Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Child poverty is absolutely not inevitable, which why we are lifting 550,000 children out of poverty. It is always Labour Governments who lift children out of poverty and Tory Governments who put children back into poverty. The numbers the hon. Gentleman refers to are appalling: 44% of children should not be growing up in poverty in Dewsbury and Batley. We have made the changes we have made to lift those children out of poverty and to give all of them a decent start in life.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the worst legacies of the previous Government is that 43% of children growing up in Peterborough are living in poverty. Nearly 10,000 children will be affected by the lifting of the child cap in Peterborough alone. Will the Chancellor assure me that, while we have made huge progress, we will keep a razor-like focus on child poverty as we deal with the cost of living crisis and the fallout from the war in Iran?

[Rachel Reeves]

The fact that some 10,000 children in one constituency have been lifted out of poverty, by just one of the policy changes we have made to reduce child poverty, shows the difference that this Labour Government are making. Combined with the breakfast clubs, the free school meals, the extension of childcare, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the building of new homes, the Government are set to deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in one Parliament.

Middle East: Economic Update

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I plan to let this statement run only until 2 o’clock. Many Members are still standing, so short questions and perhaps short answers would be very helpful in allowing me to get in as many as possible.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor is right: this was not our war, but its impacts are being felt by businesses and families in my constituency. What is almost as shocking as the recent price hike is how exposed our country is because of a decade of under-investment by the Conservative party in nuclear, onshore wind and updating our power networks. Can the Chancellor reassure me that while we keep a razor-sharp focus on the cost of living for families, we will also do our utmost to speed up the development and renewal of our energy networks, so that we can power this country from our own sources and not just rely on imports?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not our war—we chose not to join it, unlike the Conservative and Reform parties, which were egging us on to do so. However, we do need to become less exposed to global fossil fuel markets. That is why we passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will enable us to build the energy infrastructure we need. It is why we signed off Sizewell C and a fleet of small modular reactors; it is why we are giving planning permission to solar farms; and it is why we have ended the effective moratorium on onshore wind—the cheapest form of electricity—to keep prices down for families, businesses and pensioners.

Middle East: Economic Update

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about heating oil. As well as the direct support for his local authority and many others, the CMA’s work is crucial to stop businesses exploiting the crisis to increase their profits. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the CMA will report on that shortly. On ringfencing certain tax revenues, it is clear that a prolonged conflict will reduce other tax revenues and push up borrowing costs, so it is not possible to ringfence a particular tax for a particular use, because other tax revenues will be coming down. But the whole reason for the energy profits levy and the electricity generator levy is to have some stabilisation in the system to bring in money to support the Government and our constituents when that is most needed. Of course, we will be using it to do that.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the serious approach she has taken to the conflict, unlike the hokey-cokey approach we have seen from the Conservative party. Peterborough is willing to play its part in developing our energy infrastructure, and we have already had £1 billion-worth of private investment to upgrade the gas networks based out of Peterborough, but my constituents know that the price hike is not just about what is happening now in the middle east; it is about that decade when we did not build the energy infrastructure the country needs. Will she reassure me that her plan will speed up new nuclear, speed up investment in renewables and get the country building the energy infrastructure we need if we are to tackle this challenge for the long term?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is great to see that investment in the gas networks coming into Peterborough, supported by him. That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who got rid of our gas storage facilities, stalled on nuclear and stalled on renewables. As a result, they left us more vulnerable to an energy price shock.

Business Rates

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The definition of “pubs” that is used for the changes that have been announced today is the same one that was used when the previous Government implemented a relief. I believe that that was in 2017, so it is a long-standing definition. I encourage the hon. Member to find that on the gov.uk website and send it to the relevant business. I do not know the precise details of the pub that he mentions, but we are sticking with the long-standing definition.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

We in Peterborough are fond of a pint, so I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement today and in the months leading up to this decision. We are also proud of our independent beer festival, and we are home to Oakham Ales. Can the Minister reassure us that as he looks at the strategy for the high street and the rules on business rates, he will have due regard to the needs of the community sector—both the pubs that are going into community ownership, and the small businesses and others that provide communities on our high streets?

