Farming and Inheritance Tax

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

It is a great pleasure to have the right hon. Gentleman not just as a friend but as my Lincolnshire neighbour. He has put his finger on the point—genuinely, it is the next paragraph in my speech.

Some Labour MPs must be haunted by the phrasing from the Secretary of State during the general election campaign—because I suspect that they repeated it up and down the market towns and villages in their constituencies—when he described fears that Labour would impose this family farm tax as “desperate nonsense”. Labour candidates will have repeated that line and assured the farming families in their constituencies that Labour would never treat rural communities in that way, yet within weeks the Chancellor was planning to do exactly that.

Since then, families across the country have been trying to work out how to pick up the pieces after Labour’s family farm tax bomb. They will not forget. A farmer from Derbyshire emailed me this week to say:

“Our hard work and investment as a family has been wiped away in the stroke of a pen.”

They went on to say:

“My 60 year old husband had a bleed on the brain in June and thankfully has made a full recovery but I’ve never seen him so stressed. He doesn’t know what to do”.

Hon. Members representing seats in Derbyshire may wish to reflect on how they will respond to that. A farmer from Northumberland has written to me as follows:

“We had to talk about which one of my parents are going to die first, in front of them.”

He said that Labour is

“destroying people’s lives with this policy. Many of us are worried about the mental state of many within agriculture and are concerned that it may be the final straw for some.”

In fairness, the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is in his place, has voiced concerns about whether his Government are listening to ordinary people about this. Will he vote for his farmers or will he toe the party line?

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As a farmer’s wife, I understand the emotional impact that my right hon. Friend sets out so clearly. This is about not only the farmers who will be affected but all the farmers who know that they might be affected. This is a tax on tragedy, and no one knows if it will befall them.

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend and Lincolnshire neighbour sets out exactly the personal impact of the tax. I know how Treasury Ministers look at spreadsheets and those terribly impressive packs of information from civil servants. [Interruption.] I remind Government Members that this is deeply serious; it is not a joke. I also know that Chancellor after Chancellor has looked at the figures and come to the conclusion that this is a political decision. The current Chancellor has got it wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T2. Air ambulance charities deliver life-saving treatment to people every single day, yet they are under threat from the Chancellor’s rise in national insurance and taxes. The Lincolnshire & Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance alone will need to find another £70,000 just to pay the national insurance rises. Two weeks ago, local right hon. and hon. Members and I wrote to the Chancellor on this matter, but we have not yet had a reply. I ask her now: will she exempt these vital charities, so that they can continue their vital, life-saving work?

[Rachel Reeves]

The tax rises in the Budget were used to provide a £22.6 billion uplift in the Department of Health and Social Care budget to ensure that our NHS is properly funded. The NHS will ensure that important services are properly funded, and those allocations will be set out in the normal way.

VAT: Independent Schools

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Others have talked about the effect on children of military families and on children with special educational needs, as well as the impact on friendships, mental wellbeing, jobs in both state and private schools, and the bursaries, but I will focus on students in exam years. I declare an interest as I have three children in private school, one of whom is in her final year.

This measure is wrong, but it is especially reckless for those in exam years. We have heard a lot about the steps the Prime Minister took to ensure that his son could study peacefully, to give him the best chance in his GCSEs. Why does he not want the same for all the other children in this country?

The measure is not only disruptive but potentially impossible. Local to my constituency, Stamford school offers A-level Russian, Lincoln Minster school offers A-level Chinese and Oakham school offers the international baccalaureate. How could those children move into a state school that does not offer their course? Even if their course is offered, the timetable might not work. And even if the timetable works, the school might not teach the same periods and texts. For example, a student at Nottingham girls’ high school studying the Russian revolution as part of the AQA history curriculum might have to move partway through the year to Branston academy, which is teaching the Tudors under the OCR curriculum. What should children taking such courses do? Should they change course, merely months or even weeks before their exams? Should they try to learn the material themselves? Should they resit a whole year of school? Will the Government provide state schools with the extra resources to help those children complete their courses? If they intend to do so, will those resources be ready and available to the state schools those children will be forced into for January 2025?

