Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I start by wishing His Majesty the very best of health on behalf of myself and my constituents. As we welcome many new Members to the House, His Majesty sets a clear standard for public service that we can all hope to emulate. I have had the privilege of listening to a number of maiden speeches from across the House—all fantastic, all unique. I am sure all new Members will have received countless pieces of advice, so I will just say this: none of us, new or returning Members, should ever forget what a privilege it is to serve in this House and in this Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments.

We on the Conservative Benches have much to be proud of in the legacy of the last 14 years. Just last week we have seen inflation remain at the Bank of England target rate of 2%. We created more than 800 jobs a day for the last 14 years. It was under the Conservative Government that, in 2023, the UK became the third most valuable tech economy in the world, worth $1 trillion. We also boast more billion-pound companies than France, Germany and Sweden combined. As has been repeatedly mentioned, we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7.

I want to address the notion that the Government are trying to push, where they talk down the economy, paving the way for tax rises. It clearly does not stack up. If the Chancellor insists on pushing this alternative narrative, as we have heard today, some questions need answering, because surely all those promises made during the election cannot have been made by the Chancellor, or the shadow Chancellor as she was then, flying blind, especially when the OBR provides the transparency that she now denies she had.

Throughout the campaign, we heard about how the Government’s policies were fully funded. If the Chancellor did not use the OBR forecasts, what was she using to make those promises in the first place? I do not think anyone is fooled by this narrative or these tactics. Most importantly, if they are going to raise taxes, which will they raise? They need to come clean about that, because the British people deserve the truth, not whatever the Government are trying to peddle to justify their tax and spend policies. The Government can be assured that the Opposition will do our duty and hold this Government to account.

I want to address a number of things in the King’s Speech. I have to say I was astonished by the lack of respect in the King’s Speech to rural communities. A lot of my communities in my rural area felt incredibly disrespected, and it was incredibly disappointing. I am also disappointed and deeply concerned by the Government’s focus on building on the green belt. We have some of the most precious green belt land in Meriden and Solihull East, not least the Meriden gap, which is a hugely important throughway for migrating wildlife. It is not clear how the Government will protect the Meriden gap.

In fact, the only thing that has been clear in the early days of this Government is that they are willing to set aside local community opinions, and anyone who challenges that will be accused of being a nimby. My villages in Balsall Common, Hampton in Arden, Marston Green, Knowle, Dorridge, Chadwick End and Hockley Heath have already made huge sacrifices when it comes to green-belt land, not least because of HS2. These top-down targets and vague references to grey-belt land are already causing huge anxiety. This matters because when it comes to setting aside community opinion and disenfranchising whole communities, the tactics that the Government are already employing are the best way to do it. I am deeply concerned by that. We on the Opposition Benches will ensure that we hold this Government to account.

The title of this debate includes public services, and one of my key campaign pledges was to restore A&E services to the borough of Solihull. My argument on that is simple: we have about 220,000 people in the borough, and if there is an emergency, my constituents have to go all the way to Heartlands hospital or Warwick hospital, which are way too far away. It is clear to me that the case is strong. One thing I will be campaigning for in this Parliament, whether it takes five or 10 or 15 years, if I am lucky enough to be returned repeatedly—I make no assumptions on that, of course—will be to get that A&E service. I will be working with the integrated care board to achieve that.

I will finish on this: my constituents and the British people have been clear. As we discharge our duties as His Majesty’s official Opposition, their expectations are that we do so with integrity and humility, but always with courage and boldness in what we stand for and who we are. I assure my constituents that for the sake of our country we shall not falter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Kate Dearden to make her maiden speech.

[Kate Dearden (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make my first contribution to this House. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for his contribution to the debate.

Today’s debate is a crucial one for how we rebuild our economy in a way that works for all. I am delighted to be joining my many, many excellent new Labour colleagues in making their brilliant maiden speeches. I am also delighted to follow the incredible Holly Lynch. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Holly dedicated her talent and energy to supporting her constituents. She was a casework champion who still found time to push for protections for our emergency service workers and for global causes, such as Fairtrade. Holly’s commitment was second to none, and I will do my best to follow in her footsteps.

In succeeding Holly, I am proud to take my place in one of Parliament’s great traditions: the Labour women of Halifax. Since the election of Shirley Summerskill in 1964, there have only been four years where Halifax has not been represented by a Labour woman. I am lucky to have the support of brilliant women, from the Labour Women’s Network to trade union colleagues and my late teacher Elaine Barker who set me on the road to this House. I am standing on the shoulders of my sisters, and I will not let them down.

Halifax is a town bursting with history. It was a centre of the wool trade and textile manufacturing, with the Piece Hall the most beautiful and well-known testament to our heritage, but there is far more to the history of Halifax than that. We have a magnificent minster, the imposing Wainhouse Tower, and Shibden Hall, home of lesbian diarist Anne Lister. Halifax’s industrial heritage has meant a close connection to socialist movements. It was a stronghold for Chartists, a centre of trade union activism and the birthplace of Halifax building society, and it has a legacy of co-operative movements. As a trade unionist and now a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, it is a history I am proud to celebrate, and celebrating our history has become a big part of Halifax’s future.

The Piece Hall is now one of the UK’s best music venues. This summer it is hosting Idles, Tom Jones and the Ministry of Sound, and I will leave it to hon. Members to guess who I would prefer to see. We have reimagined the beating industrial heart of Halifax at Dean Clough mill as a centre for arts, culture, food and shopping. That, combined with the beautiful nature of the Calder valley, has seen Halifax transforming into Haliwood. Many in this Chamber will have seen “Happy Valley”, but there is also “Gentleman Jack” and “Last Tango in Halifax”, and we even hosted Marvel for its “Secret Invasion”. As a Member of Parliament for Halifax, I will lobby for any future editions of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” to come and celebrate the home of toffee, Rolos and Quality Street.

There are so many other things that make Halifax a unique and special town, from our fabulous independent department store Harveys—where I bought today’s lovely dress—to Eureka! the museum where I and every other former schoolkid in the north of England went on school trips, and, of course, the famous Shay, home to Halifax Town and Halifax Panthers.

I must also mention some of the challenges that my town still faces. Like most of the ex-industrial UK, we have faced decades of neglect and under-investment. Halifax endures significant deprivation, with above-average levels of unemployment and child poverty. Access to housing is a problem, especially for young people, and the availability of GPs came up time and time again on the doorstep. The people of Halifax have struggled for too long with the cost of living crisis, low wages and poor public services. That has been the story of my town and of our country.

As anyone who knows Yorkshire will guess, the people of Halifax have done much to help each other. Halifax is the home of Andy’s Man Club, which many Members will know from its essential work to support men’s mental health. I met its volunteers as well as those of Healthy Minds, which is another great charity helping tackle mental illness. Noah’s Ark debt centre offers crucial financial support, and the Holy Nativity church in Mixenden is one of several organisations running a food bank and a pay-what-you-can café. Daisy Chain café provides a haven for the elderly to meet and socialise, and St Augustine’s Centre gives much needed support to refugees.

Those brilliant community initiatives have done their best to help those who have been struggling in recent years, and they have achieved much. However, we know that the buck stops with us and that we must address the issues facing our nation and prove that things can get better. These issues, when not addressed, lead to suffering, despair and anger. We on the Labour Benches can celebrate our success at the election, but a victory for our party is only ever a means to an end. Our goal now is to bring about the change that we promised.

I am proud to be delivering my maiden speech in this debate, where we set the agenda for what we will do to improve the lives of everyone across the country. Part of this is close to my own heart: the new deal for working people. In my previous role at the brilliant Community trade union, I was proud to be part of drafting those aims alongside trade union colleagues. The agenda on extending workers’ rights, including for those who are self-employed or part of the gig economy, is one that I want to champion over the next five years.

I would like to end with a few thank yous. First, I thank all the people I have mentioned so far, who make Halifax the wonderful town that it is, for everything they do. Secondly, to the incredible activists of Halifax—the Labour team in our town should be the envy of constituency Labour parties nationwide—I could not be more grateful. As every Member in this House knows, we are here because of those around us—the family, friends and colleagues who support us—so I want to thank my wonderful friends, my mum, my dad, my sister, and my partner Brad. Finally, I thank the people of Halifax for trusting me. I will fight every day to achieve everything that I can for them and reward the faith that they have shown in me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Ben Obese-Jecty to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on a fantastic maiden speech and in particular the passion with which he talks about veterans and the need for more support for veterans.

I start by thanking the people of Nottingham East for electing me once again to represent them in Parliament. It remains the honour of my life to represent my home city. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is a formidable champion for our city. She will be missed by the residents of Castle ward, which is now in my constituency following the boundary review.

What a contrast between this King’s Speech and the last. For the first time in 14 years we have a set of policies that prioritise people’s rights and wellbeing: policies that draw on the rich history of the Labour movement; policies to help protect the right to strike, to enhance the right to flexible working, and to end fire and rehire. We also have policies that echo some of the great achievements of previous Labour Governments, which recognise the value of owning and running services and infrastructure for the common good.

The failure of previous Conservative Governments to combat the climate crisis should terrify us all. We have so much catching up to do if we are to avert the chaos it threatens, so I welcome our Government’s plans to speed up the transition to renewables through a publicly owned clean energy company. And with a Bill to bring rail services back into public ownership, I hope to see far less regularly those chilling words: “rail replacement bus service”.