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is a really important point. There are many independent pubs up and down the country, as well as bigger chain pubs, and it is right that the support that the Government are bringing forward will support both. Around 75%—definitely above 70%—of independents and chains will receive support this year, ensuring that their bills are either flat or falling. We want to make sure that we are protecting both the independents and the chains.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government have set the thresholds for tax policies over the period of the OBR’s forecast, and it would not be right for me to comment on the changes that may or may not happen after that. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that throughout the time that Margaret Thatcher was in power, we did not have a system like the current system, so he is not quite right to say that this relief has always been there? It was not there when the political hero of many Conservative Members was in power.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all your team. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I thank DEFRA and Treasury Ministers for engaging with farmers and National Farmers Union members in my constituency, and for listening to their views. Farming has had a terrible decade—much longer than 14 months—with rural services cut, farming budgets unspent, failed Brexit plans and trade deals that sold out British farmers. Does the Minister agree with me that with the changes that we have made to APR, the findings of the Batters review and the funding that this Government are putting in place, we can now turn a corner on that terrible decade for British farming?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend’s powerful contribution. He made important points about how the trade deals negotiated by the previous Government undermined British farming and that there was no consistency of investment and support for farmers up and down the country. What do rural communities think about that? At the last general election, they turfed out hundreds of Conservative rural MPs and elected over 150 Labour MPs to represent rural and semi-rural constituencies. Labour Members are now the mainstream voice of rural communities up and down the country.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The Chancellor was clear at the Budget last week that we were taking the fair and necessary taxation decisions to ensure that everyone makes a contribution, but that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible thanks to the other choices made. Increasing tax on property income, increasing tax on properties worth more than £2 million and reforming gambling taxation all mean that we can keep taxes on working people as low as possible.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

The report on the OBR leak makes deeply worrying reading. I welcome the resignation of the chair of the OBR, because leadership on these issues matters. It turns out that the leak was not unprecedented as we thought last week. It has leaked other documents, and it may need to go back further to look at that. Such leaks could have led to speculation and costs running into millions. Does my right hon. Friend know how many times this has happened before, and if not, does he know when we will know that information? More importantly, does he know how many times the OBR Budget report was viewed externally before the Chancellor delivered the Budget last week?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of what happened last week. The initial report by the OBR sets out just how many times the report was accessed and shared before the Chancellor had given her Budget speech. There were 32 attempts to access it, starting at about 5 am that day, and it was then shared multiple times before the Chancellor had delivered her Budget speech. We do not have all of the answers to his questions, and the OBR has acknowledged that in the limited time available it has not done forensic analysis of what happened at all previous fiscal events. We know that the EFO for the March 2025 spring statement was certainly accessed. What we will do as a Government is work to make sure we have full information, and urgently find out what was shared—or rather what was inadvertently shared—at previous fiscal events.

Property Taxes

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Mel Stride]

If I am an hon. Friend, I will certainly give way.

[Andrew Pakes]

I am sure Hansard will correct me.

The right hon. Gentleman just made some comments about high net worth or high value individuals. In my constituency, I am particularly interested in individuals on low incomes. In Peterborough, I represent a city with one of the highest levels of those employed on zero-hours contracts and in chronically insecure work. Does he not agree that his party often wants all the spending, but none of the funding for delivery? He talked about reducing taxation for some of those with higher net worth, but will he also talk about which doctors’ surgeries in my constituency would suffer cuts under his plans, which individuals would receive no protection for their employment rights, and how the people of Peterborough would be worse off because he wants to reduce the spending that will fix the foundations of this country?

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman refers to cutting spending. His party attempted to cut spending, but entirely failed to do so. My point is that if he wants money to spend on public services, he needs to cut welfare and should worry about how to do so. I do not know how he voted when that was put to the test in this House, but if he in any way voted against his own Government and against getting on top of the welfare bill, he should ask his own question of himself.

As for those on low incomes, they are precisely the people who are now being devastated by the increase in national insurance. There is not just an increase in the rate, but a substantial reduction in the threshold at which national insurance kicks in, which has meant higher unemployment, in particular among younger workers, part-time workers, women and people getting that vital first job so that they can get themselves on a career path. They are the people whom the Labour Government are punishing most.

Financial Services Reform

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

Well, what do I say to that? I think there is, with the exception of the hon. Member, cross-party support for the twin peaks financial services regulation that we have. Of course, we need proportionate regulation to ensure that there are protections in place for consumers. He seems to be suggesting that we get rid of the regulators altogether, which I think most Members of this House would be opposed to. I have heard of the concept of caveat emptor, and I am suitably patronised by him.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

One of the first visits I undertook after the election was to my local branch of Nationwide, which for generations has been providing good financial advice and advice to first-time buyers in my seat, as have many other mutuals. In one of the previous periods of financial deregulation by the Conservative party, we saw a movement that led to the demutualisation of the building society movement, creating uncertainty for thousands upon thousands of potential homeowners and people looking for financial support. Can the Minister reassure the House today that the co-operative and mutual sector will remain absolutely essential to the everyday financial services that working people need?

