeeze every single penny out of these family businesses into the hands of the Chancellor. The rise in the employers National Insurance puts a huge strain on the bill, this is squeezing every single family business.

Schools, hospices, indeed last weekend I took part in a local fundraising event, the oxen hope straw race which has been raising money for our local hospice in the Worth Valley. They tell me that every year they do fundraising, now instead of going to provide end-of-life care that money is going straight to the Treasury in paying employees National Insurance. The sad fact is that the last -- large sums of money going to provide further charities is not going to what they need but going directly to the Treasury.

And there is the business rate relief reduction, that is impacting many hard-working businesses across Keighley and Ilkley. And then we have the inheritance tax challenges that is impacting many of our farming businesses and many of our family farming businesses. Slashing the 100% relief on agricultural property relief and business property relief to £1 million threshold. This is where the naivete kicks in. Because when you consider that the average size of a farm is about 200 acres across England, and you value the farmland, the house, the Cottage, the crops, the machinery, the livestock, you are well above £1 million threshold.

Therefore exposing nearly every farming business to an IHT liability. These are businesses that make less than a percent, if a return at all, yet the members opposite say these hard- working businesses have two have the burden and weight of responsibility on their shoulders. And that is a on their shoulders. And that is a I hope you will justify why this hard-working family farm and family businesses are having to burden the shoulder for the mistakes that this Labour government are making, and I will give way if he can answer that point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ticket 62 consecutively have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ticket 62 consecutively have stood up and spoken, I want to hear what proposals they would bring to raise revenue or what services they raise revenue or what services they want to cut? I made a conscious effort in my contribution early in this debate to set out three constructive proposals for the constructive proposals for the Treasury to look at, and I challenge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Conservative benches at the time because there was a death... I'm sure the whipped benches were watching his contribution, making a watching his contribution, making a note that he is going to be in line for a job, and I saw the Minister quaking in his boots at the thought of these bizarre recommendations of these bizarre recommendations that came forward. The point is that the Labour government are not realising that all of these tax increases are hitting the many increases are hitting the many hard-working businesses across every constituency in this House.

And shame on the government for bringing shame on the government for bringing these forward. No matter how elaborate the rain dance gets or how impressive the press releases get from this government, growth will from this government, growth will not come. Precisely because of the decisions that this Chancellor has decisions that this Chancellor has taken. We need a reset, we need a new direction. We need to limit spending so we can cut tax, not consistently raise it. Until the government realise this, I'm afraid for all of those family businesses up and down this country who are being penalised time and time again by this Labour government.

by this Labour government.
19:03
Sarah Bool Portrait Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
-
Members across the House are of course familiar with the winter of discontent, 1979, the year our Chancellor was born. A Labour government at the behest of the union paymasters, refugees piling up around the country. Fast forward 46 years, a year into the Chancellor's term of office and what we have before us? A summer of anxiety. A long seemingly hot summer ahead of us with a spectre of impending taxes looming. In a desperate and flawed attempt to paper over the financial chasm of Labour's own making, this government are actually targeting the hard-working people they failed to stand up for, so what has happened in Labour's first year? My farmers are reeling from the raid on the cash for industries with changes through APR and BPR, national insurance and testify withdrawal to name but a few.

This Government asked them to diversify, to help them with their business while simultaneously taxing them for the privilege. A school in South Northamptonshire is closing as a direct result of the VAT rates and national insurance rises. Families who work hard and invest in their children's education have been punished, students displaced, teachers losing their jobs, and standards hit. Hospitality owners have said that they cannot risk expansion. They are just about surviving as it stands. This year alone over 1,000 pubs across the UK have closed, 220 of those just since April.

My beauty salons in the hairdressing industry are calling me in because they cannot take on any more apprenticeships. And if it continues Estates, British consortium have said there will be no apprentice starts in 2027. What a legacy for this Labour government. And my pensioners, first hit with the removal of winter fuel payment allowance and now facing the prospect of being taxed on their pension for the first time, which is also a terrible disgrace. There is a crucial lesson we have learned after a year of this government.

