Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 General Committees

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the regulations. The Opposition welcome the annual uprating of the measures for both the mesothelioma lump sum payments and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act payments across England, Scotland and Wales, which is a position that Conservative Governments have taken on such measures. The regulations provide a 1.7% increase in compensation payments, in line with the September 2024 CPI inflation rate, and we are pleased to see the commitment to maintain their real- terms value.

Mesothelioma, in particular, is a cruel and indiscriminate disease, with symptoms that can take decades to appear and with known links to asbestos exposure. By the time that many individuals receive a diagnosis, the condition has already advanced, leaving them and their families with little time to prepare. More than 2,700 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the UK, with most cases diagnosed in people aged 75 and over, and with men affected more commonly than women.

Pneumoconiosis, too, remains a serious occupational disease, often affecting those in heavy industry, including coal mining, quarries and foundries. Given the long latency periods of the conditions, many sufferers find themselves unable to pursue civil claims against former employers, making Government schemes a crucial safety net.

The compensation framework must remain fair, efficient and responsive to inflationary pressures. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the following, either now or in writing. First, how many individuals are expected to receive the payments in the next one, five and 10 years? I note the 1,940 figure for 2023-24 that was outlined. Secondly, what is the expected average payment amount that will be received?

Thirdly, given the number of cases linked to historical workplace conditions, it would be helpful to understand the Government’s latest estimate for the long-term cost of the schemes to the public purse. Finally—I appreciate that the Minister touched on this, but I would be grateful for further explanation—although financial compensation is important, prevention remains paramount. Besides the work of the Department for Education and the DWP, alongside HSE, it would be helpful to have any further lines on how future cases could be prevented or revealed earlier, so that we can have foresight.

While there is no statutory requirement to uprate the payments, we welcome that the Government have chosen to do so, as we did. The Opposition support the technical aspects and the policy intention of the regulations and welcome their implementation.

Income Tax (Charge)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I start by welcoming the fact that this is the first Budget presented by a female Chancellor. The House should be proud of that. I also send my thanks to the Prime Minister for acknowledging the former leader of the Conservative party and his heritage as a second-generation Indian. This place is symbolic not just here but around the world.

I am going to shift tone, if I may. [Laughter.] The Budget is incredibly punitive for small businesses. I come from a small business background, and I applaud those who are brave enough to set up their own business. A lot of the time, those small businesses are one-man bands, reliant on family members or friends to support them. Today, I probably would not set up a small business, because off the back of this Budget we have destroyed ambition in our country. The Budget absolutely feeds into supporting public sector workers, but as Sir James Dyson said in The Times today, how can we encourage the entrepreneurs of tomorrow to start their businesses today?

Politics is about choices. My party spent the summer trying to convince the electorate that Labour was going to raise their taxes—we thought that it was, and indeed we told the public that. The Budget raises taxes on working people, on pensioners, on wealth creators and on farmers. I think that farmers and the NFU knew there would be an issue when only 87 words of the Labour manifesto referred to farming. The Budget sends a message that ambition is something not to foster.

With regard to the tax burden, we see an increase in capital gains tax and inheritance tax, the removal of stamp duty support for first-time buyers and the unfreezing of income tax bands. This is a Budget that penalises ambition.

I am conscious of time, so I want quickly to focus on three local issues in South West Herts. On defence spending, I am lucky enough to represent Northwood NATO base in my constituency. While I applaud the Government’s investment in defence and supporting our Ukrainian allies, I gently point out that the Budget will actually see a decrease in the percentage of GDP spent on defence, let alone a pathway to spending 2.5%.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that at this time when the world is more dangerous than it has ever been, any reduction in defence spending is the wrong way to go?

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend is spot on. [Interruption.] I hear comments from Government Members that it is not a reduction. My Government and my party’s manifesto committed to 2.5%. I look forward to the Government committing to that level in future spending reviews, and ideally going higher.

The second local issue is independent schools. I believe that this is a policy of envy. When the Government are burdening independent schools with VAT and increases in business rates, they are forcing families who are just about affording current tuition fees to make the choice to go to the state school sector. Now, if there was capacity in the state school sector, I would happily applaud that, but when a shadow Minister confirmed during the general election campaign that class sizes would increase, that for me was a warning that the Labour party knew what it was doing. Unfortunately, residents of South West Hertfordshire will come to feel that in things such as SEND support—helping those who are most in need—which are subsidised by the private sector.

Finally, on Watford general hospital, I look forward to the Health Secretary coming back in the spring with his review. Following on from my question at Prime Minister’s questions in October, that is critical for my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

If I had time, I would focus on the increase in whisky duty, and the impact on our farmers and small businesses, but I will focus on the oil and gas sector, which is so crucial to the north-east of Scotland and my constituency.

As expected, the oil and gas sector was a target for tax in the Budget. I welcome that first year allowances were retained, but other measures were announced that, although well trailed, will severely damage the energy sector. Whether it is increasing the energy profits levy by 3%, which will lead to a 78% tax rate on our oil and gas businesses, extending the windfall tax to 2030 or removing investment allowances, each will compound the investment difficulties facing the sector, and will impact investment and future jobs. The changes to the windfall tax and allowances will see the Treasury receive 83% of cashflow from oil and gas, with companies taking home just 17%. That is the highest share of any Government compared to other comparable offshore mature basins globally.

The punitive taxation on our oil and gas sector puts current, real jobs and career opportunities in the north-east of Scotland at risk. Working people, who are the same people with the skills and expertise that we need for our energy transition, are not being protected by the Budget. The windfall tax and the removal of investment allowances also hit homegrown UK-based companies the hardest—the ones that have emerged and grown in north-east Scotland, and the ones that usually have an almost exclusively UK-based workforce. All their profits are subject to the windfall tax because their investments are all in the North sea. That is unlike multinationals, which can buffer the worst impacts of the windfall taxes with their overseas investments, so the changes are mostly hurting our homegrown businesses, which we should all want to protect the most.