I want to talk briefly about bursaries. I went to a state primary and a state secondary school. When I was a teenager hiking with my parents in the North York moors, I met a young lad who told me all about the cool, exciting school he went to, where they did a lot of outdoor stuff. I said, “I would like to go there. That would be really cool.” My parents said, “That’s far too expensive, Caroline. We can’t do that.” Then I read about the scholarships they offered. I was very proud and pleased that Gordonstoun School offered me the opportunity to study at the sixth form there—I will always be intensely grateful for that.

The measures proposed by this Government will reduce the amount of bursary support available to students like me, and those currently receiving bursaries, which enables them to get the education they wish for. Schools will have to cut back. The most obvious areas in which to do that will be in their charity work, the extra teaching staff they offer to pupils in state schools and the facilities they make freely available to state schools. This is a short-sighted measure focused entirely on the politics of envy and division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I want to say from the outset that this is clearly an attack on aspiration, an attack on opportunity. I say to the constituents of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that he voted for winter fuel payments to be slashed and now he is voting for an attack on hard-working families who will be struggling to make ends meet. I went to a state school and an independent school and I was grateful for both those journeys and the education that I received in both. Plenty of hard-working families will be struggling to make ends meet.

The first point I want to make is about tone. I will come back to the Education Secretary’s tweet, which was deeply offensive. Surely Labour Members must acknowledge—it is a simple case of maths—that people who are rich enough to afford VAT increases, whether it is 4%, 16%, which is the average, or the whole 20%, will continue to send their kids to independent schools and pay the fees. It is the people who are struggling to make ends meet, or the really hard-up families, or—God forbid—parents of children who are on scholarships and bursaries who will no longer be able to send their kids to those schools, because those schools will have to withdraw those scholarships and bursaries as they will be less affordable. So the tone of this debate is really important. I would caution the Government to be more reticent on this. They refer to tax breaks; these are not tax breaks. Education should not be, and is not, taxed, and they are about to open that Pandora’s box.

There have been a lot of comments from Government Members about state schools. I agree: standards in state schools should be improved. They talk about the last 14 years. We delivered a real-terms increase per pupil. We have delivered record funding—about £60 billion. They may challenge that, but it is pure fact. I am happy to share those facts. We did that, and the result of that, especially with our focus on things like phonics, which Labour challenged when in opposition, is that we now have some of the highest reading standards in the world—independently and internationally rated. We also have some of the highest ratings in mathematics. So the Government may try to frame this debate as anything other than ideological, but those arguments are severely undermined by the Education Secretary’s tweet, which put it out there that this is really a class war.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a great point about how this change is ideologically motivated. Can he see why there is a difference between private school fees, which the Government have chosen to tax, and something like Kip McGrath tuition, which is also a paid-for form of education, which they have chosen not to tax—at least yet?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend made an excellent speech about the practicalities of introducing this change in January, and she makes an excellent point now about the slippery slope involved. The Government say that the money will be focused on educational improvements, but there is no guarantee of that, as it will go into the general pot. They promised 6,500 new teachers, which is fewer than we delivered; it is a drop in the ocean, which will barely make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of schools that, of course, need extra teachers. I concede that point; we should have better educational standards.

SEND will affect every Member of Parliament. It affects me. I was with a north Solihull parents group just a few weeks ago. Those parents will no longer be able to afford to give their children a private education for SEND purposes, and they will now have to rely on the state. Surely Government Members can see that that will further increase the burden on state provision, particularly if they are right that there is a lack of teachers. The Minister might address this point: how does this policy improve state school provision? How does it improve the standard and quality of delivery for SEND parents? It was all right for the Prime Minister to make special provision for his kids, and for the Education Secretary to have a benefactor, but what are these parents going to do?

