Welfare Spending
Jamie Stone Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for reminding me of two of my predecessors. I cannot claim to have known the former, but I did know Frank Field very well. Frank and I talked many times, particularly with regard to Birkenhead, about his belief in the value of work. He wanted to see our shipyard thrive and young people in Birkenhead grow up with the pride of employment. I like to think that when the Prime Minister came to Cammell Laird shipyard recently to talk about the value of good work in Birkenhead, Frank would have felt very proud.
Alison McGovern
I will continue for just a moment.
All the young people who spoke to the commissioner could not have been clearer about the challenge of learning in overcrowded bedrooms. They were clear and direct about the shame of not always being able to keep clean because of a lack of hot water. I am deeply proud that we have committed funding for social housing to get children out of temporary accommodation, and expanded the warm home discount for all those on universal credit who are eligible. To ensure that the next generation of families experience a friendly face and have a place to play, we have expanded Best Start family hubs to every local authority.
As I said earlier, those are just some of the changes being brought about thanks to the child poverty taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Education.
Alison McGovern
I have given way a lot, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am worried that you will be quite cross with me if I keep giving way, so I will make progress.
Alison McGovern
I did say that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, so let me do so before I finish my speech.
Jamie Stone
The Minister is extraordinarily gracious. She has rightly talked about universal credit, and what she says is very interesting indeed. I have constituents on legacy benefits who are—I think this is the right word—“migrating” to universal credit. The trouble is that they have to wait five weeks until they get their first cash. How will they make ends meet? What about the direct debits? I worry about that. Perhaps the wonderful group of Ministers considering these matters could look at that situation, because people are really caught in a trap.
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman is not the only person who worries about it, and I will receive his intervention as a submission to the child poverty taskforce.
The child poverty taskforce is looking at all the levers we can pull—across income, costs, debt and local support—to prevent poverty, including social security reform. Our universal credit review is considering ways that the system can improve in order to stabilise family finances and provide roots into good work.
On the two-child limit specifically, the consequences of the Conservative choices made over the past decade and a half are clear for all to see. We have rightly said many times that we will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it. Taxpayers in this country—who include many parents, grandparents and those who care deeply about the fortunes of the next generation—have the right to know that they have a Government who will help grow our country and our economy. Poverty creates stony ground for that growth. It robs people of the dignity of being able to look after themselves and the choices about how to live their own lives. It robs children of what should be a worry-free time and makes them less able to take risks and try new things as they grow up.
This makes bad beginnings for a country that needs its next generation to be innovators, to be inventors and to build our future. I say this as one of three in a family with hard-working parents where money was tight. We knew every day in those years when I was growing up that the Tory Government at the helm did not give a stuff about people like us—we knew that every single day. Families in this country who are struggling should know that this Labour Government think about them every day. We have taken action to improve life for our kids, and we will keep fighting for that every single day.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Jamie Stone ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 View all Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore
That is the nub of why there is so much concern that has been consistently raised by all Members on the Conversative Benches, and many on the Government Benches as well, who, dare I say, are considering how they will vote later.
No one doubts that our welfare system, which is set to exceed £100 billion by 2030, needs reform. If we continue to follow the Chancellor’s strategy of recklessly borrowing, which will have the same negative implications on PIP, some of the poorest in society who feel the biggest impact of any financial crisis will be exposed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thus far, I have kept out of this debate, probably for the wrong reason, but my wife has been disabled for 26 years and is in receipt of PIP. Although I became an MP in 2017, as a family, we were deeply grateful for the support. My wife is an honest lady—I hope I do not embarrass her by saying that—and she would have been delighted to have been consulted about PIP, as set out by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft). She would have put her thoughts down on paper, and I am sure that many recipients of PIP would have said, “Yes, we will try to see if we can help to get the budget straight in some way.” That way, the Government would take people with them; that is important and we are missing that.