I am also relieved to see the return of some policies that successive Conservative Governments promised but never delivered: a Bill that will end no-fault evictions and improve renters’ rights; and another that will ban so-called conversion “therapy” once and for all. I have heard from survivors the horrific impact these hate-fuelled conversion practices have had on their lives. To finally end them, it is right that such a Bill is trans-inclusive and it must be loophole-free. It is time to challenge the confected moral panic that is harming LGBTQ+ people, in particular the trans community. This is not the 1980s and we are not going back there. Instead of pitting trans rights against women’s rights, our Government have an opportunity to demonstrate what improving women’s safety actually looks like through delivering on our promise to halve violence against women and girls. The constant harassment on our streets and the hidden abuse in our homes is what we need to prevent, not trans people using the bathroom they feel most comfortable in.

The Conservative party has made our society poorer, more unequal and more authoritarian. From the 4.3 million children forced to live in poverty—more than one in three in Nottingham East—to the destruction of our public services and the damage to our democratic system, our country is in crisis. The laws that allowed these things to happen in the first place belong in the dustbin of history. We should start by scrapping the two-child benefit cap, which would immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty.

This election delivered a historic victory for our party. Our regular meetings of east midlands Labour MPs used to be quite lonely affairs; well, they are not any more! I welcome my new hon. Friends to their places—their victories are justly deserved—but this was also a historic election for other reasons that we cannot afford to overlook. Disillusionment with politics is providing fertile ground for those who wish to divide us, and if we are to keep the far right from gaining further ground, status quo politics will not be enough. Tweaks to a failed neoliberal economic system will not deliver the improvements in living standards that people need, nor will they prepare us for the challenges of the future. With a historic victory, we have a historic responsibility to redistribute wealth and power into people’s hands so that they feel the difference a Labour Government can make. The measures in the King’s Speech are important first steps in that direction, but let us turn them into bold strides in the coming months and years.

I could not finish my first speech in the new Parliament without highlighting the unbearable situation in Gaza. Palestinians need a ceasefire now; indeed, they needed one nine months ago. I welcome the shift in my party’s position over recent months, and I welcome the restoration of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but when British weapons are continuing to be used in contravention of international law—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Lizzi Collinge to make her maiden speech.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been preceded by many wonderful first speeches, particularly from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and my fellow Cumbrian representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), to whom I say, “Areet, marra?”

I would like to start my first speech by paying tribute to my predecessor, David Morris. I know he knocked on a lot of Ministers’ doors to get funding for Eden Project Morecambe, and I thank him for it. I made a solemn promise to him that I would deliver Eden Project Morecambe and make it work for local people.

Thanks to boundary changes, I have two other predecessors. Morecambe and Lunesdale has gained a tract of beautiful Westmorland that was formerly represented by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I know from speaking to his former constituents that the hon. Member is highly regarded and leaves some big boots to fill.

I also gained Lower Lune Valley ward from my good friend and mentor, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith). When I joined the Labour party in 2014 after the birth of my first child, my hon. Friend invited me for a brew. I thought this was a very kind gesture. Little did I know what she had in store for me. I hope she now feels that the aching arms she got from my particularly enormous newborn were well worth it. I would also like to pay tribute to the Labour Women’s Network and the 50:50 Parliament campaign for their tireless work and collective efforts to see more women Members elected.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my predecessor, Geraldine Smith, who is extremely well regarded in the constituency. And what a constituency it is. Morecambe and Lunesdale is definitely the most beautiful constituency in the country. From the golden sands of Middleton, through the beautiful art deco buildings and stunning sunsets of Morecambe, up the lush Lune Valley, across the Arnside and Silverdale national landscape, and into the wild beauty of Westmorland, you would be hard pushed to find a better place to live or work. My constituency has a diverse set of towns and villages, all with their own needs and fantastically strong communities. Their differences should be respected and celebrated. Where their needs overlap, often the solutions need to be tailored to their specific circumstances. In constituencies such as Morecambe and Lunesdale, one size does not fit all, so as our new Government deliver their ambitious programme of national renewal, I will ensure that the voices of all my communities are heard.

My aim is to be a good constituency MP. For me, there is no more honourable ambition, and I am extremely grateful to all the people who supported me and enabled me to have that honour. In His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, we heard about the Government’s plan to reform our bus system, and as a proud member of the Lancaster District Bus Users Group, I welcome that warmly. I also warmly welcome the new Government’s dedication to farming and rural communities. In his contribution in this place last week, the Secretary of State set out a new deal for farmers, action on water pollution and plans to tackle the nature emergency. Speaking of nature, in Morecambe the shrimps are not only part of the local fauna, and a local delicacy that comes highly recommended, but the local football team, and I look forward to delivering on my promise to them of a new independent football regulator.

Before joining this Chamber, I served as a Lancashire county councillor for eight years, and in that time I have specialised in health and social care and served on our health scrutiny committee. I am sure that Members across the Chamber will agree that we expect the highest standards of care for our constituents, so I pay tribute to the many patients and health campaigners who have worked so hard to ensure safe, equitable care for all. Many a health and care leader in Lancashire and South Cumbria has met me across a committee table. I hope that they found me a fair, if sometimes firm, scrutineer.

I am a humanist. Humanists are people who shape our lives in the here and now, because we believe it is the only life we have, and what is politics if not shaping lives in the here and now? Humanists try to treat everyone we come across with warmth, understanding and respect. We believe that we humans have everything we need: logic, reason, evidence, and empathy to make good, ethical decisions. It is these values that I hope to bring to my role in decision making in this place, so I welcome our Government’s focus on service, integrity and honesty. If we are to rebuild trust in politics, we must adhere to those principles rigorously, and I am sure that Members across the Chamber will do so.

Finally, I dedicate this speech to my family: my mum and dad, who brought me and my sister Hannah up with good morals and lots of love; my husband Miles for always having my back and taking on an unfair share of the family duties, alongside a full-time role with the NHS; my kids for putting up with mummy being away so often; and my grandma and grandad, who we lost in 2022. Grandma, remembering her parents’ hard upbringing—they experienced sometimes abject poverty—always voted Labour, much to the annoyance of my working-class Tory grandad. When I was first elected to the county council, grandad told me, “Ey Liz, I’m reyt proud of you. It’s a pity you’re on the wrong side!” My grandad might not have been a Labour supporter, but he did believe in service, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to serve our country and my people in Morecambe and Lunesdale.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

A maiden speech: I call Alex Easton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. It is my intention to start the wind-ups at around 9.30 pm.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I speak for the whole House when I say to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) that I know his father would definitely be proud of him today, and of the work that he will go on to do in the House. He should take that with him in every step in this place. His parents would be, and are, proud of him. I congratulate him on his maiden speech.

I thank my constituents in Blackpool South for re-electing me as their Member of Parliament for the second time in as many months. It feels a lot nicer speaking from the Government Benches than from the Opposition Benches. Hopefully I will do my constituents proud. The legislation announced last week is important to my constituents, who, after 14 years of Tory rule, live in the second most deprived constituency in the UK. They have been deprived of opportunities, decent healthcare, quality housing and safety. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about some of those issues on their behalf today.

Many colleagues in this House will have visited my constituency at some point in their life, perhaps for a party conference, a childhood holiday or a cheeky weekend away. Blackpool is not a place people pass through, and the chaos of the railways under the last Government has left us abandoned at the end of the line. I am relieved that this Government plan to bring our railways back into public ownership. A reliable and affordable service will allow my constituents to access better opportunities.

The King’s Speech gives the rest of the House the opportunity to recognise Lancashire’s potential for growth. Like our Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Yorkshire neighbours, Lancashire would benefit greatly from a devolution deal, and an elected metro mayor who has powers over transport, roads, urban regeneration, skills and housing. I will work alongside my fellow Lancashire Members in this House and council leaders to secure the best devolution possible for our county.

This morning, the Environment Agency issued a pollution warning across my constituency’s coastline and advised against entering our waters. This is the fifth day since my re-election that such a warning has been issued. That is unacceptable. It not only threatens tourism but my constituents’ health, wellbeing and sense of local pride. Local campaign group Fylde Coast Against Sewage deserves recognition for its hard work testing the waters of our shores. The water special measures Bill will strengthen the powers of the regulator, so that Blackpool residents can hope to once again reap the benefits of our greatest natural asset.

Though the town has served the working classes with entertainment, work in Blackpool is precarious, and often poorly paid, insecure and seasonal. The employment rights Bill, which will ban exploitative practices and enhance employment rights, will transform the lives of working people in Blackpool, just as the former Labour Government did for my family. As a fellow working-class northerner, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that she has my full support for her pioneering new deal for working people. Thousands of my constituents are set to receive a pay rise that will help lift them out of poverty.

I am pleased that legislation will be brought forward to strengthen community policing and give the police greater powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, as well as strengthen support for victims. Reclaim Blackpool Map is a grassroots project run by women in the town, highlighting the prevalence of public sexual harassment. As a white ribbon ambassador for over five years, I have been working to educate men, young people and boys in my community. I know that the new Minister for safeguarding will work tirelessly to tackle violence against women and girls, and she has my full support.

Blackpool is a place of great resilience, where people muster to fight against the odds. That was tangible in March 2019 when I joined thousands of fans returning to Bloomfield Road after the successful boycott campaign to remove the corrupt owners of Blackpool FC. Huge credit goes to Blackpool Supporters Trust, whose campaign restored integrity, pride and professionalism to the club. The football governance Bill is a step in the right direction towards returning the game to the fans who make it what it is. I cannot talk about football fans without acknowledging the 97 who will finally get justice under this Government’s Hillsborough law.