Winter Fuel Payment

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Chancellor will take all decisions in the Budget on 30 October—[Interruption.] Let me make one important point to him as we approach the Budget on 30 October: we know there are going to be difficult decisions that we have to take in the Budget and, frankly, that is a direct consequence of the decisions taken by him and his colleagues when they were in government.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As he is a Treasury Minister, I wonder whether he could help me with this question. How many of the pensioners who will lose the winter fuel allowance today receive less than the average train driver the Government have just given a pay rise to?

[James Murray]

I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. But let me be clear. If she is talking about pensioners, the foundation of state support for pensioners is the state pension, which is why the Government have committed to maintaining the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

I said that the Labour party would restore the broken economy inherited from the Conservative party.

In the long term, there is only one permanent solution to ending fuel poverty: we must end our dependence on volatile foreign energy markets and deliver lasting energy security. The Conservative party failed to do that in Government, leaving energy bills higher for every household, including those most in need. That is why this Government’s plan to create GB Energy, a new national energy company, is vital. It will bring energy supply back into the hands of the British public and help to get prices back under control. That is the long-term solution to fuel poverty: home-grown, British-controlled power.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Roughly 13,000 people in the hon. Gentleman’s Bracknell constituency will not get the winter fuel allowance this year as a result of the changes that he has just voted for. How many of them does he estimate will struggle to pay their bills?

[Peter Swallow]

I have already set out the support that I want to see, as well as the support that the Government have put in place to help pensioners in my constituency and to bring energy bills down in the long term, which will help all households in Bracknell and across the country. That is a really important first step on the road to growth. Because of the triple lock, a growing economy means growing pensions and growing support for pensioners in need.

Future prosperity does not fall out of the sky. We have to create the conditions for it, and those conditions are sensible spending, bringing debt under control, and encouraging investment. To do those things, we must dig ourselves out of this financial hole, and that means tough choices. This policy is a difficult step—a step that I did not want to take—but it is a step away from the brink towards stability, security and growth. That is why I back it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“The winter fuel payment gave me peace of mind that I would be able to heat my home and stay warm during the winter”—

not my words, but those of a constituent, and they are typical of the many comments I have received in my inbox and those I have heard when I have been out and about across my constituency.

In my constituency, there are just 2,138 recipients of pension credit, yet an estimated 18,300 pensioners will lose out this winter. This political choice, because that is what it is, means that those very same pensioners—those 18,300—will lose up to £300 of winter fuel payment; in addition, the energy price cap rise of 10% puts further financial pressure on them of about £149. It impacts pensioners earning as little as £13,000 a year. Contrast that with the inflation-busting pay rises that the Government have handed out. Contrast that with the billions that the Government are spending on GB Energy, a state-run company that will not produce any energy, nor will it cut their bills. What is more, when the vast majority of my pensioners, who are waiting for their annual increase of £460 next year—thanks to our work when we were in government—deduct £300 for losing the winter fuel payment, they will be left with an increase equivalent to just 44p a day: less than the cost of a pint of milk.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I wonder how many of my right hon. Friend’s constituents who will lose that vital payment earn less than the train drivers who have had all that extra money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

We will take no lectures on hospital admissions, given the state of the NHS that the right hon. Member’s party left us.

The Conservatives claimed that they did not know what the pay review body recommendations would be, but the School Teachers’ Review Body recommendations were known to Ministers before July. They will know also that the different PRBs tend to make similar recommendations. Why were most of those recommendations not submitted in good time? Because Ministers were late in submitting their evidence, pushing the timetable until after the election. The Office of Manpower Economics has said:

“The work of the PRBs is demand led and essentially non-negotiable—departments set the remits and timetables.”

Shadow Ministers talked about productivity gains, but when it came to NHS negotiations under the last Government, productivity was just a slogan. The cupboard was bare. They had nothing to actually ask for.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a case comparing the salaries of working individuals with the pensions of the elderly. Could he tell me how many of the people who will lose the winter fuel allowance in his constituency earn or receive less than the minimum wage?

[Laurence Turner]

In my constituency, there are approximately 2,600 pensioner households that do not receive pension credit—that is one of the legacies of the previous Government—but are entitled to it.