They are the embodiment of their phase failed to prepare, prepare to fail. They've had years in opposition to come up with a plan and they have failed miserably. And they keep asking us what might we do? Is that because they are seeking advice from the more fiscally prudent? I know that ministers and... I can give you certainly more first and at the ministers on the benches opposite want to listen but I've raise these on behalf of my constituents who ask us to do this.

I ask and listen and ask the government, implore them if they do want to have growth, they must take this and think again about how to achieve it or it will be an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

autumn of anguish. Alison Griffiths.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alison Griffiths. Thank you. Hard-working families

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Hard-working families and business owners of Littlehampton and our villagers are feeling the squeeze as never before. The
19:06
Alison Griffiths Portrait Alison Griffiths MP (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
-
-
government stood on a manifesto promise not to raise taxes for hard-working people, yet at the very first opportunity in the Autumn Budget, they raised employers national insurance. This is a tax on job security and job creation. A tax on growth and a tax on ambition. The jobs tax, one of the Chancellor's flagship failures has wrecked business confidence. It's made it more expensive to hard workers, stagnated the jobs market, and is threatening countless job losses and business closures.

It falls on top of the Employment Rights Bill that signals the return of 1970s style employment law that will further stifle growth. As well as the family business tax, business rates and higher wage bills. In small coastal towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where over 90% of local businesses have fewer than 10 employees, every cost increase, every job loss is keenly felt. Across our constituency, families, livelihoods and small businesses, hospices and charities at the heart of our communities are facing an impossible position.

In their short time in government, the party opposite has become the party of taxation. The Chancellor has backed herself into a corner. More tax hikes are undoubtedly on the horizon. That's why I think the Leader of the Opposition for tabling this important motion today. Working people in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and the businesses, charities and hospices that employ them need to be defended from the tax rates of this government, and that's what I intend to do.

To stand up for the people of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton today, tomorrow and throughout this Parliament.
19:08
Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Frontbench Richard Fuller. have had an exciting and heartfelt debate on the motion today, and I'd like to commend speeches from this side of the House from the right honourable member., Wetherby and Easingwold, Angus and Perthshire Glens bronze, Basildon and Billericay, the right honourable member from Salisbury or Beaconsfield, North Antrim, is non-, Farnham and Bordon, Keighley, South Northamptonshire, and Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We had some excellent speeches, all with a passion, speaking on behalf of the small businesses of the farmers, workers and the pensioners who have been hit by Labour changing its mind on taxes, doing things differently than it said at the election.

We had two new phrases I think from my honourable friend the Member for Bognor Regis, we realise we have to challenge the Chancellor based on her flagship failures, not her flagship policies, and the key point made by the honourable member North Antrim he said with great passion that because of labours tax on family businesses, small businesses are now no longer planning for growth. They are planning for death. The public feel that they were misled by Labour at the general election.

They think the Labour frontbench are incompetent. They think the Prime Minister is woefully out of touch and the Chancellor is out of her depth. And why shouldn't they? A Prime Minister who needs multiple attempts to define a woman and then multiple attempts to define a working person doesn't exactly inspire confidence. And the Chancellor who says she won't raise taxes on working people and then hikes national insurance, costing working people their jobs and their earnings doesn't inspire trust. Our motion today provides the government with an opportunity to draw a line, to recognise the overreach and errors in its taxation policies and give some hope that the makers in our society, those who work hard in our warehouses, offices, factories, shops and restaurants and our public services to recognise the errors in the Treasury's assessment of the impact of the family farm tax on those who grow our food, to recognise the trauma caused by the jobs tax on those who build our businesses.

These are the people who know how to grow our economy, not the numpties on the frontbench. So why is the government intent on holding them back? Alas the Chancellor thinks she knows best. Despite taxes being at their highest rate on record, the Chancellor is hunt for capital gains tax, wealth tax, pensioners tax, council tax, savings tax, tax tax tax, always the same with a Labour government. The government's strategy is to tax her way to growth.

I have to tell the Chancellor that that strategy will not work. No economy can tax its businesses out of existence and create growth. And tonight, the Chancellor starts her new tax campaign. With a visit to the city. For the first time it won't be so much a Mansion House beach as a mansion tax assessment. The Chancellor will claim the government actions have brought about financial stability. Well, maybe. But not in this country. The government's Chagossian has eliminated income tax in Mauritius, but given British taxpayers a new 30 billion tax bill.