[Emma Reynolds]

Absolutely. This is something that the Chancellor and I—and indeed the Business Secretary and the Business Minister—are passionate about, and we are making sure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector. We have asked the financial services regulators to report by the end of the year on what more they can do to support the growth of the sector. We are supporting the industry-led Mutual and Co-operatives Business Council, which is chaired by the chair of Nationwide, Kevin Parry, and we have recently concluded a call for evidence on the credit union common bond, which is another form of mutual. We will be setting out our response on that issue in due course.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

As I was saying, we could not justify leaving the situation unchanged, with a full, unlimited tax relief benefiting a very small number of estates by a very significant amount, given that there is such an urgent need to repair the public finances and to improve the hospitals, schools and roads on which people across the country depend, including those in rural communities.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

There is a lot of talk from the Opposition, who are getting very excited by this debate, about farms, but we have to remember that farms rely on farm workers. In the name of accuracy, could my hon. Friend put on the record a reminder of which Opposition parties, including the Lib Dems, voted for the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board under the last Government? That actually drove down rural wages, and we should be talking about farm workers. Is it not true to say that when the Opposition refer to exemptions, the only thing they want to talk about is exemption from their own record being under scrutiny?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

That was quicker than I expected, Madam Deputy Speaker, so thank you. It is a privilege to speak in the debate.

Nothing goes to the heart of the health, wellbeing and prosperity of a nation more than being able to feed and look after ourselves. Britain’s farmers and our farming workforce are part of the essential infrastructure that keeps this country going. I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich food and farming heritage. Farming is in our DNA.

I pay tribute to our farmers and farming workforce. When we talk about any other industry, we recognise the skilled workers that deliver for Britain: the steelworkers, the miners, the nurses and the doctors. We should start every debate on food and farming with the same recognition for farmers. Food security begins with the incredible work of our farmers, and I thank them. We talk about people going the extra mile to look out for each other and care for our communities; farmers do that every day. This should therefore be a welcome debate on the future of farming. It should mention farming profitability and allow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) to talk about agri-technology and how we increase profitability. I hope that he does so shortly. Instead, what do we get? It is political opportunism from a party that should know better. I am proud to be part of the largest contingent of rural Labour MPs in Britain’s history. Labour Members were elected to protect and support our rural communities, and we will do just that. After 14 years, it is a bit rich of Conservative Members now to claim that they are backing Britain’s farmers.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, said about recognising and celebrating the work of farmers, and indeed farm workers, but does he understand—I am sure that most Conservative Members understand this well—that assets and income are entirely different things? Farmers’ assets are our landscape. Their wealth is our common wealth—something that the Government have seemingly failed to appreciate by imposing a tax on farmers that confuses their ability to make a living with the asset that is essential for them to feed the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes]

I thank the right hon. Member for being a champion in this House of skills and trade unions, which are sadly too rarely championed by Conservative Members. I recognise his points on our common wealth and the work that goes into looking after and protecting our land, but I also recognise the impact of the last Government on land and our farming communities. Let us look at the Conservatives’ record: 14 years of running down the DEFRA budget; a decade of austerity, which became a decade of insecurity; a Brexit turkey half-cooked; flood funding cut; trade deals that sold out British farmers; a farming budget £300 million underspent. If Conservative Members want to discuss food security and the future of our rural communities, bring it on.

The Conservative party saw more than 12,000 farmers and agribusinesses forced out of business since 2010. Farming has the lowest profitability of any sector in the economy. Conservatives abolished the Agricultural Wages Board and saw rural wages stagnate, as did many Liberal Democrat colleagues, who voted in the same Lobby. Now the Conservatives are defending the status quo when it comes to big business, big landowners and rising land prices. At the start of this debate, I thought that they were literally the last people on earth defending the status quo, but some of them seem to be talking about accepting some kind of policy, while those on the Front Bench seem to be saying that there should be no change whatsoever, so the merry-go-round continues.