The Conservatives suggest that they would have rejected the pay review body recommendations, forgetting that one of the first acts of the Margaret Thatcher Government in 1979 was to accept the recommendations of the Clegg commission on pay comparability. If only the Conservative party had more courage today.

The winter fuel allowance exists because of a Labour Government: a Government who increased the value of those payments fivefold in 13 years, compared with an increase of zero under 14 years of the previous Government—a real-terms cut of 33%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Harris]

My hon. Friend is spot on. It is the anxiety that it causes people. They do not know if they will live another 18 months or 25 years. People on fixed incomes, with no ability to raise that income, are very worried about spending money. There is also a large and, sadly, growing cohort of elderly residents who are developing dementia, and one of the early symptoms, often, is financial anxiety, including in people whom we would think of as really quite wealthy. I have known residents who have regressed to thinking that they are still living under rationing because they grew up as a lad in abject poverty, and they will not spend money. Being told, “Here’s £300 for fuel,” makes a world of difference to those people.

I was not a fan of Gordon Brown, who once gave a derisory 75p increase to pensioners, but this policy was a huge success—credit to him. That is why my Government never changed it. For £300 for every pensioner, we give incredible peace of mind that they can put their heating on—

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that some of our constituents will die this year as a result of this policy?

[Rebecca Harris]

I do not think that I need to worry; I think we know that will happen, because we know about their behaviour and their concerns about putting the heating on, and their lack of understanding of how much every heating bill will cost them. This £300 was psychologically very important to knowing that they could put their heating on to keep them healthy and out of hospital. Of all the tough decisions that we had to consider when we came into office in 2010, when there was no magicked-up, home-made £22 billion black hole excuse—there was a vast deficit and we had to make a lot of tough decisions—we never made this one.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We have heard today that hon. and right hon. Members across the House campaigned in good faith on projects that they thought the money was there for. The money simply was not there. We cannot go on like that, which is why I have been open, transparent and honest about the state of our public finances and the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and all MPs who are affected by the problems left by the previous Government.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your new role. This Labour Government have chosen to take the winter fuel payment away from pensioners. The right hon. Lady does say she will keep it for those on pension credit, but the threshold for that is very low. That means someone on an income of just £220 a week may find themselves receiving nothing. It is long established that being cold increases ill health among vulnerable people. What estimate has she made of what her changes will cost the NHS?

[Rachel Reeves]

Pension credit is paid to a single person who has an income of just under £12,000 and for a pensioner couple of just under £18,000. We will indeed keep pension credit for the poorest pensioners and boost take-up of pension credit to ensure that everybody who is entitled to it gets it, but we cannot make promises—the previous Government should not have made promises—without being able to say where the money is going to come from. That is the road to ruin. We saw that with Liz Truss, and I am afraid it was repeated under the current Leader of the Opposition and the current shadow Chancellor. They should hang their heads in shame for what they have done to our public finances and our public services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. The hon. Member knows, I hope, that I used to prosecute tax fraudsters for a living, so this is a cause close to my heart. In the autumn statement, we announced even more investment in compliance teams to ensure that we are investigating, prosecuting or finding other remedies for those attempting to defraud the taxpayer, because these are crimes committed against the whole of society.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Constituents of mine face having their land and livelihoods taken from them by compulsory purchase order to build a reservoir. Compulsory purchase orders may sometimes be necessary, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is not morally right for the state to take the land and then tax as a capital gain the money given in compensation, leaving the landowner with the invidious choice of paying a hefty tax bill, or trying to find a way of rolling over that land money into an overinflated market?

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend has raised this with me before orals today and, if she writes to me, I will be happy to look into it further for her.

National Insurance Contributions Increase

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

If we raised those taxes now on North sea oil and gas companies, we could bring in money that could be used to relieve pressure now. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituents in North East Hertfordshire would be pretty pleased to have money off their bills this year, rather than the buy now, pay later scheme that we get from this Chancellor.

