Winter Fuel Payment
Harriet Cross Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I certainly remember, and I am sure others will, the Government saying that those with the broadest shoulders would take the strain. Does the shadow Secretary of State consider those on this level of income to have the broadest shoulders?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes exactly the important point I am making, which is that if the Government thought what they were doing would affect just the very wealthiest in society, they were very wrong.
Louise Jones
What is fair is a 4.1% rise in the state pension and a 5.5% to 6% rise for our soldiers, teachers and nurses, and I will say that as many times as I need to say it.
Many people in this country have been grappling with skyrocketing energy bills, which have caused real poverty. Those bills have skyrocketed largely because we are at the mercy of international markets, so it is vital that we take back sovereign control of our energy and energy prices, and GB Energy is a vital part of that.
Harriet Cross
The interim chief executive officer of GB Energy has said that reducing energy bills
“is not in the remit of GB Energy”,
so how is GB Energy going to help with energy bills?
Louise Jones
GB Energy will turbocharge renewables across the country. Once we have that, we will have more control over our energy systems and, as the hon. Lady knows, we will have control over what happens with bills.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), a Member for whom I have a lot of fondness, but with whom I am afraid I am going to part ways quite considerably this afternoon.
The point has been made by Opposition Members about the difficulties of government, so I will repeat a point I have made in previous Opposition day debates. Members on the Opposition Benches, for the time being, have considerably more experience of government than Members on the Government Benches. I believe that regrettably, many of the actions my own party took during our time in opposition prolonged that, but as a result, I and many Members on these Benches gained a huge amount of experience of what real opposition looks like, as well as what flawed opposition looks like. I gently remind Opposition Members—not for the first time in this place—that if this is what they consider opposition to look like, they are going to spend a lot more time on those Benches than they might wish.
It is often said that any day in government is better than any day in opposition. I am sure Members on the Opposition Benches are very much enjoying the opportunity to repeat arguments we have heard numerous times already. But every single day in government is also a time when we must make decisions, and we on this side of the House—in this Government—have been very clear about the decision we have taken. We have not shirked from it. We have not hidden it. Our decision on the winter fuel allowance was announced in this place. It was not an easy decision—far from it.
Mark Ferguson
I am very, very close to making a point, but why not? There are more people wishing to speak on the Opposition Benches than on the Government Benches, so as someone who has many teachers in the family—we have mentioned teachers in this debate already —I will give way and say, “It’s not my time you’re wasting.”
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I actually do not think it is anyone’s time we are wasting, seeing as we are discussing such an important topic. He talked about a decision that was made. I was just wondering, if Government Members had their time again, would they make the same decision?
Mark Ferguson
I would, and here’s why: when there are difficult decisions to be taken, we cannot shirk from them. When the Government shirk from those decisions, they end up with the grotesque chaos of entering a general election having accrued £22 billion of expenditure that there has not been sufficient allocation for, which is why someone else has to pick up the pieces.
Matthew Patrick
The hon. Lady will know that, when it comes to the NHS, the longest waiting times were impacted by the pandemic, but the longest waiting times on record prior to the pandemic were seen the day before it, because of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives do not have a record that they should feel proud of on that matter, or on the economy.
Matthew Patrick
I am finishing on the intervention that I just took; I might then come to another.
Many constituents in Wirral West really suffered through Tory mismanagement on the economy and on public services. That mismanagement saw a status quo fail our pensioners and fail all of us. Getting the country back on track required us to support those who need it most. No one in my constituency thinks that the very richest in society like Sir Richard Branson need Government support to get by.
Andrew Western
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am sure she is capable of contacting my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield herself, but I recall that he did mention that he was working closely with his local authority. I am sure it has been able to assist in that campaign, which he described as a partnership rather than his own work, to drive take-up in his area.
As detailed earlier by the Pensions Minister, we are directly targeting all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit, bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, and we are introducing new research on the triggers and motivations that encourage people to apply for pension credit, to guide future policymaking.
I echo the Pensions Minister’s remarks on the triple lock. It is worth repeating that over 12 million pensioners will benefit from our commitment here. Over this Parliament, up to and including 2029-30, the OBR forecasts that Government spending on the state pension will rise by over £31 billion. And there is lots of other support too, including the warm home discount and the household support fund, available to pensioners.