In conclusion, there will be many measures of success for this Government, but one important symbolic one will be the success of Blackpool. As a Member of Parliament, I will be fighting to ensure that the people of Blackpool South are no longer at the back of the queue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Victoria Collins to make her maiden speech.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for his passionate speech and join him in his comments about the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), to whom I pass on my massive congratulations and say that I am sure that his father would be extremely proud of his position here and of the public service that he will give.

I stand here exactly 50 years since my mum came to the UK from Malaysia. She came here for an education and stayed to build a business and raise a family. As I helped in my mum’s shop, my parents instilled in me values of community, tolerance and perseverance—something that I hope will guide me during my time as an MP. One of my predecessors, Bim Afolami, also proudly shared his story as a child of immigrants in search of a good education. He brought the values that he learned to his role as MP for Hitchin and Harpenden.

It is a real honour to be the first MP for the brand new seat of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. More than just two towns, the constituency is a rich tapestry that fills the north-west corner of Hertfordshire with history, natural beauty, culture and innovation. We are a collection of proud and vibrant communities with four beautiful chalk streams and the Grand Union canal tying us together like silver threads. The River Bulbourne runs through Berkhamsted, where the Crown of England was surrendered to William the Conqueror in 1066, and its river course would go on to fill the three moats of Berkhamsted Castle. The River Gade starts near Little Gaddesden, which neighbours the Ashridge estate—somewhere Members may have seen in films and dramas such as “Robin Hood”, “The Crown” and, of course, “Bridget Jones’s Diary”.

Members of the House are most welcome to join me locally at the Rex cinema or peruse one of the largest film collections in the world at the British Film Institute’s national archive.

As we swoop across the constituency, the River Ver exits above ground near the village of Markyate, traversed by the Roman Watling Street, and continues through Flamstead and Redbourn. Our final chalk stream, the River Lea, flows through Harpenden and Wheathampstead, a Domesday village that has been home to two Prime Ministers.

Not only have these precious chalk streams witnessed historic events and the lives, hopes and dreams of countless local people, but, with only around 200 of them in the world, they are of rare ecological importance; they are known as England’s rainforests. Sadly, however, we have seen their decline, as sewage has been pumped into the waterways, with the River Ver, having finally recovered its flow, seeing more than 2,500 hours of sewage discharge this year alone.

The same fate goes for the Grand Union canal, where people can jump out at Tring. Although they may not be able to see zebras or cassowaries in Tring Park any more, they can visit them in our natural history museum. People in our part of Hertfordshire are proud of their natural landscapes, and I join them in campaigning to protect our environment and tackle the climate crisis.

The other side of our local communities blossomed from the industrial revolution, which brought another type of silver track—the train lines. Rumour has it that some of the original commuters are still waiting for that rail replacement bus service. Britain initially led the world in railways, but the decline of our public transport feels as if it gathers pace year on year. Bus services that are vital to our towns and rural communities have been cut by more than half in Hertfordshire in recent years, and that is not to mention the cuts to local authorities that have impacted other vital services.

We are not immune to the health and social care crisis, either, as local people struggle to get the care they need, wait weeks to see a GP or cannot find an NHS dentist. Indeed, one of my other predecessors, Mike Penning, who served Hemel Hempstead for 19 years, campaigned tirelessly on healthcare for the area. I aim to continue as a champion of ensuring that local people get the healthcare they need, and closer to home.

Local people have continued the enterprising spirit of the area, which still thrives today, from building e-bikes to distilling gin, creating start-ups and innovating in agriculture at Rothamsted Research, with its thriving agritech hub. Indeed, our greatest assets are our local people—open-minded, tolerant, hard-working and compassionate. It is for them, and thanks to them, that I am here, and I will always put them first.

Given the picture often painted of our corner of Hertfordshire, Members might think that we are solely an affluent commuter area, but that is far from the reality for everyone. So many families, individuals and local businesses are struggling to make ends meet as bills continue to rise. I remember the struggles that my family faced when the economy turned and business got tough. That is why I am passionate about supporting local families, tackling inequality, and not just the vital local businesses that we value today but the entrepreneurs and enterprises of tomorrow.

Standing here, in the most diverse Parliament that we have ever seen, we see that we have a real opportunity for change. We must act now to rebuild the trust in politicians and politics that has sadly been eroded in recent years. For me, that means putting local people first—the people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring and our villages, from Long Marston to Jersey Farm, and from Ringshall to Sandridge. Thinking back to where my story began, it is a privilege to be in this place, representing a story that so many others in our country have some share in. My mother came to this country in search of opportunity, and through her own hard work she found it. Through everything that I do here, I want to ensure that the same opportunity is available for all who seek it out, and I will continue to be guided by those values of community, tolerance and perseverance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Luke Akehurst to make his maiden speech.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on a fine speech, and a very impressive description of her constituency and her motivations for coming to this place.

It has taken me some time to get elected to the House. I first stood in a general election back in 2001, so no one can accuse me of being a young man in a rush. I am humbled to finally be here, having done some other things in party politics along the way. I pay tribute to my late mum and dad, who inspired me to get involved in politics. They gave me my Labour values, and I am sorry that they just missed out on the chance to see me get here. I also thank my family for their huge support, including lots of campaigning and lots of patience, as my speech has come rather late in this debate.

I thank the electors of North Durham for voting for me to represent them in this House. I promise that I will always fight for their interests, and I could not want to represent a finer constituency. I follow into the House the right hon. Kevan Jones. He is an extremely tough act to follow, and I wish him well both in overcoming his health troubles and in his new role, having been elevated to the other place. Kevan was elected MP for North Durham in 2001, and served the constituency and this House with distinction for 23 years. He was utterly committed to the defence and security of our country, serving as a Defence Minister, with multiple stints on the Defence Committee. He was the longest-serving member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a vice-president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. That is highly appropriate, given the number of veterans in the North Durham constituency—particularly people associated with the Durham Light Infantry.

I am sure that in the other place Kevan will continue to work on defence and other issues, such as the sub-postmasters’ campaign for justice. His continued work on the Horizon redress advisory board will give reassurance to victims. Kevan will continue to pursue an outcome for sub-postmasters who used the Capture software in the 1990s, which is currently the subject of an independent investigation that was commissioned by the Government earlier this year. Many hon. Members will know that Kevan is a keen photographer, often capturing and sharing the beauty of North Durham. Countless voters and local organisations have told me how much they have been helped by Kevan. He is held in high regard not just across this House but across North Durham.

I have been elected in a long line of Labour Members, all, as far as I can discern, from the same moderate tradition in the party that I stand in, and including distinguished Front Benchers such as Giles Radice and Jack Lawson, who served as Attlee’s Secretary of State for War in the closing days of world war two. The Chester-le-Street part of my constituency has a unique distinction in the history of the Labour party, having returned a Labour Member to the House continuously since 1906—so no pressure on me to keep winning at all. However, that long Labour history does not mean that North Durham is a safe seat. In every characteristic other than never having been lost, it is a red wall seat and has been electorally competitive in the last two contests. Indeed, this most recent election campaign was rather livelier than I would have preferred.

Chester-le-Street is only one part of North Durham under its current boundaries, however, with the other major town being Stanley. The constituency is rural—surprisingly so. Aside from the two main towns, there are numerous villages. I may get into trouble for not listing some of them, but I will try to list the major ones: Sacriston, Tantobie, Tanfield, Beamish, Bournmoor, Lumley, Pelton, Pelton Fell, Craghead, Ouston, Lanchester, Burnhope, Castleside and Annfield Plain are just some of them. I wish to thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), who previously represented Lanchester, Burnhope and Castleside in the North West Durham constituency in the last Parliament, and who has been most courteous and helpful in handing over responsibility for those fine communities.

I urge hon. Members to visit North Durham. As well as fine towns and villages, it has stunning countryside and attractions including Beamish, the world-famous open-air museum that brings the history of north-east England to life, and Durham county cricket club’s Riverside ground.

Kevan always described North Durham as a rural constituency with urban problems, and that remains the case. Mining is at the heart of the history and previous economy of North Durham. Almost every village has a pit wheel memorial; many also have memorials to terrible mining disasters, and many have lodge banners that are paraded at the Durham gala. The decline of the industry over many decades and its eventual destruction in the 1980s, along with the closure of other major local employers, left terrible economic and social scars and a sense that some communities in the constituency have been left behind. Levelling up, if it reached anywhere, did not reach the proud communities that elected me.

That brings me to the local importance of the topic of today’s debate: economy, welfare and public services. North Durham needs economic stability and growth. It is a travesty that there are so many families dependent on food banks. It needs new skilled and well-paid jobs in the industries of the future. It needs investment and project decisions by the Government to be targeted at creating jobs where they are most needed.

North Durham needs a fairer distribution of public spending. Changes to the local government funding formula over the last 14 years have been unfair and removed resources from authorities such as Durham county council that are dealing with the highest levels of deprivation, and hampered their ability to deliver effective local services. That urgently needs to be changed in the next local government funding settlement.

Capital spending on public services is also urgently needed. On Friday, I visited Sacriston academy, a primary school, and was horrified to find excellent teachers delivering high-quality education, but in a setting that was literally falling down, with ceilings held up by scaffolding joists and whole classrooms, built in 1910—indeed, famous former pupils include Bobby Robson—now unusable due to water penetration through the ceilings and walls. Local children deserve so much better.