Why is the Chancellor not listening? The Conservatives’ rise in national insurance will hit almost 30 million working people. The TUC rightly argues that it is wrong to hit young and low-paid workers while “leaving the wealthy untouched”. The British Chambers of Commerce describes the Government’s policy as

“a drag anchor on jobs growth”.

The CBI put it bluntly and said that it will

“hurt a business’s ability to hire staff”.

On Sunday, the Federation of Small Businesses warned:

“Slamming small firms with a jobs tax hike will put the brakes on investment, upskilling and growth within communities most affected by the pandemic.”

The Chancellor must know what business organisations and trade unions are saying. We can only conclude that he is consciously disregarding their experience and views. We know from research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research that job-intensive sectors will be disproportionately hit hard. The Conservatives have deliberately designed a tax hike that will hit people working in hotels, restaurants, transport, retail and wholesale especially hard.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Johnson]

I wonder if the hon. Lady can help me, because I am slightly confused. She has talked about a windfall tax on the energy companies, but she is then conflating that with the NI rise. The NI rise is not to pay for energy bills, as I understand it, but to pay for health and social care. Last week, she wanted to use that windfall tax to spend on reducing energy prices, as she has said today. She cannot use one tax to do two things. What will she use the tax for, were she to bring it in? In particular, if she were to cancel the NI rise—I do not want to increase taxes; I am a Conservative, so of course I do not want to do that—how would she pay for the care and healthcare of those vulnerable constituents who we know need it so badly?

[Rachel Reeves]

The average household in the hon. Lady’s constituency will be £1,200 worse off because of the tax increases and the price rises happening as a result of her Government’s policies. As she well knows, we would use the windfall tax to relieve pressure on household gas and electricity bills. The hon. Lady might oppose that, but I suggest she puts that on her leaflets and puts that to the voters in her constituency at the next election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said that when the facts change, we should change our policy, but the point is that the facts have not changed. The covid backlog has not changed and the damage that it has done to our ability to deliver the healthcare that people need has not gone away. Governments have recognised the importance of tackling our social care issues for a long time, but there is no record of action. This time, things are different. We believe that it is only right that in an advanced and wealthy country such as the United Kingdom, people should know that their loved ones will have dignity and financial certainty if they require care. The new levy will allow us to achieve both our health and social care aims.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) talked about politics meaning choices. I have listened carefully to both Front-Bench speeches and I heard that the Opposition want to remove the health and social care levy but not how they will pay for social care instead. Perhaps the Minister heard something I did not. Could he enlighten me?

[Mr Clarke]

I heard a lot of warm and fairly vague phrases, but I did not hear a concerted plan, and that of course goes to the heart of this question. The hon. Member for Leeds West said in her speech that the voters are smart and savvy, and I agree with her, but they know an Opposition playing politics when they see it.

The £12 billion average annual investment, which is of course a recurring investment—that is the crucial point—to meet a recurring need, will tackle the elective NHS backlog, while ensuring that the health service has the resources it needs over the coming years. It will strengthen our adult social care system, allowing us to invest at least £500 million to give our army of extraordinary social care workers new skills, and it will enable the Government to roll out the long-awaited reforms to funding for families through a cap on adult social care costs.

This is a transformative policy that will tackle serious and long-standing issues, but to fund such a significant increase in permanent spending we have had to make the tough but responsible choice to increase taxes. Only a broad-based tax such as income tax, VAT or national insurance can raise the sums needed for such significant investment. Using NICs as the base has several advantages. First, it means the levy will be paid for by employers, employees and the self-employed, including, from April next year, by workers over state pension age.

Secondly, this is a progressive way to raise funds because those who earn more will pay more: the top 15% of taxpayers will pay half the revenue. A basic rate taxpayer will pay about £3.49 per week, while 6.2 million—6.2 million—of the lowest earners will be exempt entirely from the levy and most small businesses will not be affected at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about our support for local authorities, we are giving £1.6 billion extra in each year of the spending review we announced in October to support local authorities with the challenges they face. Of course, the levy will fund £5.4 billion of investment in social care over the next three years, so it is a serious response to a serious challenge.