The Opposition want all the spending but none of the responsibility. We talk about change. We know the change that this country voted for in our rural and farm communities. People voted for change because public services were broken, with rural schools crumbling, NHS waiting lists soaring, and rural GPs and NHS dentists harder to find. The Government are rightly focused on the cost of living crisis and improving access to GPs in our rural communities. What are the Opposition focused on? They are defending a tax break for estates worth up to £3 million while attacking a pay rise for the lowest paid workers in our rural communities. That says everything that we need to know about today’s Tory party.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

As a fellow Cambridgeshire MP, will the hon. Member give us some examples of farms in his constituency that support the measure?

[Andrew Pakes]

I certainly recognise from door-knocking in rural communities and talking to rural workers that food poverty has gone up in my constituency. People have found it harder to get a bus to go and work on a farm, and people working on farms are struggling with the result of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, which crashed our economy. The reality of the debate that we should be having is that profitability for British farmers goes back a generation, not to 4 July. That is why the Government are pledging to put £5 billion into the farming budget and are committed to working with farmers and the sector to get that money into productive food production. It is why we will use the heft of public procurement to buy British farming produce. Food security goes to the heart of the challenges facing our country. Fixing our public services goes to the heart of rebuilding our rural communities. If the House wants to do both, it will start by rejecting the Opposition motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

What I have been told by my farmers, based on the tax advice that they have been given, is that the bills—and not just the inheritance tax on decades of profits—will be completely unaffordable.

Farming is hard. It is not like any other industry: it is a culture and a way of life. It is lonely, revenues are uncertain, profits are tiny and cash is tight.

[Andrew Pakes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will not, as I am coming to the end of my speech.

It is absurd and shameful that this Government, looking to fund their union pay rises and vanity energy projects, are putting this pressure on those who do the back-breaking work of growing our food. Farmers already have appalling problems with mental health and suicide: the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution tells us that a third of farmers may be depressed and half may be suffering from anxiety. One of my farmers says that his father is now kept up at night by the thought that he will leave his children a crippling debt that will make their lives financially impossible. Another told me that his father says that he just hopes that he dies before the changes come in. This policy is illogical, inconsistent, dishonest and wrong.

Winter Fuel Payment

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that the Chancellor will take all decisions in the Budget. However, he might like to reflect on the record of his party in office on encouraging take-up of pension credit. We have been painfully aware since taking office how little the Conservatives did to increase take-up of pension credit during their 14 years in office. That is why it is so urgent for us to make progress in getting those eligible to sign up for pension credit. By doing so, they will get pension credit, which they may have been missing out on for years under the Conservatives, and they will continue to receive the winter fuel payment.

Pensioners may well be angry at the Conservatives for how little they did to get people to sign up for pension credit while they were in office. Pensioners may well be angry at the Conservatives for leaving the country with a legacy of a £22 billion black hole in the public finances.

We on the Government Benches are committed to protecting the triple lock. That will mean that pensioners on the full new state pension, who have received an extra £900 this year, will, pending the uprating review by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this autumn, receive a boost that could be worth well more than £400, so by the end of this Parliament they could be receiving around £1,700 more than they do today.

Conservative Members are keen to play politics with the tough decisions that this Government are taking. They are desperate to take attention away from the fact that, as people across this country know, it is the Conservatives who are to blame for the economic mess we have gained. They created a mess and now they want to criticise us for cleaning it up. If they had governed more responsibly, they might not have been sitting on the Opposition Benches, in opposition to a Government who are fixing the foundations they left to rot.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the only shameful thing in this debate is the legacy that the Government were left? It forced the new Government—[Interruption.] The reality that 800,000 pensioners are not receiving pension credit is a shameful legacy. If Conservative Members wanted to show humility and learn from their party’s record in government, they would acknowledge that they are the ones who crashed the economy, left the NHS in a way that pensioners cannot get to see a doctor, and broke NHS dentistry. Does the Minister agree that it is our job to fix the economy so that we can keep on helping pensioners?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Frankly, it is time for Conservative Members to recognise and accept what they have done to this country, and to show some contrition and accept responsibility. However, no matter what the Conservatives choose to do, we are getting on with the tough decisions that are necessary in government. By changing the winter fuel payment and making it means-tested, we are beginning to take the necessary steps to address the black hole they created, while protecting the most vulnerable in society.

The Prime Minister has said that we must be prepared to be unpopular if we are to govern responsibly, which means facing up to tough challenges and tackling them head-on. The motion laid by the Opposition sets out several “regrets”, but they have never once shown regret for all the reckless decisions they took and the damage they did to our public services, public finances and economy. Our task now in government is to fix the mess they made and to give our country the chance of the better future we deserve.