The government's abolition of non- dom status is boosting the tax revenues of Portugal, Italy, but will mean taxpayers here have to cough up billions a year more to plug the gap as people leave the UK, taking their tax payments with them. The truth is the Chancellor has done the complete opposite of her claims of stability. She is the are of an instability storm of her own making. When nobody knows when her next tax raid will come and he will get hit the hardest.

A second summer of doubt and uncertainty caused by this Chancellor and tolerated by this Prime Minister. And Labour backbenchers know it. They know all the times the Chancellor has led them up the hill only to lead them down again. The once in a parliament tax hike. The removal of Winter Fuel Payments. The blunted attempts at welfare cuts, and it's only been one year. The government benches are limping towards recess. Look at them. Napoleon's troops were in better humour on their march back from Moscow than some Labour MPs are as they make their way back to their constituencies.

Back to the people who just one year ago they promised so much only to deliver oh so little. No wonder the people feel so let down. But let's be fair, some Labour backbenchers are going back with a warm feeling. A reshuffle is coming soon. To clear away all the deadwood on the frontbench. Oh so much deadwood. Some Labour backbenchers have already had the tap on the shoulder. They already know who they are. They are going home with great expectations of high office.

No no, spare a thought please for all the other Labour MPs who have missed out. They felt they put given a promise that if they did the right thing they would be looked after. Now they know the government has renege on their promise. The change they hope for will not come. For them, I am truly sorry. But there is one consolation, at least now they know how the rest of the country feels.
19:15
James Murray Portrait James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
Minister James Murray. listened very carefully to the shadow Minister just now who has clearly been taking theatrical lessons from his colleague the shadow chancellor. I've listened to him and indeed listen to all of his colleagues during this debate, and frankly they have quite some cheek. Because they speak from the opposition benches and yet as they do so, they fail even once honestly to reflect on why they are there on that side of the House. And the reason they are there in opposition is not only because they ran our public services into the ground but also because they gave up on fiscal responsibility, the responsibility that are so critical for stability, investment and growth.

And so when we won the election last year, it was our task to restore that responsibility and fix the £22 billion black hole in the public finances, a legacy of the previous government's waste and delay. I know they hate to be reminded of it. But that's the truth. That's what we inherited, and so is my right honourable friend said in opening this debate, we acted on it after this debate, we acted on it after That is why at last year's budget the Chancellor acted decisively to stabilise public finances and lay the ground for growth after 14 years of Tory decline.

Rather than shirking responsibility we took the necessary choices to make sure our NHS, our schools and other vital services received the funding they need to get back on their feet. I thank all those members who are shadow Minister mentioned in his summing up speech as well as my honourable friends on this side of the house. Bolton West, Rugby, ground shouts and Loughborough. In many of their contributions today honourable members have spoken about the choices we have had to make as a government, and let me be clear, whilst many of the decisions on tax have been difficult and we recognise they may have had consequences, we've taken every opportunity to take those decisions in as very way as possible.

That's why at last years budget we decided to end the non-dom status, ending private school fees, why we raised tax that -- stamp duty on homes, we raised inheritance tax, and wired HMRC we are implementing the biggest package of measures to close the tax gap that this country has ever seen. Measures that will make sure everyone including the wealthiest pay the tax they owe. These choices have been the right choices to restore public finances and get public services back on their feet.

Yet the party opposite, Conservatives, Lib Dems, Reform who are surprisingly not here, all voted against our Finance Bill. They have refused time and again to support the decisions we have taken on tax while also refusing to say what funding they would oppose as a result. Decisions around employers National Insurance have been necessary to meet our fiscal rules. Let me be clear, why those rules are so important and why under this government they will always be nonnegotiable. The fiscal rules Chancellor introduced last year are this government's assurance to the markets that we will live within our means and pay government debt.

They are not only crucial to keeping debt payments under control, they also enable us to invest in the future of our country. So thanks to the Chancellor's fiscal rules the stability rule and the investment rule we have been able to boost capital investment by £120 billion compared to the previous governments plans. That investment will improve transport infrastructure, deliver more social and affordable housing, bring down bills through energy security, unlock private sector investment, and most importantly improve the lives of working people across Britain by making working people better off.