To return to the advantages of the way we have structured the levy, the third design advantage that stands out is that we have also announced an equivalent increase in dividend tax rates. There is therefore fairness across the spectrum in how this is being paid for.

I know there are some who ask why we need to raise tax at all, and instead say that we should borrow to fund permanent increases in spending. Throughout this speech I have outlined all that the Government have done to protect people’s finances as we recover from the pandemic and deal with the rising cost of living, and those actions mean our economy has made a strong recovery from covid-19. Our GDP has rebounded, and over the past months job vacancies have hit record highs, while the unemployment rate has fallen sharply. However, it is easy to forget that all those steps come at a huge cost. Covid casts a long shadow across our economy. Indeed, our debt is at its highest since the early 1960s. As I have reminded the House on many occasions, that high level of borrowing leaves us susceptible to shocks, including changes in interest rates and inflation.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is making some excellent points about the importance of balance in our finances. One thing my constituents will want to know as we spend all this money from the health and social care levy is that it is being well spent and used very efficiently. What can my right hon. Friend tell me about how he will ensure that the money is spent efficiently and with the best possible productivity?

[Mr Clarke]

Making sure that we spend taxpayers’ money wisely is the central duty of any Government. It is something that, as Chief Secretary, I work very hard on with officials and Departments to make sure that we scrutinise spending in the way that delivers best value.

Some fairly spurious points have been raised about our record on issues such as PPE procurement, and we need to remember what I think could best be described as the brass neck of the Opposition in calling us out on this issue, when I think the hon. Member for Leeds West suggested at one point that we should procure our PPE from historical theatre re-enactment companies or fancy dress companies. Procuring PPE at pace brought with it some inevitable challenges, and it is vital that we had the resources to deal with the situation we faced at the time.

Economic Update

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Thanks to the actions of this and previous Governments, since 2010, there are 200,000 fewer children living in poverty. We also know that children growing up in workless households are five times more likely to be in poverty than those who have working parents, which is why it is very good news that the number of children in workless households has fallen by 700,000 over the past decade. That is the best way to get children out of poverty: find jobs for their parents, and that is what this Government are committed to doing.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his honesty in stating that we cannot completely remove inflationary global pressures, and for his focus on supporting hard-working middle-income and low-income families. I want to ask about the discretionary £150 million fund. In particular, will he ensure that that funding is directed so that all those living in military family accommodation who are not eligible to pay council tax are eligible for the £150 discount?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight one of the categories of those who are exempt that we want to get support to and ensure that they are included in the discretionary fund. I know from our conversations that she has also highlighted those living in rural constituencies such as hers who are off the gas grid, and I hope she is reassured by the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake).

Conduct of the Right Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Exactly, Madam Deputy Speaker; thank you.

The principle behind the Bill is that access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers to leave safe countries such as France and Belgium. These are the things that are being delivered, and we have always been clear about the need to do everything we can to prevent people from risking their lives and embarking on these perilous attempts to cross the sea.

Our United Kingdom is the most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen. It is the foundation on which all our businesses and citizens have been able to thrive since 1707. This Government are committed to protecting and promoting its combined strengths, based on those hundreds of years of partnership and shared history.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is giving lots of examples of how the conduct of the Prime Minister is helping the lives of the British people. One recent such example affecting Scotland in particular was the COP26 summit held in Glasgow. Does he agree that that is an example of how the Prime Minister is putting the priorities of the people first, and of why this debate is a missed opportunity for the Scottish National party to discuss what matters to the people of Scotland?

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is yet another missed opportunity by the Scottish National party.

I remind those on the SNP Benches that this Government are committed to investing and levelling up across Scotland. We are delivering, after all, an average funding boost of £4.6 billion per year through the Barnett formula over the spending review period. That will enable investment in transport, schools, housing, health and social care. That takes the total that Scotland receives in Barnett-based funding to £41 billion per year—an increase of 2.4%—to spend on public services, boost growth and support families with the cost of living. In fact, current public spending per person in Scotland is £1,828 higher than the UK average, while revenue per person is £382 lower.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). If he carries on reading out his briefing notes, he might get a job in the Government one day.

