Getting Britain Working Again
David Smith Excerpts(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), whose comments on community energy I will come to in a moment.
It is a real honour to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address on behalf of my constituents in North Northumberland, where the electricity grid is owned by Warren Buffett, the water system is overseen from Hong Kong and most of the buses are run out of Miami. Across many decades and multiple Governments, we have made ourselves a society where everything can be bought and sold for the right price, but the things that matter are often slipping away.
We heard renewed commitments in the King’s Speech from the Government to improve our economic security, whether by ensuring a fair deal for working people, responding to the Timms and Milburn reviews on welfare or delivering an energy independence Bill. I welcome those commitments. According to the pollster More in Common, seven in 10 Britons feel that our country is “on the wrong track”, and
“many are starting to conclude that the problems…lie…with the system itself.”
This is a long-term trend. The job of the Government must therefore be to cast a vision of the future that transforms the status quo and then implements it. But what does that future look like, and how does it relate to the economic issues of work, welfare and energy?
The late Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said:
“We are each a letter in God’s book. Like a letter, we have no meaning on our own, but joined together in families, communities and nations, we form sentences and paragraphs and become part of God’s story.”
Even if we do not share his religious views, Sacks’s message is clear: life must be lived together. Sacks called this a covenant. We are used to talking in terms of a social contract—a phrase we hear a lot—but the social contract asks, “What am I getting out of this?”, while the social covenant asks, “What do we owe each other?”. We therefore need to legislate for a society that helps us to think about what we owe each other.
Work remains central to the task of transforming the country. This is one of the Government’s top priorities—we are, after all, the Labour party. Work is also the main way that we contribute to our shared national life. However, our national relationship with work is threatened. One million young people are not in education, employment or training, and AI is threatening a period of disruption that we have not seen since the days of the spinning jenny. We have done many worthwhile things already to improve work; the Employment Rights Act 2025 was a landmark piece of legislation. However, we need to go further to restore the way that we see and do work.
The UK is below average among major nations for in-work training, so we should require employers to invest in their employees’ skills with training opportunities. We should also incentivise a stakeholder economy in which more staff share in the value that they help to create, and replicate the European model of giving ordinary workers seats on company boards. In short, the success of the company should be linked to the thriving of its employees. The steel industry nationalisation Bill creates the perfect opportunity for us to model that for the rest of the economy. Working together in a covenantal Britain, we can see that change.
Covenant also speaks to our social security system. According to the last data available, 24 million people in the UK are receiving some form of benefits, including pensions. The total cost of our welfare system is greater than our income tax take, and that strain is weakening our togetherness and the idea of fairness on which the system relies. We need a new Beveridge report for the 21st century. The original report identified—in anachronistic language—the five giants as want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. I suggest that the giants of 2026 are: poverty, worklessness, isolation and hopelessness.
I welcome the Government’s upcoming response to the Milburn and Timms reviews. We are a party that will always support the most vulnerable in our society, and it is right and just to support those who cannot work or who need help to work. We need a welfare system that is based on contribution and in which people are delighted to say, “Yes, I am my brother’s keeper.”
Finally, I welcome the Government’s commitment to energy security and the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech, but without a covenantal relationship between Government and community, we will lose support for the green transition. King’s College London has found that the share of those who support net zero sooner than 2050 has halved since 2021. Meanwhile, energy price rises are already affecting parts of our country and our economy, as we all know. When the first American missile was launched into Iran, some of my constituents’ heating and hot water prices doubled. A covenantal response to that is to say, “Let’s work with local communities to meet their needs now instead of pressing on towards jam tomorrow,” so if a wind farm is created in the vicinity of a community with the consent or ownership of that community, the community should benefit financially.
We must also acknowledge that many of our constituents will be reliant on oil and gas for decades to come. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, 14,000 properties are not on the gas grid. Let us rebuild our energy security and supply using a realistic mix of options, and let us leave everything on the table so that it serves everyone.
In conclusion, the dead end of unfettered market capitalism has been broken by its own failure to deliver decent jobs and affordable energy. We all now need our future to be built on something that brings both economic security and restored social relationships. In short, we need covenant. The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. Nye Bevan once said:
“We have to build a party that is capable of expressing the desires of the people who sent us here—not just their immediate desires, but their deeper longings for a just and generous society.”
The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy. To do this, all of us —Government, party and country—need to commit to a new social covenant.