Without without people better off. Without without our plans to get Britain moving taxpayers would see evermore of their money being spent on debt interest payments. We have taken the tough but fair and necessary choices to repair public finances so we can rebuild our schools, hospitals and frontline services across the country. As many honourable and right honourable members have asked today, if the party opposite disagreed with our approach may be back and tell us whether they would cut schools, hospitals or defence? Maybe they can tell as which taxes they would raise instead? But instead of that, at the moment Conservatives and Reform are competing with each other to inherit the mantle of Liz Truss.

They blindly make unfunded promises on tax, promises we know would force up payments across Britain and hit working people the hardest. The British people want security, stability, public services that work again and more money in their pockets. It's only on this side of the House, this Labour government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is prepared to take the decisions necessary to make that happen. The question is as on the Order
19:20
19:34
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-

paper. Motion number five civil aviation. The question is as on the aviation. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it. Motion number six, local government. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it. Motion number seven, ayes have it. Motion number seven, electricity. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it.

Russia number eight, competition. The question is as on the order The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Division! I beg your pardon. Undo that. Why not? All right, it's Undo that. Why not? All right, it's division deferred.... OK. Nearly. At one or two people worried. Where have we got it? Question number eight. Nine. Question number nine, competition.

The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Division deferred. contrary, "No." Division deferred. Got it right that time. Question Number Ten, criminal law. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it. But number 11, financial assistance to industry. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. I beg to move that this House do
19:36
None Portrait Petitions
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. No, we have petitions. Bear with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, we have petitions. Bear with me. We are not quite there yet. Petition Mike Martin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Mike Martin. Thank you. I rise to present this petition regarding accessibility at High Brooms Station. This is further to an online permission my petition to an online permission my petition on the same manner which has collected 610 signatures. Under the collected 610 signatures. Under the previous government, plans were previous government, plans were drawn up for the station with footbridge. Now these plans must be footbridge. Now these plans must be implemented. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to take Commons urges the government to take into account the concerns of these petitioners and take immediate action to ensure the High Brooms Station receives the funding Station receives the funding required to improve accessibility and the petitioners remain et

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the petitioners remain et Petition, accessibility at High

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brooms Station. Petition, Sarah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition, Sarah. Thank you. I rise to present this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to present this petition about rural post offices in Glastonbury and Somerton that have closed at an alarming rate over closed at an alarming rate over recent years. A separate similar petition by the owners of Somerton stores Mr and Mrs Stephen Jim stores Mr and Mrs Stephen Jim recently garnered 800 signatures within two weeks, highlighting the within two weeks, highlighting the overwhelming support for a new Post Office in Somerton. The prohibitive Office in Somerton. The prohibitive costs have present prevented this so far.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons request that the House of Commons urge the government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate petitioners and take immediate action to safeguard the future of action to safeguard the future of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition, rural post offices.
19:37
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition, rural post offices. I beg to move this House do now adjourn. The question is this House do now adjourn. Liz Saville Roberts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(SPEAKING IN WELSH) and from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(SPEAKING IN WELSH) and from March to June this year the Ministry of Justice held a public consultation on proposed reform of consultation on proposed reform of Local Justice Areas. The consultation saw responses in a range of proposed virtual change is range of proposed virtual change is said to affect magistrates across England and Wales. Among these proposed changes is the merging of three existing magistrate benches into a single North Wales bench. into a single North Wales bench. This is to serve a total of six local authorities covering an area local authorities covering an area totalling 2383 2383 mi.

As the totalling 2383 2383 mi. As the Member of Parliament for the area which makes up a significant portion which makes up a significant portion of the North waste Wales magistrates area, this plan is of particular concern and I'm grateful for the opportunity to debated today. The local justice system in the North of local justice system in the North of Wales is commonly made of the three benches, north-east Wales which serves Wrexham and Sierra Leone, north-central Wales representing Conwy and North West Wales covering Conwy and North West Wales covering Quinlivan in this one.