There is an old adage in politics: it is not enough simply to win a vote, one needs to win the argument, too. This Government are rather different, though. They will use their majority to win votes, although sometimes they try to avoid those votes, but they rarely put in the effort to win an argument, other than by blunt force and soundbite. This has led to a catalogue of nasty, unnecessary and deeply undesirable decisions. There has been a procession of decision making based on half-truth, anecdote and inaccuracy.

Take the Elections Bill, or more accurately the voter suppression Bill. Up to 3.5 million people may not have suitable identification, and the Government’s own pilots indicated that some 325,000 people could be denied a vote in a GB election. The Government have persuaded nobody of the Bill’s necessity, but they are bashing on regardless.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the difference between winning an argument and winning a vote. Is the 2014 Scottish referendum not an example of the SNP winning neither? Despite that, the SNP continues to bash on regardless, as he says.

[Stewart Hosie]

We are here. We did not make a unilateral declaration of independence. We have not rushed into a second referendum. What we have done is win another mandate, and we will hold the referendum in line with the wishes of the people, because that is what democracy actually means.

The proposed changes to the Electoral Commission will give this Government unprecedented and unchecked power by allowing Ministers to set the commission’s agenda and purview, thereby enabling them to change which organisations and campaign activities are permitted a year before an election. That is Executive interference in the electoral process, about which we should be deeply concerned.

On a related topic, we have a boundary review that will reduce the number of MPs in Scotland and Wales and increase the number in England. If every single vote were cast the same way, it would not affect the SNP. The polls say we would still return 48 Members, but in England the Tories would go up and everyone else would go down. Looking at the failure to tackle dark money, the boundary changes, the evisceration of the Electoral Commission and the voter suppression Bill, it is no wonder that the public smell a rat.

Then there is cash for honours. When my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) asked the Prime Minister whether such practices should end, he seemed to defend it. Rather bizarrely, he said:

“Until you get rid of the system by which the trades union barons”

whoever they are—

fund other parties, we have to…we have to go ahead.”

There is a world of difference between organisations coming together to campaign for things they believe in, and selling honours for cash, which is illegal. Of course, the Tories always defend their own, trying to get Owen Paterson off the hook and conflating his issue with a general change to the standards process. That was never going to wash.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who did so much in government to tackle issues of poverty and of child poverty in early years, in particular.

Conservative Members will have heard the same from their constituents as I have heard from mine, which is that life is getting tougher and they just cannot understand why, in the face of rising cost pressures, the Government are putting up their taxes, cutting the support that is available and making life harder. My constituents simply cannot understand why the Government are prepared to stand by and allow that to happen.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. You are making the case for why you do not agree with the Government’s position, but I have been listening very carefully to hear what your position is. You have criticised the removal of the uplift in universal, but no Labour politician on the news or interviewed by the press has committed to keep it if you were to be elected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady really must stop using the word “you”.

[Dr Johnson]

I did not mean to, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that there is no plan from the Opposition. They are not giving any plan on what they would do instead; they simply criticise. They simply say we must spend more and tax less, but how does the hon. Lady propose to do such a thing?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The single biggest difference that all of us could make right now would be to cancel the cut to universal credit. That would make the biggest difference to her constituents and to mine, who are facing the single biggest cut to social security since the inception of the welfare state. That is not a choice that a Labour Government would be taking in the aftermath of a pandemic.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Lady says that she would not wish to remove the temporary uplift, which we had always planned to be temporary throughout the pandemic. Does that mean that she is making the commitment that a Labour Government would reinstate that £20?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We would not be cutting it in the first place. We would replace universal credit with a better and fairer system that supports people into work. If the hon. Member wants to have a discussion about semantics, I suggest she has a chat with her constituents and sees how she gets on, arguing about the distinction between a temporary uplift and a cut. It is more than £1,000 a year from families’ budgets—that is what really matters.