Public transport in the constituency is not fit for purpose. We need more frequent and reliable buses and more trains stopping at Chester-le-Street. We also need the economic regeneration of local town centres. The once thriving Front Streets of Chester-le-Street and Stanley are run down and need new life.

I think the House for listening to me today. I look forward to contributing to debates here and to fighting tenaciously for the cause of North Durham and its people and the wider north-east.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. I apologise to any Back Benchers who have not been able to get in, but I am afraid we now have to move to the wind-ups, and I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an excellent maiden speech that highlighted the values of equality and fairness—principles that many of us can agree on—and on demonstrating his stamina by being the last Member to be called. With that level of stamina, I am sure that he will give the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a run for his money.

It is an honour to sum up for the Liberal Democrats. Once again, I extend a warm welcome to new Ministers and to our country’s first female Chancellor. I also congratulate new Members from all parties who gave their maiden speeches today. Their speeches did not disappoint; they were poignant, funny and bursting with passion. When I gave my maiden speech in 2019, I was very proud to say that St Albans has more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, and today’s maiden speeches have given us enough historical nuggets for a maiden speech pub quiz—maybe I will write it on the train journey home.

I am pleased that the topics of economy, welfare and public services have been brought together. Why? Well, during the general election, the Liberal Democrats put health and care front and centre of our campaign, and we did so for two reasons. First, it was the No. 1 issue that constituents raised with us on the doorstep. Every single person is impacted by the crisis in health and social care. Secondly, we know that health creation and wealth creation are two sides of the same coin. We cannot have a thriving economy if our population is sick.

We Liberal Democrats set out an ambitious agenda during the general election, and we are pleased about some of the pledges in the King’s Speech. We are pleased that there will be reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, which is incredibly long overdue, and a number of other public health measures—especially on the protection of children’s health. However, we in this House all know that it is equally important to tackle the social and commercial determinants of health, and tackling child poverty is just as important as tackling the aggressive marketing of vapes and energy drinks. That is why scrapping the two-child benefit limit is in our Liberal Democrat amendment.

It is also important that we focus on access to health and social care services. People must be able to access the care that they need when they need it. That is where the Liberal Democrats want to see more ambition. We need to fix our crumbling hospitals, we need mental health hubs in communities, we need to boost our GP numbers, we need to guarantee that people have a legal right to see their GP within seven days, and we need to put an end to dental deserts.

We all know someone who has had cancer and died, or someone who has had cancer and survived, but in every single year from 2015, the Conservative Government missed their cancer treatment target. We cannot allow that to continue. That is why we Liberal Democrats wanted there to be a legal right—through a statutory duty on Ministers—for this House and the public to hold Ministers to account on ensuring that people can see a GP and get their cancer treatment when they need it.

We Liberal Democrats will also be unapologetic and unrelenting in our focus on social care. We have campaigned for free personal care, and we will continue to do so. Free personal care is good for people’s independence and dignity, and for the NHS. It would also enable the many millions of unpaid carers, who currently pick up the pieces of a broken social care system, to up their hours, do more work, return to work and boost our economy. Health creation and wealth creation are two sides of the same coin.

We look forward to seeing the Government’s employment rights Bill with interest. We Liberal Democrats have campaigned for improved pay for care workers, including by proposing a higher minimum wage starting at £2 more, but that has to come with improved investment so that local government no longer has to rob Peter to pay Paul. We can no longer suppress the pay of experienced care workers to fund improved pay for new starters. We must stop ripping the heart out of a retention strategy just to tackle recruitment. We have to do both.

The King’s Speech was also an opportunity to go further on care. It was an opportunity to introduce paid carer’s leave, make care a protected characteristic, create a royal college of care workers, introduce measures to tackle to scandal of carer’s allowance overpayments, and put in place a framework for cross-party talks that would finally put social care on a firm financial footing for the future. I recognise that the King’s Speech is an opportunity for the Government to set out their priorities, but I hope very much that many of these ideas—particularly for fixing social care—may be announced in due course. As our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), has said, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be the voice of carers in this Parliament.

If we want to boost the economy, we have to recognise that there are now several stages to people’s lives and careers. There has to be lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling from cradle to grave, but we still have to make sure that every child has the best start in life. At the moment under the current system, many children—particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities—are put at a big disadvantage from the get-go, and a huge part of that is SEND funding. As one quick example, my area of Hertfordshire is one of the poorest funded education authorities for SEND. Under the Conservatives’ funding formula, it would take 15 years for children in Hertfordshire to catch up with those in neighbouring Buckinghamshire, itself one of the poorest funded education authorities. That is an entire generation of lost young children and lost education because of a Government spreadsheet formula. It is just another unforgivable legacy of the Conservative Government, and I implore the Labour Government to look at this issue with fresh eyes and real urgency.

Another engine of our economy is small businesses and high streets. Many speakers this afternoon, including many people giving their maiden speech, have talked about the high streets and local businesses that are the glue that hold our communities together. I would like to push the Government to go further, particularly on reforming business rates. Some people may remember that in the aftermath of the mini-Budget, the ex-Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), had spent the summer campaigning for a complete overhaul of the business rates system. On his first day in the job, I challenged him on whether he would in fact review that system. He gave me a wry smile from across the Chamber and said that he regretted campaigning so hard for it from the Back Benches. That review was left in the “too hard” basket; it is part of a long list of challenges facing the Labour Government, unfortunately with a similar refrain, but I implore Labour Ministers not to do the same. Sitting in their in-tray will be the results of the high streets taskforce, which I am sure will confirm what we already know: that the business rates system is broken, crippling high streets—particularly heritage pubs—while Amazon warehouses are being given a tax break. That system is not the foundation of a fair economy.

To conclude, there are measures in the King’s Speech that we welcome, but we want to see far greater ambition for our high streets, our children and our public services, particularly health and social care. We believe that our amendment to the Address goes some way towards addressing those things, and we urge Members to support it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate everybody who has made their maiden speech in this debate. It is a big moment in one’s parliamentary career, but you are out the other side and nothing will be quite as traumatic as what you have experienced today. To go through them very briefly, I thank the hon. Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), who told us that her great-grandfather—I think—came from Lithuania to set up a store in the middle of her constituency, which is her connection with it. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) paid a very generous tribute to Mike Freer and the dangers and intimidation that he faced. She was also generous to Mrs Thatcher—she is clearly a very generous lady.

The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) paid tribute to Grant Shapps and his numerous and frequent Cabinet positions, as well as his commitment to Ukraine. The hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) paid tribute to the 190 Labour women MPs who are now in the House, as well as to Harriet Harman. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) managed to weave King John and A. E. Housman into his speech, and informed us that Hollywood is not a city on the west coast of the United States, but is actually within his constituency. If you want to see film stars, ladies and gentlemen, go to Bromsgrove.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has the peculiarity of having three forebears who are still Members of this House. He was generous to each of them, which shows that he is a wise man and will go far. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) stressed the industrial and shipping heritage of his constituency, and how it was indeed bombarded by the Germans in world war one, but it gave as good as it got. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) praised his predecessor, Matt Hancock, of course focusing on racing and horses—although not, I noticed, on horseplay as such.

The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) focused, with great pride, on the Hitachi Rail company in his constituency—shortly, I am afraid to tell him, to be seized by the Labour party and nationalised as part of its Government programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Greg Stafford) stressed defence spending, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) leasehold reform and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) the importance of agriculture.

I was out of the Chamber for the speech of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and the Whip’s note simply says, “He said that there was a cat rubbing his legs”, or something to that effect. [Laughter.] Representing a highly rural constituency as I do, I know that strange things do occur, particularly late on those dull winter evenings.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) stressed the importance of children in care. The hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) referred to her constituency as the new “Haliwood”, so another Hollywood reference there. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) gave a very witty speech, and stressed the association with the RAF in his commitment to veterans. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) paid tribute to David Morris and his support for the Eden project, and I was particularly pleased to see her do that.

The hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) made I think one of the most moving maiden speeches that we have heard in this House for a very long time. He spoke very movingly about his parents, and we all know what pride his dad would have had in the fact that he has been successful in his fourth attempt to join us here in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) referenced the fact that a Roman road—Watling Street—runs through her constituency and spoke passionately about the importance of community and tolerance.

Finally, the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke warmly of Kevan Jones, whom all of us who have been in this House for a while remember with great fondness, and the importance of skilled and well-paid jobs in his constituency. I hope that I have pretty much covered everybody and said the main things that needed saying.

Let us now turn to the debate itself, and it seems to me that the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), while I congratulate her warmly on being the first female Chancellor—I think that is a huge achievement and is to be very warmly welcomed—is, I am afraid, suffering from some level of amnesia. She appears to have forgotten the legacy that we have bequeathed to her. Inflation, which was up at over 10% last autumn, is now back to target. Mortgage rates are softening, real wages have been growing in each of the last 11 months and taxes have been coming down more recently under the previous Government. When it comes to debt, we were on target, as we handed over to the right hon. Lady, to see debt falling in line with her own fiscal target at the end of the fifth year, and we of course have the fastest growing economy in the G7.

One wonders where this amnesia is coming from, and it is of course nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is to cover up the fact that the Chancellor is rolling the pitch to raise taxes. Against all the commitments she made during the general election, she will be raising those taxes in the autumn. It will not be because we have bequeathed her something of which she was not aware in advance. The IFS has made it very clear that the books were “open”, as Paul Johnson said, for all to see.