The North West Wales bench is based at the West Wales bench is based at the kenaf and Justice Centre in the largest town in my constituency. Magistrates are familiar with this Magistrates are familiar with this court and making the journey to that location to undertake their duties. And the Ministry of Justice plans however, magistrates will be expected to sit at the courts outside their so-called home court between 20 and 40% of their time. In some areas and in more urban constituencies this may not result in significant increase journey times and distances, but this will indubitably not be the case for individuals in the north-west of Wales.

For example if a magistrate lives in pen scene, a journey to the magistrates court would occur a drive of around 40 minutes. If that's a magistrate were called to the nearest next nearest court in clan dinner as part of the 20 to 40% requirement their journey time would nearly double between an hour and 15 minutes and if they were called to the north-eastern courts in broader Wrexham the journey times would be one hour and 45 minutes or two hours respectively and I must say that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on a good day as well. First of all can I commend the honourable lady for bringing the debate and I want to congratulate her for bringing this forward. I her for bringing this forward. I spoke to her beforehand. Does she agree magistrates must know the agree magistrates must know the communities, the characteristics in which they come from so they can best serve justice for the victims, best serve justice for the victims, in other words you better know where you come from, you better know the people you serve and then you do the job.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

job. Very grateful to my honourable friend the Member for Strangford for his intervention and of course this is what we talk about the nature of justice serving those communities. It needs to know those people within those communities and also to reflect the characteristics to best reflect the characteristics to best serve the victims, the defendants, advocates and the witnesses in the process by which justice is seen to process by which justice is seen to be done. These large journeys, longer journeys which are mentioned will inevitably create difficulties for magistrates in this instance, they are volunteers.

Many of them also have other responsibilities also have other responsibilities such as childcare, the care of elderly relatives and some will also be working other employment, and it is foreseen that this very likely to result in resignations, so my first question is has an impact assessment be made on the potential loss of experienced magistrates they need to recruit and train new magistrates and whether certain groups of people will be worse affected by changes in travelling time? Cost of course is another factor.

If an individual magistrate currently sits only in one court but is now directed to spend the minimum requirement for 20% at another, annual travel expenses claim will likely double. If they were allocated as is theoretically possible to spend 40% of their time in mould or another court, the annual travel claim would likely increase by 600%. So can the Minister confirm whether an assessment has been carried out into the substantial increased costs and the value this give us the public money? I want to turn out the impact on Welsh language services, so while the present three Local Justice Areas are easily grouped under the title of North Wales, it must be recognised that the communities they served are not uniform and indeed the differences are most apparent in the use of Welsh.

The act of Union 1536 decreed that only English can be used in courts in Wales. This was repealed by the Welsh Courts act of 1942. The first piece of legislation to recognise the right to use the language, of course legislation has moved on considerably since then. The North West Wales bench serves two local authority areas with the highest estimate to protect -- percentage of Welsh speakers whether both languages in daily use as a community, family and administrative language. The ministries call will routinely hear defendants, victims, witnesses and advocates drawn from these communities and from the town of Caernarvon itself where 85% of the population speak Welsh.

The reality is that's just not true for the other two areas in the proposed grouping. Let's make clear in the percentage of Welsh speaking magistrates across the current Local Justice Areas at present, if the 5% speak Welsh in the North West Wales area while 16% in the central North area and only 8% in the north-east. And we must that the purpose of local justice is to do exactly that members of a particular community to administer justice in and on behalf of that community, and that means of course reflecting the local community.

The North West Wales bench, this has resulted in the magistrates court routinely operating in Welsh. Indeed the kenaf and Justice Centre is the home of HMCTS Welsh language unit. There is considerable concern that this hard fought for offer of bilingual service in English and Welsh for all court users will be ill served by the UK government proposals and the prospective Welsh speaking magistrates will think twice before applying for roles, thus further reducing the number of Welsh speaking magistrates seven communities across the whole of North Wales.

This media issue was immediately raised by senior magistrates on the North West Wales bench. They asked why a full assessment had not been made of the impact of the recommendations on the use of the language and the availability of wash language services. In addition was then made to understand the equality statement outlining the potential impact on magistrates use of the Welsh language phrased as protected characteristics but framing an assessment in this way fails to consider the potential impact on the rights of victims, witnesses, defendants and service users and fails to engage with the duties enshrined in the Welsh language act 1993.