Budget Resolutions
David Smith Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am grateful to be speaking in support of a Government who have delivered a Labour Budget that has ended the child benefit cap. That benefits 1,150 children in my constituency. The Budget is tackling the cost of living by reducing household energy bills by £150 from next April. It is raising much-needed funds for our public services by increasing taxation on online gambling and on homes worth over £2 million—mansions—and it includes another rise in the national minimum wage. This is a Labour Budget with Labour values that will achieve so much. It will positively impact millions of lives, and I am proud to support it.
It is with a heavy heart that I have to tell the Minister—this will come as no surprise to him—that the one thing I remain concerned about in the Budget is the overarching changes to inheritance tax for farmers. I am grateful to the Chancellor for listening to my concerns and those of my colleagues on the Back Benches, and for making an adjustment. The expansion of the transferability of inheritance tax allowances to widows retrospectively is welcome. It is a compassionate change, and it will allow widows to add their deceased spouse’s allowance to their own to benefit their children on their death. It is an effective doubling of their allowance, which is to be welcomed. However, I remain concerned about the long-term impact of the policy.
In my constituency of North Northumberland, there are 710 farms, and over the past year I have met at least 90 farmers. I am not from a farming background, and this past year has been a steep learning curve for me, so I have been deeply moved by the generosity, respect and patience shown to me by farming constituents. They have opened their homes and lives to me, and they tell me that the inheritance tax status quo meant stability. Farm estates could transfer smoothly from one generation to another without their work being interrupted by lengthy processes. In addition to the allowance for transfers to widows, I urge the Government to consider an elderly farmer exemption, so that those surprised by this change in their old age can retire with dignity.
One farmer recently wrote to me saying,
“My father with his father and brothers worked to buy our farm. He wanted to pass that to me 10 years ago, the legal advice at that point was to do this on death. Now, at 80 years old, he has dementia, unable to make any decision on his own and his power of attorney (me) is unable to act on his behalf.”
Agriculture has faced headwinds for many years, not least under the last Conservative Government; energy prices rocketed, and dodgy trade deals with Australia and New Zealand undercut farmers. They have also had to contend with unusually difficult weather patterns, whether it has been too hot, too dry or too wet.
By 2029-30, the changes that we are talking about will have raised only £520 million. That sounds like a lot, but it is less than two days’ debt interest. In the light of widespread farming opposition to this policy, will the Government keep this policy under review in its first two years and, if the fears of farmers are established as facts, look to alter the policy accordingly?
There is a better way forward. If we raise the threshold at which IHT kicks in, cut the relief for those above the threshold and delink agricultural property relief and business property relief, we can protect those who need protecting and invite those who can pay more to pay more. The Minister knows that the minimum share rule is just one example of that, and he may observe that this change would draw more estates into the policy. Although the number of estates brought into the policy under the minimum share rule may grow, those estates would by definition have larger assets that were less likely to be involved in a working farm, and that would therefore be more disposable.
It is exceptionally hard out there for farmers, yet from the wee small hours to late at night, and without family holidays or long weekends, they put in the work to ensure that we all have food on the table. As one farmer said to me,
“My childhood included no Christmas, home-made clothes and food grown from the veg plot. It was a frugal upbringing…Even now there is no lavishness. Holidays are scarce, the house roof leaks, windows aren’t fit for purpose and damp and mould prevails in the house. A private landlord can’t allow his tenants to live like this, but we accept these conditions. That’s ok”.
They continued that the proposal
“will bring a tax bill of £400,000. We are a modest hill farm. We cannot make this kind of profit in 20 years, never mind 10.”
Most farmers farm not to become wealthy, but because it is a way of life. The Agriculture Act 1947, brought in by the Labour party, was the first great, sustained support for British farming. We have the opportunity to provide that support again. Farmers need us. They need stability, and they want a fairer system. There is still time to achieve that. In a £1.3 trillion budget, £520 million will not make a difference to our fiscal stability, but it would make all the difference in the world to the flourishing of British farming, including in North Northumberland.
Winter Fuel Payment
David Smith Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing just that, and I trust that people will follow through.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing the debate, and I am sure she will agree with me on two points. The first is that it was the last Conservative Government, through their mismanagement of the economy and the nation’s finances, who got us into this financial black hole, and it is disappointing to see the Conservative particularly poorly represented in the debate. Secondly, does she agree that, as means-testing is introduced for the winter fuel payment as a result of that mismanagement, consideration should be given to pensioners in rural constituencies, such as my own in north Northumberland, who are living off-grid in energy-inefficient homes, and that we should target them through things such as the warm homes fund and the household support fund?