When it comes to public services, we have a proud record. On education, we have the best readers in the western world. We have been going up the PISA scales for mathematics and sciences, something that did not happen under the last Labour Government. Crime has been halved, broadly speaking, across the period from 2010 to the present day. When it comes to work and welfare, we have a near-record level of employment, and we have a low level of unemployment. And economic inactivity is lower than in every single year under the last Labour Government. What was Labour’s record? When they left office, unemployment was double the level that it is today. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has been higher when they left office than when they came in. Most disgraceful of all is that youth unemployment was up 43% under the last Labour Government; under the last Conservative Government it was down by over 40%.

As for welfare, under Labour there were 1.4 million people languishing on long-term benefits for almost a decade. On pensions, we saw the 75p pension increase and the Gordon Brown raid on private pensions of £180 billion—from which the pension system never fully recovered. It is, therefore, no surprise that, under Labour, we ended up with the fourth highest level of pensioner poverty across Europe. Under Labour there were 1 million more people in absolute poverty after housing costs. There were 200,000 more pensioners in poverty and 100,000 more children in poverty under the last Labour Government than there are today.

We will be a responsible Opposition: we welcome the commitment to growth in the King’s Speech; we welcome the commitment to building houses, as long as that is with sufficient local consent; we welcome the Budget responsibility Bill in principle; and we welcome the announcements that the Chancellor has made regarding pensions: consolidating pensions and ensuring that we get better returns for pensioners and that we invest in long-term pension capital.

But there are too many echoes in this King’s Speech of the Labour of old. The nationalisation of the railways. The consolidation of GB Energy. The long hand of Government reaching—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Labour Members cheer now but they won’t be cheering in a few years’ time. They have short memories; I remember when the railways were nationalised and it was not a pretty situation. They are bringing forward French-style employment laws that will lead to less efficient businesses and to tribunals. They will be increasing the freedoms of trade unions, who are their paymasters. And they will be dispensing with minimum service levels; that will lead to more strikes and the inconvenience of the public, but certainly not greater growth.

What have we heard in the King’s Speech on welfare, one of the biggest challenges of the modern age? Zip, absolutely nothing, nada, diddly squat—absolutely nothing from the Labour party. They talk about moving the National Careers Service from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions; well, I hardly think that will move the dial. Their back to work plan is named exactly as our back to work plan was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) the shadow Chancellor and I launched last autumn, but it has nothing standing behind it—not the billions of pounds of support we put in place to encourage people to go into work and to transform lives.

All we have heard from those on the Government Benches is a denigration of our job centres; these are described as places of fear by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and by the Minister for employment the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern) as places that do not offer real help. What an insult to the tens of thousands of hard-working people up and down our country who go into those offices to help people improve their prospects and improve their lives. They are against what they call punitive sanctions; it will cost hundreds of millions of pounds to remove those and it will result in less engagement with the help that is available and diminish people’s life chances. There have been no comments whatsoever from the Government Benches on our work capability assessment reforms, that according to the Office for Budget Responsibility will see 400,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits. They opposed in poetry; they have to govern in prose. They have not even picked up the pen, but let me be clear: we made mistakes in government and we have paid the price at the ballot box, and it is right that my party now faces a period of reflection and does so with humility. The electorate has spoken, and we must listen. But that is not the same as saying that the vision that is Conservatism has died, even if of late it has been too often obscured. That vision still burns bright. It burns bright as a beacon of freedom, enterprise, opportunity and, yes, stability and hope in the face of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. Will the shadow Secretary of State please curtail his remarks now?

[Mel Stride]

I commend our amendment to the House.

UK Economy

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

I thank the hon. Lady for focusing on inflation. She is right that it is critical, and bringing it down is a focus for the Government. The House has heard her point about the European Union, but I would add that we have a clear plan for bringing down inflation, which we will continue to carry out. She has to ask those on her Front Bench why they do not have one.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

For too long, too many people in the Treasury—not my hon. Friend, who is an excellent Minister—have thought that the best way to grow the economy is to fill the country with more and more people. Will the Government recommit to insisting that anyone who comes here to work should earn the average UK earnings of around £33,000 a year? That means no shortage schemes and no exemption for care workers or the NHS, but that in those sectors we pay proper wages, we get people off benefits—too many people are on them, dragging down our economy—and we seriously cut mass legal migration; and, by the way, if there is a general election, let us give our people something to vote for.

[Bim Afolami]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about migration. I completely agree that we need higher earnings for British people, not an economy where we import too many people and keep earnings down. That is why we have been focusing on raising the national living wage and ensuring that ordinary household incomes will go up as a result of this Government’s policies, as I have explained. It is worth pointing out that certain things happened last year, such as people fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong, which meant that the immigration numbers were particularly high. The broad thrust of what my right hon. Friend said is correct: we want a high-skill, high-wage economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

12. What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

15. What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

Small businesses are the engines that drive our economy and we support them to thrive using levers right across Government. Our small business rates relief means that one third of business properties in England already pay no business rates. We provide tax reliefs benefiting small and medium-sized enterprises, such as the annual investment allowance and employment allowance, and we support investment in SMEs through British Business Bank programmes and a variety of other support measures.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend and I have spoken about these policy areas on a number of occasions. In terms of supporting small businesses, the employment allowance enables businesses with employer national insurance contributions bills of £100,000 or less to claim up to £5,000 off those bills. That was increased in April 2022 from £4,000 to £5,000, so the smallest 40% of businesses have already been taken out of paying employer national insurance contributions, and many of those are in the hospitality and leisure sector. We always keep policies under review, and I know that my hon. Friend will always be lobbying on this issue.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Becoming an entrepreneur in this country has become increasingly purgatorial over the past 25 years. Does the Minister agree that what small businessmen want is not more handouts and allowances from the Government but lower, simpler and flatter taxes, and less regulation not more? They want the Government to get off their backs and shove off.

[Nigel Huddleston]

That was very interestingly put by my right hon. Friend. I completely agree with his instincts, though, and those instincts are completely shared on the Conservative Benches. When we are able to reduce tax and release the entrepreneurial spirit, independence and innovation that exist right across the UK, the country thrives and all of us thrive.

IMF Economic Outlook

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about tight fiscal monetary policy. We are faced with inflation; it is higher in the UK than in 14 countries in the EU. Inflation is a global challenge, so he is right: we do need to have that stance. Obviously, we want to get inflation down. The cost of energy bills is precisely why, this winter, a typical household in the United Kingdom will have received £1,300 of support, £1,400 in cost of living payments, and the energy price guarantee, estimated by the OBR to be worth £900 for the typical household. That support is provided to every single part of the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman’s specific suggestion—to be fair, he is making a specific fiscal proposal in relation to the allowance—will hurt one particular sector: the North sea and investment in UK energy. Does he know what the long-term answer to this is? It is not supporting families—we are doing that very generously at the moment—but energy security, investing in nuclear and in the North sea as part of our transition to net zero.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If the Minister is not able to share with the House the advice he has received from the Opposition on how they will reduce public spending and taxation if they ever form a Government, will he at least accept my advice that the message from successful enterprise economies is that we must have a credible plan to reduce corporation tax and regulation on business?

[James Cartlidge]

With great respect to my right hon. Friend, who is very consistent on such points, I am bound to point out that, even with the forecast increases, corporation tax will still be the lowest in the G7 headline rates, and, of course, roughly 70% of businesses do not pay that higher rate because of the small business rate that pertains. I have not received any representations from the Opposition, other than a pledge for sound money from a party, which, since promising to put away the great big Government cheque book, has announced almost £50 billion of unfunded spending commitments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

The hon. Lady is right about the importance of retention. That is why we are pleased to have 32,000 more nursing staff than at the start of the Parliament, which takes us some way towards our 50,000 additional nursing staff target. When there is a cost of living crisis, as we have at the moment, the best way to resolve this is an independent process. It is an independent process; when I was Health Secretary, it often made rulings that were not comfortable. The best way to resolve the situation is to respect that process.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Pensioners are increasingly worried about the fact that, although they have paid high—and now higher—taxes all their life, the service they get from the NHS seems to get worse. Will my right hon. Friend consider an idea put forward and implemented by his great predecessor, Ken Clarke, to give tax relief on private health insurance for pensioners? If we were to have a meeting, could he invite his hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who campaigned for this idea before higher office silenced him?

[Jeremy Hunt]

My right hon. Friend always asks important and challenging questions. I do not agree with the way forward that he has outlined, but Ken Clarke revolutionised our education system by introducing Ofsted, which has led to a massive increase in standards in our schools. That was the reason I introduced the Ofsted system in our hospitals through the Care Quality Commission, which is also seeing a big improvement in standards.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the robust Conservative good sense of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). Most of the time, I agree with everything he says. Of course I acknowledge the difficulties facing the Government from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, although many of those difficulties were exacerbated by our over-intrusive attitude to regulation during the pandemic—successive lockdowns, furloughs and all the rest, for which we are now paying the price.

I am also very worried about the disincentives to work, particularly for the lower paid. We have heard a lot about those on benefit. I understand that this is an extremely complex area. We have to help those genuinely in need—those with genuine long-term sickness issues, disabled people—but we do have a massive problem in this country, with more and more people choosing not to work. If benefits are increasing with inflation, which is very high, while public sector pay is being kept down, that is a disincentive to work. Many people who are striving—working very hard, perhaps in low-paid jobs—wonder why their pay is being kept down, while those on benefits who could work see their benefits rising with inflation. It is a complex area; there is no easy solution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has done some wonderful work with the Social Justice Institute that he heads, but we have to find a way forward.