I'm grateful to understand from the Minister and a response to my letter on this subject that she is mindful of commitments under the is mindful of commitments under the MHA's Welsh language scheme, noting this includes responsibilities to assess the linguistic consequences of policies affecting services provided to the people in Wales and, " To undertake a Welsh language impact test during consultation." While we wait to see how these responsibilities play out, it's clear that the magistrates in the north-west of Wales do not agree that an adequate assessment of the cultural and linguistic impact of these changes has yet been undertaken.

In fact magistrates go so far as to tell me that they believe the MHA has treated Wales and the people of Wales with contempt. And they are not alone in their concerns for the Welsh language commissioners make that clear. After receiving initial correspondence from the MHA, the Welsh language Commissioner's office has told magistrates that the information and response provided raises more questions about how the Welsh language is considered within the consultation, especially the alleged failure to consider the implications of moving Welsh magistrates from Caernarvon to other courts across Wales for top this is a translation.

The commissioners correspondence as they doubt whether the impact of the proposals on court users has been identified, particular those currently served by the North West Wales bench. I'm aware the Welsh language Commissioner has contacted the Minister in relation to their concerns and I call on the Minister today to respond in full to the The Minister's response to my letter noted the MoJ produced a full consultation document to court users. The translation of such documents by public bodies is in all honesty the bare minimum, I think it's actually a requirement under Welsh law.

In all honesty, that's not the point here. It is concerning that so little attention has been given to the effects of UK government reform on the Welsh language, the target of Welsh Labour government's goal of a million Welsh speakers by 2030. Rural court closures from the previous government, bilingual magistrates who are able to work in Welsh and English, the proportion of bilingual magistrates serving has fallen from around 80% to just over 50%, 55%. There are serious concerns this reform in the North Wales will further diminish the percentage and number of magistrates who routinely will be able to offer a service in both Welsh and English, restricting what is the right and law as regards language for court users.

It begs the question of how effective justice can be if a person is denied the right to justice in the language in which they express themselves best, the way they express their emotions and feelings. Of course not only that, but this language is one of the two official languages of their country. In this case this is the first language of the majority of people in that area. My first question to the Minister is, when will there be a proper assessment into the impact of Welsh court under these proposed changes? After all, let's remember Dick Pam Darren was sentenced to death in 1831, he was tried in English but he said from the scaffold " Oh Lord, this is injustice".

This proposal follows what is already been considerable reform in the field of local just. Local Justice Areas only reorganised in 2016 last, numerous courts across Wales have been closed since 2010 including those at Holyhead with the operation centralised. Magistrates endured over a decade of continuous change, let us remember who they are, volunteers who dedicate their time to help provide justice within their local communities. That is why they have come forward. North-west Wales magistrates tell me they are regularly praised for their performance, they say they have not been provided any reason why the changes necessary.

I suspect the MoJ may be considering the model of North Wales police, which is a regional police force. But I would hasten to point out that the force area operates community policing across three subregions of western, central and eastern, which exactly reflects the three benches as things stand in North Wales. A University health Board also serves the North region in its entirety, but the pressure placed on it in endeavouring to meet the needs of its widely varied communities is recognised as contributing in part to its being in and out of special measures over the last 10 years.

Seven of the last 10 years. A couple more questions. Will the Minister commits to ensure Local Justice Area form proposals will recognise justice is best served by magistrates rooted in their communities, and uniquely to Wales able to work in both national languages. And also, will she commit to redoubling efforts to recruit bilingual magistrates across Wales so that benches can be fully representative of the communities they serve. Too close, the Minister told me last week that one of the geniuses of the Magistrate's Court is the local link, and the fact it delivers local just.

I agree entirely, that's why brought the debate today. I close by urging the Minister and her department to consider the points I raised on behalf of magistrates in north-west Wales, and please respond to the questions I have posed. Thank you very much.
19:50
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
Let me begin by congratulating the right honourable member, on securing what is an important debate on the reform of Local Justice on the reform of Local Justice Areas. May I also agree with her that the contribution of magistrates right across the country, but in particular in North Wales, is something which deserves greater recognition. And in particular the North Wales magistrate is performing well, and I want to pay tribute to those who make it possible.

