Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Mike Wood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I can answer this question: it is the impact that matters. Whatever Opposition Members say as the farmers’ friends, the truth is different: 7,000 businesses closed on their watch. That is what the evidence says.

Let me move on to the reasoned amendment. This Government are fully committed to protecting and supporting our valuable high streets. The fact is that retail, hospitality and leisure rates relief was due to end in its entirety by the end of March 2025, which would have meant a cliff edge for businesses. At the Budget, we stepped in to prevent that by extending the relief further this year by 40%, with a cash cap of £110,000. We have also frozen the small business rates multiplier for 2025-26. Taken together with the small business rates relief scheme, that means that more than 1 million properties will be protected from any inflationary increases next year. That is 1 million properties protected by this Government.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

By the Minister’s logic, are we to assume that support on business rates for hospitality and retail is to end in April 2026?

[Jim McMahon]

That really was not worth giving way for. I have literally just said that 1 million properties will be supported against inflationary increases next year. The 40% will continue, with a cap of £110,000. That is exactly what this Bill is intended to do. If the hon. Gentleman supports it, he can join the Government in the Aye Lobby and vote for it.

We know from businesses that the current scheme of discretionary relief does not provide the certainty needed. That is why the Bill will enable a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from 2026-27 through new lower multipliers, ending the year-by-year uncertainty that the previous Government hardwired into the system. That is doing what businesses have been calling for. That rebalancing—from out of town to in town, from online to on street—is exactly what people have called for in communities and in business, and Opposition Members know it. Their frustration is that they did not do it in the 14 years that they had in office. It is down to us to take the steps that are needed in government now, and we are happy to do so.

The reasoned amendment raises concerns about the impact on schools in the state sector. I can assure the House that protecting and improving state education is at the forefront of the Government’s mind. In fact, we estimate that only 2,900 more pupils will enter the state sector as a result of the removal of the business rates relief for private schools. Let us be clear about what that means in reality: that goes down to about 300 a year. In any given year across England, 60,000 pupils will move between schools; this is 300. We need to keep that in context, because we have heard a lot of scaremongering about the transfer, but that is what the evidence says. That evidence is placed in the House of Commons Library, in case Members want to take time after this debate to go and look. There might even be enough time to find the documents before the vote if they want to bring themselves up to speed.

Importantly, this is about providing much-needed investment in the state school sector. Just how many parents say, “We need specialist support for SEND, because the mainstream provision is not adequate”? How many parents—by their own admission, among Opposition Members—choose to pay for private education because they do not have faith in mainstream provision? Despite what Opposition Members have said about the glory years of the past 14 years, the truth that parents and pupils on the ground feel is very different, and they know it. We have to repair mainstream provision so that parents and pupils can go with confidence to their local school, knowing that they will get the support that they need—support for all pupils, not just some.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the impact on faith schools. I want to offer some comfort. Of course we value and understand parental choice, but based on the evidence submitted through the HMT consultation, as well as the analysis undertaken by the Department for Education on removing the charitable rate relief, it is not apparent that private faith schools will be affected by this measure any more than non-faith schools. There is no evidence of disadvantage.

Financial Services: Mansion House Speech

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for credit unions—I have visited those in my constituency several times and know what good work they do. We have made clear our strong support for the mutual sector. We recognise the value that credit unions bring to their members in local communities, including in her constituency. The Chancellor launched a call for evidence on reforming the credit union common bond during the Mansion House speech last week. We want to understand whether reform is needed in that space to help credit unions to grow substantially. Once we have completed the call for evidence, we will consider how much of that reform we can take forward as a Labour Government.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Pensions Minister will be all too aware of the ongoing problems facing members of the west midlands pension fund, one of the country’s largest public sector pension funds. Why does the Economic Secretary think that the Chancellor’s eight mega-funds will provide a better service than the west midlands pension fund in investing those people’s pensions?

[Tulip Siddiq]

We will build on the success of the pools that already exist. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my answer, the Minister for Pensions is happy to meet with him.

Winter Fuel Payment

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel payment from 21,365 of my constituents is cruel. The payments have been a lifeline for so many pensioners, helping them to stay warm during the harsh winter months. Most pensioners live on fixed incomes, so having almost no notice—no time to prepare—means that the impact of this loss of income on many pensioner households will be that it is increasingly difficult for them to afford basic necessities.

A number of Labour Members have talked about difficult choices, but the reality is that the Government have run away from difficult choices. They have ducked the difficult choices. The difficult choice would have been to be upfront with voters during the election campaign, to explain why they felt this was necessary, appropriate and, as some have said, morally right, and to trust voters to decide whether to give them that mandate. Instead, they ran away. There are difficult choices, but unfortunately the difficult choices are the ones that they have left our constituents to face.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this choice sets a dangerous precedent? Free bus passes, prescription charges and, indeed, access to healthcare itself are all now at risk because of the logic being put forward by the Labour party in respect of pensioners’ ability to afford them.

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend is clearly correct. Many people, but particularly pensioners, will be worried about what this Chancellor will take away from them next. Without these payments, many will be forced to choose between heating their homes and other essential expenses such as food or medication—people such as my constituent Linda, who wrote to me:

“My husband has several medical issues this year and I am very worried about the heating situation…I think it is likely that we will cut back on nourishing food.

I cannot believe that a British Government would penalize our generation like this.”

Another constituent, Dawn, wrote:

“Now I fear the winter months, and afraid…of hypothermia.

I personally am just above the threshold to qualify for pension credits. I am a single person claiming state pension and also have a small NHS pension…I can foresee me not using my central heating this winter.”

Those are difficult choices that this Chancellor and this Government have forced on too many of our pensioners, and they are choices that no one should have to make, and particularly not those who have contributed so much to our society.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

The Government the hon. Gentleman supported were responsible for driving living standards down, in the first Parliament on record in which that happened. Does he not agree that it is traditionally bad form for the arsonist to start criticising the fire brigade?

[Mike Wood]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has a huge amount of cheek. He should consider first the inheritance of that previous Conservative Government: the present candidate for the chairmanship of the Business and Trade Committee had written that there was no money left. He should also bear in mind that what we saw during those 14 years was not only restoration in the economy but a huge growth in pensioner income, and what we see now is the fastest growth in the G7, unemployment at record low levels, and inflation also back at low levels.

The Chancellor wants us to believe that this decision suddenly came to her at some point in the run-up to the King’s Speech, some time after the general election, and that it would not have been possible for her to imagine it before polling day. She claimed in July that it was not a decision that she wanted to make. However, as has already been pointed out, in March 2014 she stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box, barely feet away from where I am now, demanding that winter fuel payments be means-tested. In July she said that it was not a decision that she expected to make, yet, miraculously, this year’s Labour manifesto was the first in almost two decades without that specific commitment to protect winter fuel payments.

This is a decision that had been a decade in the making—a decade in the planning. Labour had a decade in which to prepare and get it right, but we are seeing how poorly thought through it was. We cannot have a Social Security Advisory Committee report, and we cannot have an impact assessment. Labour imagined that it could take the money away from pensioners with no impact on our NHS or on charities. This decision is wrong, and it needs to be reversed.