[Ms Lyn Brown]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, we have heard from the hon. Lady. I want to get through my remarks as quickly as possible.

As there are these disincentives to work, people say that we need mass migration. We are told by the bosses of the NHS that they cannot fill all the vacancies, so we need more mass migration. Mass migration is deeply unpopular with the British public. It is particularly unpopular with those who are working hard, particularly those on relatively low wages. They see their wages are kept down by employers who will always get people in from abroad. We have to defeat this argument as a Conservative Government that the way to achieve growth is through mass migration. That is the easy way to achieve growth. The best way to achieve growth is through high productivity, encouraging people to work.

May I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on the subject of channel migration? Frankly, the Government must grip this. It is utterly destabilising. We have thousands of people pouring across the channel, making the Government look incredibly foolish. We could solve the problem: we need to get out of the Human Rights Act and out of the refugee convention. We need to have our own Bill of Rights and ensure that when people land on these shores, they can be detained, arrested, dealt with quickly and deported, because it is utterly debilitating to our reputation.

We have heard a lot about the NHS. The fact is that the country has been increasingly weighed down by an ever-increasing benefit bill, and we are pouring, every year, more and more of our gross national product into the NHS. I do not have private health insurance; I rely entirely on the NHS, as does my family. People of my age are now frightened. Up to now, Conservative Governments have assumed that the NHS was very popular. I can assure Members that it is not very popular at the moment when we are facing these enormous delays. If a person has a non-urgent condition, they can be required to wait for up to two years. Then we are told that the NHS is the supreme example of healthcare in the world. We all recognise the wonderful work that our doctors and nurses do, but I read today that perhaps up to 50,000 people working in NHS quangos and other NHS bodies never actually see a patient. That organisation is riddled with low productivity, waste and incompetence, and we must learn from what other countries are doing, because someone elderly is much better looked after in Italy, France, Germany and Sweden. Indeed, in his statement the Chancellor recommended what is happening in Sweden and Singapore, and all those nations have social insurance policies. Under our system, someone pays taxes all their life, and when they get to a certain age and have a medical condition they are told to join the back of the queue. In France, Germany, Italy or Sweden, they have rights, and the Government have to address that. We cannot just go on repeating the mantra that the NHS is the best health system in the world. It simply is not. Its outcomes on cancer and in many other areas are lagging behind those of similar nations.

As well as considering social insurance, one simple thing that the Government could do—I have suggested it many times—is what Ken Clarke did in the last Conservative Government and provide tax relief for those of pensionable age who take out private health insurance. We could at least give some guarantee that if the NHS fails to deal with someone’s case within a year, or two years, the Government will fund them to go private.

[Rob Roberts]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NHS is a problem generally? We have three different Governments in charge of the NHS in the UK, with Labour in Wales having the worst record of them all. Does he agree that it is not a problem of Government funding or who is in charge, but the fact that the structure and the way that we run the NHS generally across the whole UK is just not workable in modern times?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, it is not workable, and I welcome the fact that the Health and Social Care Secretary appears to be trying to think creatively about that. We need radical surgery in the NHS. We pay taxes all our life, and we demand that when we have a health condition, we are not required to wait for two years. There must be a way forward. We cannot just put more and more sticking plasters on the NHS when NHS bosses ask for an ever greater proportion of national wealth. We have to take tough decisions.

Of course pensions have to keep pace with inflation. I benefit from the triple lock, but long-term the triple lock is utterly unaffordable and will bankrupt the nation. Of course pensions this year should go up with inflation, but what happens next year or the year after, when we deal with inflation and earnings start rocketing up? Will pensions then keep pace with earnings? We have to be honest with people, and I think people are prepared to listen to Conservative Governments who are prepared to take difficult decisions.

Why are we still proceeding with vanity projects such as HS2? Why are we not prepared to take difficult decisions to maximise energy resources, for instance with fracking? Why are we delaying spending cuts? Apparently the autumn statement is responsible and we are dealing with inflation, but the spending cuts are not happening this year. They are happening the year after next—why is that? We cannot postpone difficult spending decisions until after the next election. We should be moving towards a more dynamic and—dare I say it?—a more Conservative direction. People who voted Conservative in 2010 voted for a low-tax, deregulated economy.

We have heard a lot of people talking about benefits, but I want to speak on behalf of middle England, and people who spend all their life saving for their mortgage and their pension pot—striving. More and more—8 million—have now been dragged into being higher taxpayers. Those people should also have a voice, and people in this Chamber should represent the strivers of this nation, and those who work hard and pay tax all their life, with an ever greater burden falling on their shoulders. These are not rich people or people with the broadest shoulders.



I am now going to say something even more unpopular. We cannot load a marginal tax rate of 60% on the people who earn, say, between £100,000 and £125,000—middle managers, consultants and young entrepreneurs—and say we are going to create wealth. That is not what the Conservative Party is about. We are the heirs, not of Gordon Brown, but of Margaret Thatcher.

Decline is not inevitable. Brexit gave us the freedom to deregulate our economy, to make it a dynamic, low-tax, Conservative economy. That is the challenge we face. We must have confidence in ourselves and not accept that we are going to just stagnate forever into a kind of sub-social democratic and poor economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I always listen very carefully to anything that Sir John Major says. I know that he took difficult decisions that put the economy in excellent shape. The one thing that I do not want to do is bequeath it to a Labour Government.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As the Chancellor prepares for his autumn statement, will he remember the good voters of middle England—people who have rarely, if ever, been on benefits and who have worked all their lives for their mortgage and pension pot? They fear that more and more of them will be dragged into becoming higher rate taxpayers and that their pension pot will be attacked so that the state can get larger and more can be spent on those on benefits.

[Jeremy Hunt]

Absolutely. I say to my right hon. Friend that it is the good voters of middle England who want us to be a country that pays its way, that does not borrow at the expense of future generations, and that can be trusted when it comes to sound money. That is what we will deliver.

Public Sector Pay: Proposed Strike Action

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

If everybody is to get in, you need to limit your comments to five minutes, please. I call John McDonnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward.

I should declare that I am a member of the GMB. When I was a priest in the Church of England, no union would take us, because if we did go on strike, it would not be very obvious what had not happened. MSF took us on for a while, and then we became members of Unite, but when Burberry was trying to close its factory in Treorchy, Rhondda, a few years ago, I worked so closely with the GMB that I thought it was right to join. I am a very proud member.

I start with the principle that it is a fundamental human right for people to be able to withdraw their labour, and any attempt to undermine that right is a contradiction of all our human rights. There may be many different reasons why someone needs to withdraw their labour, but it is worth reminding people that no trade unionist, trade union leader or member of a trade union ever takes the decision to go on strike lightly, for the very simple reason that, apart from anything else, it costs them and their family money—goodness gracious, the miners of the Rhondda knew that in spades back in the 1980s. Individual members of trade unions are proud of the work they do, so they do not want to not be in work—they want to be in work.

Many of the people we are talking about have been described as “key workers”. That phrase came into existence during the covid pandemic, when people suddenly discovered that bus drivers, train drivers, bus conductors and people who work in supermarkets or for a local council—many of whom suffered more than anybody during covid, because they were at daily risk—are all key workers because the whole of the rest of the economy simply cannot function without them. Those people know that they are essential to society, and they do not want to let down their customers, clients, passengers and patients or the people with whom they work. They are proud of their work, and they want to be in work, so it takes a lot to get a trade union or an individual member to vote for strike action.

My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter)—not “Sinon Valley”, as Tony Blair always used to call it—is absolutely right about the cost of living crisis. Energy costs in our constituencies are often even higher because many homes are difficult to insulate and to keep warm and dry, as they are basically made out of stone and rubble. If someone is on very low wages, seeing their energy costs double in a year makes a dramatic difference, whatever the Government may have done this year, and people are anxious about what will happen after April. Inflation for the poorest is even higher than the 10.1% that has been mentioned, not least because poorer people spend more of their money on the essentials in life—food, energy and housing costs—and the cost of cheaper brands has risen the most. The cost of things that fill kids’ bellies more readily, such as pasta, have risen by 45%, 47% or 48%, while bread has gone up by 34%, so inflation is even worse for the poorest.

My constituency may be different from other poorer constituencies, because more than 70% of people in the Rhondda own their homes. Many have small mortgages, but some have substantial ones. They may not have taken a long fixed-rate mortgage, because they were not sure how things would work out and did not want to be in a difficult situation in five years’ time. If someone sees their monthly rate going from £300 to £500, they will be thinking about losing their home. The problems that many pensioners are having are intensified by the fact that, if they had a small pension pot of, say, £35,000 in July, it may now be worth only £25,000 after the mini-Budget, so the annuity they might get if they retire now will be lower.

Then, on top of all that, there is wage suppression, which we have seen for 12 years for nearly every key worker. Apart from anything else, that has been counterproductive. One reason we are not getting people back into work is that there is an enormous backlog in the NHS. I am not making a partisan point here, because we have the same problem in Wales—there is an NHS backlog across the whole UK. If wages are suppressed in the NHS, fewer and fewer people will choose to work in it, more and more people will retire, and more and more people will leave it entirely, which will exacerbate the problem.