This debate is a timely opportunity to clarify the government's intentions to reflect on our recent consultation and address the concerns raised, particularly those from Wales. I would like to begin by setting out some context surrounding the local justice areas, and the case for reform. Local Justice Areas were first introduced by the previous Labour government as part of the Courts act 20s 03. -- 2003. They replaced petty sessional divisions and were designed to define the geographical boundaries for magistrates court.

However the landscape has changed significantly over the last 20 years or so. The hard legal boundaries of Local Justice Areas create in flexibilities in the Magistrate's Court system leading to delays and inefficiencies. By abolishing Local Justice Areas and implement in a non-legislative replacement structure we aim to improve flexibility in the system, reduce your receipt and allow for more freedom in magistrates deployment. The government and judiciary launched a joint consultation earlier this year on what the replacement system for Local Justice Areas should look like.

I want to be absolutely clear that that consultation was performed by two key principles, firstly a commitment key principles, firstly a commitment to local justice of which the member speaks, but also magistrate. We have received over 1,400 responses from legal professionals local authorities and members of the public. I was encouraged to see strong engagement with the proposals, it will feed the outcome of the consultation. I want to stress we are carefully considering all the responses before moving forward, we don't approach this with a closed mind.

This is genuine consultation and the feedback we received through it will be vital in terms of shaping the reforms. Though Local Justice Areas as they are now a legal boundary, will be abolished, this does not mean and to local justice. Localism is at the heart of this. We want to ensure magistrates feel connected to their local communities, and that local citizens continue to feel their local magistrates serve them. At the core of our principles is a new system of so-called benches, a structure of court groups which will be used for the purposes of magistrates recruitment, deployment and training following the abolition of Local Justice Areas.

Unlike Local Justice Areas, benches would not be defined in legislation and would have soft boundaries to allow magistrates greater Flex ability to sit in other courts. Such courts might be closer to where they currently live but not accessible due to the current hard legal boundary, and might offer magistrates a broader range of work than they currently engage in. Our consultation proposes to align benches broadly with the boundaries of criminal justice areas, which themselves are based on the boundaries of police force areas.

As the core business involves prosecutions initiated by police forces, we believe in most cases this is a natural fit. Where a given criminal justice area will be too large to create a workable bench we have suggested, I'm happy to give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I'm interested she mentioned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm interested she mentioned police forces, I suspected that was part of it, would you recognise North Wales police have felt the North Wales police have felt the need when it comes to community policing not to divide but separate the area into three areas. Highly populous in the East, a middle area and then the West which is much more scattered population. That reflects

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scattered population. That reflects what the community needs more effectively. That's precisely why we have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's precisely why we have a consultation. It's to reflect the variation that exists in different parts of the country, and it's why I parts of the country, and it's why I say that in most cases the criminal justice area and the area in which a particular police force operates particular police force operates will be a natural fit for magistrates, but it won't work for everyone necessarily. It's precisely everyone necessarily. It's precisely why we are taking those soundings, engaging with local stakeholders to make sure that these soft boundaries make sure that these soft boundaries are reflective of local circumstances.

And it's why this is circumstances. And it's why this is such a vital debate. And one which we hope to reflect these local we hope to reflect these local contributions in the final set of proposals. Where a given criminal justice area would be too large to create a workable bench we have suggested a different model which retains current Local Justice Area boundaries. For example, creating a bench based on the very large geographical area of Dafydd powers, would be inaccessible.

It would have long journey times, for certain magistrates. We therefore proposed to retain the current Local Justice Area boundaries in that case. On the other hand, where analysis suggested that a criminal justice area could reasonably be used to structure the boundaries of a bench, we proposed, but it's only a proposal and one on which we are consulting, to merge certain Local Justice Areas. That's where the provenance of the benches for North and South Wales came from. The point of this consultation, as I reiterate, is to seek feedback on the proposed model, gather feedback from magistrates and other stakeholders, local leaders, about what will or won't work.