I will turn now to some of the other specific points raised during today’s debate. Several Members raised the delays in pension credit processing. It is important for me to recognise here the sheer volume of applications the Department received during this period. We understand that pensioners expect their applications to be processed quickly and accurately, which is why we deployed over 500 extra staff to process the huge increase. The latest statistics also show a positive picture: outstanding claims have reduced from 85,500 in mid-December to just 33,700 by 23 February, which is in line with the Department’s usual number of claims awaiting processing.
Some hon. Members raised the issue of an impact assessment at the time of the policy decision. In line with the requirements of the public sector equality duty, an equality analysis was produced as part of the ministerial decision-making process. That was published on 13 September and placed in the House of Commons Library. It assessed the effects on individuals and households according to protected characteristics set out under the Equality Act 2010. They do not include impacts on the NHS.
Other hon. Members have quoted figures on the poverty impact of the changes to winter fuel payments. I simply note that yes, internal Government modelling was produced as part of routine policy advice. Given the interest from the Work and Pensions Committee and the public interest, the Department published this modelling for transparency in a letter to the Select Committee in November. However, it is essential to note that this modelling is subject to a range of uncertainties, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results, and that it does not take into account any impact of the measures we are taking to increase pension credit take-up and ensure pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled.
Harriet Cross
My understanding is that the impact assessment showed that about 100,000 pensioners would be put into poverty. I was just wondering what range either side of that figure would be acceptable to the Minister.
Andrew Western
What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I would never want to see those numbers increase, but that number is significantly better than the 300,000 pensioners who went into relative poverty under her Government.
To those asking about Government action with respect to energy costs, I say that the Government recognise that affording energy bills is a struggle for many and that energy debt is rising. The Government have continuous engagement with energy suppliers and have discussed the support they have in place to support vulnerable consumers, including pensioner households. We are continuing to deliver the warm home discount for eligible low-income households and have recently published a consultation on its expansion, which would bring around 2.7 million more households into the scheme, pushing the total number of households receiving the discount next winter up to around 6 million.
I will turn briefly to some of the contributions from Members on the Conservative Benches, and in particular from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who, interestingly—given the description used by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) of this side of the House—I felt expressed faux outrage at this decision. It is rich from a party that, as I said, pushed 300,000 pensioners into relative poverty, made pitiful efforts to address pension credit take-up, made a 2017 manifesto commitment to means-test the winter fuel payment and let the value of the winter fuel payment fall by around 50% during its time in government.
The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went on to make repeated reference to Labour Members’ consciences, which was relatively offensive, but nothing compared with being called the “nasty party” by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. I will not accept those sorts of attacks from the Conservatives—the party of Downing Street parties, the party of the inhumane Rwanda scheme, and the party that drove so many to food banks. My conscience is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is appalling to imagine that theirs is the same after what they did to this country over 14 years.
I listened very carefully to—[Interruption.] I am being chuntered at from a sedentary position about the household support fund. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that it was not fully funded by the Conservatives on a multi-year basis, and it is this Government who have provided that certainty to local authorities.
I listened very carefully to the speech from the shadow Health Secretary and, indeed, the more than dozen speeches from Opposition Members, and I am still no clearer on what their policy actually is. We had one Member standing up and saying means-test, another standing up and saying tax the winter fuel payment, but neither shadow Secretary of State present bothered to stand up and tell us what the Conservatives’ policy is. If they want to stand up now and say that they would reverse this policy decision, I would be happy to give way to either of them. Feel free. Their silence says it all, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have made the hard choices necessary to bring the public finances back under control after 14 years of Tory misrule.
Welfare Reform
Harriet Cross Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to right-to-try legislation being brought forward and to de-risking work, but the Treasury’s NIC rises make employing more expensive and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more risky. What assessment has her Department made with other relevant Departments of the impact of recent Government policies on job creation and opportunities for sick and disabled people to try work?
Liz Kendall
Labour Members believe that good work and employment rights make it more likely that people will take work, and that they will keep people in work—that is why we are bringing those changes forward. We have a lot of employers who want to work with us to get the people they need because they are struggling to fill vacancies. We are overhauling our approach to that, because we want to serve employers to better meet their needs.
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(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.