I completely support the CWU’s strike at the Royal Mail. It seems utterly preposterous to make such a small offer to the workers when significant amounts have been awarded to senior managers and shareholders. That is completely wrong. In my patch, people are worried about Royal Mail deliveries, but I am not blaming the staff; I am blaming the managers, because quite often they simply have not employed enough people to get the work done. I should add that I also support the CWU in its dispute with Openreach, which suffers from exactly the same problems as the Royal Mail.

My final points are about the Government’s role. First, it is to ensure that the laws in this land are fair to the employer and the employee. I do not think we have laws that are fair to the employee at the moment—I think the law is unbalanced. The former Prime Minister—the one we have just lost—would not have been able to become Prime Minister if the rules that presently exist for a strike ballot had been exercised for her. That is an utter hypocrisy in the Government’s line.

Secondly, where the Government have a direct, indirect or even just tangential interest or role in a dispute, they should do everything in their power to keep both sides at the table. In my experience, trade union members and trade union officials are the best deal makers in the land. The Government should learn from them and not the other way round.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Let us be fair to all our colleagues—five minutes, brothers, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Let me add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). Why not make people like me pay national insurance contributions once we have passed the statutory age for retirement? Why not lift the cap on national insurance contributions, which would raise real money for our national health service? That would be a credible way forward. I hope that the Minister has listened intently. It is perhaps unfair that she is nearly on her own, apart from the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).

It is true that the internationally recognised right to strike is circumscribed quite badly in this country. However, the real question that Conservative Ministers should address is this: why are so many people, across so many occupations, so angry that they are prepared to take industrial action? We have seen it with Royal Mail, Openreach, the Fire Brigades Union and PCS, and I could go on.

I want to concentrate on a couple of issues. In the end, when people take the opportunity to go on strike, it points to a fundamental malaise in the workplace. They have very few alternatives. One is to look for work elsewhere. That is a real issue when there are around 132,000 vacancies in our national health service, and when a third of teachers are leaving teaching after five years, when they have seen their salaries go down by around 20% since austerity began in 2010. The issue of retention should worry the Government just as much as the summer of solidarity and the woeful winter that we are heading into.

The Government have to get real about this situation. Looking at the national health service, it has been said so many times that it is almost tedious to repeat that we applauded health workers during the pandemic, but now we are saying to health workers across the piece that we do not value their work. It is astonishing that the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives are balloting for industrial action. It is almost beyond belief, and certainly beyond any kind of precedent. The Government should worry about that, because they have broken something that was precious: the commitment of people to their workplace and to those whom they serve, because they now have to look at defending their own families.

It is not that midwives and nurses do not want to be there for the people whom they serve. I have had great experiences with the national health service; I know the dedication that people are prepared to give on a daily basis. We have to ask: what has gone so badly wrong that the Government have forced people into this situation? It is similar with teaching. Healthcare and teaching are two professions that are so fundamental to the quality of our way of life. We can talk about the private sector generating resources, but when someone is ill, they want a nurse, and a child wants a teacher. Those things are so important.

Now that we are in this crisis, the Government have got to look in the mirror and ask themselves what has gone wrong. Of course we can find alternative sources of funding, and we must, because that is the political choice. My challenge to the Minister is not to condemn strikers; I will support those who feel they have to take industrial action. I want them not to strike, but that depends on the Government coming forward and agreeing to make the political choice to not go back into austerity for those people in the public sector. They need to make the political choice to reward them in a way that is adequate. The Minister on her own today may not be able to give us an answer, but I urge her to go back and tell the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that this is what we demand.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that if you wish to speak, it is courteous to be here right from the beginning. I call Claudia Webbe, but just for a couple of minutes—it is not fair on the Opposition spokesman otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the hon. Lady bring her contribution to an end?

[Claudia Webbe]

I will wind up now. That is despite the Government wanting a return to feudal Britain. Austerity, which has been debunked by many progressive scholars as economically illiterate, needlessly pushed working people into another level of destitution, and contributed to more than 140,000 deaths in the UK. Put simply, whether it is austerity or the cost of living crisis, crisis after crisis has made the UK worker pay with their lives while inequality widens and the wealth trickles up.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid I must end you there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter]

I thank all Members for their contributions. As others have said, it is woefully inadequate that nobody from the Government Back Benches is present.

In summing up, there are three key points for me. First, it is time for the Government to listen. Given the Minister’s comments just now, I really despair, because it seems she is not listening to the reality for so many people in this country—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry, but I have to end the debate at 4 o’clock sharp. I have no choice; I apologise.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Economic Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I was a Cabinet Minister in 2010 when we had very difficult decisions to take in the wake of the financial crisis, and my Department’s budget was cut by 24%. I do not believe that we are talking about anything on that scale; I think it likely that cash spending will continue to go up. That being said, I want to be completely frank with people: we are going to have very difficult decisions, both on tax and on spending, in the next couple of weeks. We will try to take those decisions as compassionately as possible. So it is going to be tough going forward, but I do not expect it to be on the scale that the hon. Lady suggests.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chancellor on his soothing and competent tone, and of course we have to calm the markets, but what is our vision? Of course we accept the shortcomings of the mini-Budget, but does the Chancellor accept that we cannot just slide into a second-rate economy and go in the direction of France, with a bloated public sector, the highest taxes for 70 years and gross inefficiencies? By the time of the next election, can we as a Conservative party promise to get taxation back to at least its level at the start of the current Parliament, and get corporation tax back to being one of the most competitive in Europe? Otherwise, what is the point of a Conservative party? [Interruption.]

[Jeremy Hunt]

There is the problem, with all the noise from the Opposition. This compassionate Conservative Government were able to step in with massive help for members of the public, with the furlough scheme and the energy price guarantee, because we took difficult decisions on the economy in the preceding years, each and every one of which was opposed by the Labour party. I say to my right hon. Friend that the point of a Conservative Government is to build a strong economy, and that is what we will do. It is the job—[Interruption.] This is an important point that I wish to make. It is the job of the Chancellor not just to balance the books but to have a vision for economic growth, and I hope I will persuade my right hon. Friend in two weeks’ time that I have just that vision.

New Wealth Taxes

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Quite a lot of people have risen to speak, and I would like to give them all the chance to do so. I do not want to introduce a limit at this point, so I ask that you keep your speeches under six minutes.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on introducing this debate. It is extremely timely and is given justification what our communities are experiencing.

I want briefly to run through a statistical portrait of our country. I have looked at some hard facts about the situation in our country. My hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of redistribution in tackling some of the real problems that many working people face. I have looked before at issues relating to poverty and I will reiterate some of the stats. There are 14.5 million people living in poverty and 4.3 million children growing up in poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, there are 700,000 more children in poverty than there were a decade ago. The people who seem to be hit the hardest are families with children, and households with someone who has a disability. Interestingly, two thirds of children growing up in poverty are in households where someone is in work. What does that say about wages overall?

I have also looked at the issue as it relates to pensioners. Despite improvements—which I have welcomed, particularly that with regard to the triple lock, even though it was deflected this year—there are still 2.1 million pensioners living in poverty. There is no need for me to mention the massive increase in the use of food banks. A recent survey and report about children demonstrated that even children are skipping meals because their family cannot afford to feed them on a daily basis. An estimated 2.6 million are skipping meals in some form, and going hungry.

On fuel poverty, National Energy Action estimated that price rises would result in the number of households in fuel poverty increasing by more than 50% in April. The language has changed—we have not experienced until recent years—from a discussion about poverty into one about destitution. There are 2.4 million people who have experienced destitution, including 550,000 children. Destitution is the inability to provide the basics in life: a warm coat, shoes, heating and, of course, eating. That is what they are experiencing at the moment.

The housing figures are startling. On rough sleeping, 64,890 households are assessed as being homeless or facing the threat of being homeless. There are now 1 million on housing waiting lists. The figures on health inequality and poverty are staggering. The gap in life expectancy between our poorest and richest areas is 27 years.

As my hon. Friend said, the increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires is staggering. I looked at The Sunday Times rich list. Britain’s super-wealthy have grown their combined fortunes by a record £710 billion in just the past 12 months. As my hon. Friend said, there has been a nearly 30% increase in City bonuses. In March alone, £6 billion was paid out in bonuses.

Wages are facing the longest squeeze in modern history since Napoleonic times. The research published this morning demonstrates that wages are falling behind again, because of the high rate of inflation. One of the key elements of all of this is the insecurity that that engenders. We now have 1 million people on zero-hours contracts. That is not a society that any of us should be living in or should want to live in.

Somehow, we have to find a mechanism to address the grotesque levels of inequality that our community is now facing. Unless we shape up to that challenge, we will potentially have a change in the nature of our politics, as people get angrier and angrier. We know who exploits that anger: usually it is the far right more than anyone else. In addition to that, we will be ashamed of ourselves for not acting urgently on this matter.

Therefore, how do we ensure urgent action? Of course, I agree with all the policies to ensure that there is a long-term investment plan to get people into jobs that are high-skilled, highly productive and so on, but the link between people having a job and lifting themselves out of poverty has unfortunately been broken, particularly because of low wages. We have also seen the degeneration of our public services because of austerity over the last 12 years, and those public services are therefore no longer available to many people who once depended on them.

We have to introduce an emergency programme of measures to lift people out of poverty and secure long-term investment in our public services, and the redistributive element of a one-off wealth tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East has put forward, is one component of the emergency programme that we desperately need. That way, we would be able to use resources directly to lift people out of poverty, to restore some of the cuts that have taken place with universal credit, and to make sure that people get properly funded, particularly if they are providing the public services that we desperately need at the moment. They must have decent wages.