The proposed configuration is a starting point for this exercise, we are very much in listening mode. I'm aware magistrates in some benches including those within the constituency of the right honourable member have raised concerns about these proposals, and as ever she is typically articulated in setting out the concerns of her constituents and local considerations. I very much appreciate the right honourable member wrote to me in advance of today's adjournment debate outlining those concerns so we can take them on board within the Ministry of Justice.

I would like to reassure the right honourable member that her concerns and the concerns of Welsh magistrates have been and will be heard. Whilst I cannot at this juncture confirm the outcome of the consultation, and indeed some of the matters within the consultation are rightly for the judiciary and not the politicians to determine, these concerns and others express in response will inform decisions for the structure of the Welsh Magistrate's Court. Turning to the right honourable member's questions in relation to Welsh language impacts, which are indeed incredibly important in this context.

As she has said, a key concern for Welsh speaking magistrates is the impact of these proposals on the Welsh language. This concern has also been articulated by other members of the Welsh judiciary. At the heart of it is the differences in the percentage of Welsh speaking magistrates within the proposed bench could limit opportunities for Welsh speaking magistrates or court users to speak in Welsh. Let me take this opportunity to assure the House that this government retains -- remains committed to the bilingual provision of court services in Wales, and to the equal treatment of Welsh and English in the delivery of justice in these courts.

Under the proposals, all magistrates would have the chance to discuss their sitting arrangements with their bench chair, setting patterns would be decided on a case-by-case basis taking account of personal circumstances as well as business need. A Welsh speaking magistrates preferences would naturally form part of these discussions, it is certainly not our intention to force Welsh speaking magistrates to sit where it would limit their ability to use Welsh in court. More broadly the proposals are intended for current practice with magistrates intended to take most of their settings closest to their home or work location.

The overall intention is to minimise as far as possible the extent of practical change to day-to-day business for magistrates in local areas. Given the continuity in setting patterns and interpretations in Welsh courts, we don't expect it to impact Welsh language services in Welsh courts. To answer her question directly and reassure her, a full Welsh language impact assessment will accompany any final proposals. Again, we are going to carefully consider the responses we received from Welsh magistrates and other stakeholders to consider the impact on Welsh being spoken in court and put in place any mitigations should those be necessary.

We have committed to publishing a full Welsh language impact test alongside the final set of policy decisions, and we expect to publish our response later this year. In relation to the point raised around travel times and deployment, I'm aware of the issue of travel times for magistrates and court users under the proposed bench configuration for Wales. With reference to concerns over increased journey times and added difficulties for those who for example are reliant on public transport. This is also a concern that has been expressed in some of the responses to repose also in England, it cuts We are keen to draw on magistrates first hand knowledge about their local areas before finalising any of these boundaries.

The ongoing analysis of consultation responses will help us to identify those areas such as in Wales where a proposed ban could be excessively large or result in an unreasonably long journey time. She rightly acknowledges, magistrates operate on a voluntary basis. They do a fantastic service and we don't want to put barriers in their way. This is about enabling them to carry out their service as well as to be deployed flexibly, but it's certainly not intend to put an impediment to the vital work that impediment to the vital work that they do.

The consultation does not propose any changes to case listing practices. The abolition of Local Justice Areas will however make it easier to hear a case in a court closer to a user's home location. We would not therefore expect the new bench or deployment models to result in longer journeys for users. We are nevertheless continually reviewing any potential impact on protected characteristics as a result of the proposals. Should the data gathered from the consultation responses uncover any previously unforeseen impacts, we will consider revising the proposals to mitigate these.

I'd like to close once again by thanking the right honourable member, for raising this issue with characteristic eloquence and attention to detail. I would also like to thank those who took part in the consultation process and engaged with the proposals. We received 1,400 responses and I think that's testament to just how much people are engaged on these issues and how much they value the local justice that our magistrates provide. As with any consultation, dialogue and feedback we've received will be crucial in driving positive outcomes, and I'm grateful to those, all of those who have contributed.

We are in listening mode as I said, and we are committed to creating a system that works better magistrates, but of the core staff,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and better for citizens right across England and Wales. The question is this House do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it. The House
20:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Energy Security and Net Zero
-

20:09
20:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Energy Security and Net Zero
-

20:09
20:09
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page