Now is the time to consider all these options. I have always thought that the best mechanics for taxation in this country have been Tory Chancellors. If you look back on the decision to level up capital gains tax with income tax under Nigel Lawson, I think that was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. It could give us anything between £17 billion and £24 billion, which would be more than was included in the national insurance increase. It could have covered the social care and health costs for which we need an injection of funds.

Rab Butler introduced an excessive profits tax in this country during the Korea war. It was not just a windfall tax on one sector; it was across the economy for anyone who was profiteering, and the money was put back into funding our public services and helping people out of poverty. All those measures are available to us.

In addition, we need to look at the City of London, because it is obscene the bonuses that are being paid out. Therefore, we need either a tax on those bonuses or a financial transaction tax, so that we have a regular income and the City pays its way. Because of the appalling levels of inequality, the drift towards higher levels of poverty, and the implications that it has for so many within our community, the argument for a one-off wealth tax on that scale—affecting 1% of our population but supporting 99%—is unarguable at the moment. Therefore, there needs be a proper consideration of it.

This is a Westminster Hall debate, but I hope that it extends beyond this debating Chamber and into the main Chamber, and that it becomes a feature of some of the demands in the run-up to the November Budget—the emergency Budget that we now need to tackle the real suffering that our community is experiencing at the moment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members, please, to keep under six minutes; otherwise, not everybody will get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is a tax related to the wealth of the property in which someone lives. If there is only one person living in that property, there is a 25% discount, but there is no discount otherwise. It is solely related to the capital value of the property, and that is why, in a sense, it is a wealth tax. I know that this is an inconvenient argument for those who are campaigning for a wealth tax, but let us be under no illusions: the council tax system is essentially an embryonic wealth tax, although the levels are much lower than the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) referred to in his introduction to the debate.

I do not know anybody who would be subject to the tax that the hon. Member for Leeds East suggests. He mentioned people who say they would love to be able to pay more tax. As I said in my intervention, there is nothing to stop all those socialist millionaires who have a bit of a conscience and who are arguing that everybody else other than themselves should pay more tax making their own contribution. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman setting up a trust fund into which they could pay, so they could then contribute more than they are able to contribute at the moment. Why not do that?

If people want to pay more towards the costs of the state and are in a position so to do, there is a voluntary system out there. I am sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), will draw our attention to the fact that the number of voluntary contributions made to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is rather modest compared with what it could be on the basis of what those supposed billionaires want to do.

Let us keep the wealth creators in our country. Let us praise the work they do, the jobs they create and the contribution they make to our overall wealth as a nation. Let us not deter them and drive them away elsewhere. I am very much against a wealth tax and I hope the Minister will make it clear that it is in no way on the Government’s agenda.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We will have a five-minute time limit now. I call Claire Hanna.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Edward. Thank you, too, to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for bringing forward the debate and for his advocacy on the issue.

Tax is a fundamental and necessary tool of the Government and, from my perspective as a social democrat, one that is not being adequately levied by the Government to address the huge and parallel challenges of poverty and wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is one of the most defining issues of our time and, like other seismic challenges, such as climate change, it will only be addressed by concerted, co-ordinated and internationalised action. It is being driven, first, by failures in the tax system to levy tax, and secondly, by evasion and avoidance, which is not just about short-changing the public purse but also has a distorting effect on decent, compliant and locally anchored businesses.

The UK and the world, as hon. Members have outlined, is not short of wealth. There is plenty to go around. The global economy has quintupled over the past three decades. However, due to regressive and outdated forms of taxation, that wealth is accruing in the hands of a tiny number of people at the top, while the wealth of those at the bottom is decreasing. Globally and in the UK, the tax system is essentially rigged for exactly those purposes. We know, too, that inequalities have worsened during the pandemic and, in parallel, that the cost of living has surged, the average salary is nowhere near keeping up and public services—health and education—have deteriorated.

The Government need revenue and they turn to tax—so far, so fair—but who or what they choose to tax reveals a mindset. A state can choose to tax either wealth or income and this Government have chosen to tax income—to tax work, when a wealth tax would garner more resource for the state and, in parallel, help address the issues of income disparity that are driving a lack of cohesion and hampering social solidarity. Taxing income alone will not raise the resource needed to be genuinely transformative in those issues of poverty and climate change or, for example, the challenges within the health service. It will also do nothing to address the widening gap between the richest and the poorest, which, as others have outlined, is part of what is driving populism, fundamentalism and people feeling lost within the political system.

It is welcome that the Government are belatedly pursuing a windfall tax—even if we are not supposed to call it that—to address some of the property bonanzas, but that should not be limited to the energy sectors; the Government should also focus on an individual wealth tax. What do we mean when we speak about the wealthy? Before we even start to discuss at what level a tax is levied, what comes to my mind, when differentiating, is those whose income comes from assets such as rents and dividends, when the rest of society depends on labour and wages. It is wealth that makes money even when somebody is asleep, and often at a faster rate than the one at which many people are able to earn.

The enduring myths about wealth, which we will hear mentioned in this debate, include the idea that wealth taxes would slow down the economy, deter job creation and prompt capital flight. One myth is that, simply by existing, wealthy people create jobs; but we know that in fact it is demand that creates jobs. If we take a billion pounds and give it to one person, about 99% of that wealth will leave circulation. Yet that same billion, distributed among a million people, would continue to circulate around the economy, stimulating demand, and not be locked up in the hands of a small number. So the mega-rich are, in fact, taking capital out of society and spending it on the inflation of existing and essentially non-productive assets, such as land and property. That is what trickles down from the wealthy to the average person who is trying to buy a home to live in or raise their family.

The wealthy and their wealth will not just leave, either, any more than wealth is already leaving the public purse due to our complex and loosely regulated tax systems. A large amount of the wealth in this country is tied up in property; as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, it cannot just up sticks and leave. Tax avoidance is not inevitable; it is a policy choice around where to levy tax and underfund enforcement. Things like the Panama papers and the Paradise papers have given more than enough evidence over the years to show that tax avoidance and evasion are standard practice around the world.

Last week, BBC programme “Spotlight” revealed a niche product called Northern Ireland limited partnerships, which are being exploited on a wide scale for people to avoid taxation and to get up to all sorts of nefarious purposes. One street in my constituency in south Belfast is home to 100 such Northern Ireland limited partnerships, which create not a single job or add a single penny to the Revenue, and which are up to all sorts. However, it was a choice not to close down that loophole.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid you are over time. I call Jon Trickett.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important debate.

I will not reproduce figures already mentioned, but there has been an explosion of wealth, certainly since the banking crash, and before that, alongside a growth in poverty. The two things are interconnected, because the growth in wealth is a function of the increase in poverty. It reminds me of Victor Hugo’s statement:

“The paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor.”

That is the truth of the matter, but it is not simply about poverty. It is also about remuneration for middle and upper-income earners as well as lower-income earners. The truth is that there is a long-term secular decline in the proportion of GDP that goes into wages and salaries. That is the central problem with which we need to wrestle, if we intend to tackle the fiscal crisis that state services are now facing. There are four sources of tax. There is income tax, which is more or less half of all tax raised. There is tax on consumption, which is VAT. There is tax on household property, the council tax. There is tax on capital. The tax on capital is one twelfth of the amount raised from income taxes, and is imbalanced as a consequence.

It is even worse than that. If the amount of money going into the salaries and wages of the 33 million working people in our country is correct—it is, because a graph shows it clearly—the capacity of income tax, which is the largest amount of tax we raise, will be limited and in long-term secular decline. We must do something about that, if we want to continue with public services and tackle inequality. Where is the money going to come from? I do not think for one second that we want to increase VAT in any event, but particularly given the cost of living crisis. Nor do I propose an increase in council tax.

Income tax is in long-term decline for the reasons I have given. Therefore, there is only one other place to go, which is to tax wealth. Two of my hon. Friends talked of a one-off tax on wealth. I am not convinced that that is the right way to do it. First, a very large amount of money, a proportion of individual wealth, would have to be raised on a one-off basis to make a significant contribution. In any event, there is a long-term fiscal crisis, for the reasons I have described. Therefore, we need a regular tax on capital.

I have a further point to make on that, and it has already been made. For some reason, we tax income from work much more than income from wealth. That is wrong, imbalanced, asymmetric and should end. There is scope to do that. I published a paper about a year ago, which is now in the Library, about wealth and a wealth tax. We looked at several different ways of taxing wealth, and there are many. We worked out the median of a reasonably balanced wealth tax, taking account of behavioural changes, because wealthy people will change how they behave. We thought we could raise about £100 billion a year. The document is in the Library for people to look at. That is the central argument that needs to be made. Of course, there is an ethical argument about whether one human can be worth millions of pounds more than another. There is also an argument about inequality, tackling poverty and all those issues, but the central question is how to deal with the long-term fiscal crisis.

I will make one final point before I sit down. The Conservative party will not resolve this. Why do I say that? Tory donors who are among the top 250 richest people in our country have donated to that party £57 million. We all know that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. The Tories are not going to resolve the problem; they are part of the issue. There has to be a debate about these long-term problems, and a wealth tax is part of the solution.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Dead on five minutes. Well done. I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I would love to, but I am coming to the end of my time.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We have to finish at 4.12 pm. Would you allow the mover of the motion two minutes?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to give way.

[Lucy Frazer]

I anticipated that point, which is an important one, and we will of course bring forward more statistics for this year in due course.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Minister, could you allow one minute for the mover to say something?