Robbie Moore
Trust is at the heart of the issue, and if we want to create a system that commands public trust, this is not the way to do it. We need to reward effort and promote self-reliance, but the Bill creates a two-tier system detached from individual responsibility. We need to make the welfare system more targeted, but the Bill, like many Government policies, simply shifts new costs on to people who will genuinely be ill, newly disabled or simply younger and does little to target those relying on the state.
Agricultural Property Relief
Jamie Stone Excerpts(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ann Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am coming on to solutions in a minute; I hope that the Minister will listen to my proposed options.
Extending the existing scope of APR to land managed under environmental agreements with or on behalf of, for example, the Government or public bodies also suggests that foundations and large companies could buy up land sold to pay inheritance tax, without being subject to it in the same way. We have a train of people in west Wales who are already buying land for planting trees, carbon offsetting and solar and wind farms.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I find the notion of people buying and selling land purely for fiscal purposes abhorrent. I come from a farming family. My father was broke. He had to sell most of the land. There is not a day that goes by in which I do not look at the fields and regret that my family parted with it. The point I am making is that there is an emotional attachment between the farming family and the land. That is quite different from buying or selling a house, shares or a holiday home in Spain—it is quite different.
Ann Davies
As someone who has lived and worked the land all my life, I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is something that is within our soul; it is not just a trading issue.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for bringing forward this debate. She is a real advocate for farmers, and her constituents will have noted that.
As has been said, farming is not just a job, but a way of life. It is a generational commitment. In rural Northern Ireland, including in my constituency of Upper Bann, despite the recent inclement weather, rising production costs and the very real concerns of avian flu, bluetongue and the affliction of tuberculosis, our farmers continue to toil away. As we stand here today, they are milking cows and feeding livestock. They are working the land and ultimately feeding the nation. Farmers take great pride in their work, with zero days off and low incomes, and they bear the immense responsibility of being the custodians of our countryside and the lifeblood of our rural communities. Schools, businesses and essential services depend on them.
Jamie Stone
I sincerely hope that I am wrong in what I am about to suggest, but if the value of land were to drop as a result of these measures, and a farm had borrowed heavily and owed the bank a lot, it could be the case that the bank would foreclose and force the sale of the farm.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Member is not wrong—he is rarely wrong. That the policy could lead to the splitting up of family farms is a concern for many farming families across Northern Ireland and this United Kingdom.
Agriculture has long been and continues to be the backbone of the UK economy. The agrifood sector contributes significantly to our GDP and employs hundreds of thousands of people across the country, yet, despite their crucial contribution, farmers face ever-increasing pressures that are not of their making.
Farming is deeply personal for me: I was raised on a farm, I am the daughter of a farmer, I am the wife of a farmer and, as I have said in this place before, I am the proud mum of a little boy who aspires to be a family farmer. He also dreams of being a professional footballer, but we will talk about that another day. So when I speak of farming, it really cuts deep, and it is from my heart that I bring the Government the simple but urgent message that they continue down this path at their peril. The proposed tax changes are a heavy blow to those who are already struggling, and they will be a wrecking ball to our rural communities and rural way of life across this United Kingdom. They will undermine our food security, drive up prices and undermine the world-class environmental standards that British farmers adhere to day and daily.
The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief fly in the face of the manifesto commitments of this Government. Prior to the general election, the Prime Minister told farmers what they wanted to hear. It feels very much like “you’ve threw them under the bus,” as we would say in Northern Ireland, for little monetary return for the Government coffers. He said:
“Losing a farm is not like losing any other business, you can’t come back…You deserve better than that.”
Those words came from the Prime Minister’s mouth, and they ring very hollow in our rural community.
The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has done a deep dive into the figures, which clearly outline the significant and disproportionate impact that the changes will have on Northern Ireland’s agricultural sector. DAERA’s analysis has shown that the vast majority of farms will be affected. In fact, under the current land valuation of £21,000 per acre in Northern Ireland, approximately 40% to 45% of cattle and sheep farms will be impacted, and an astounding 87% of dairy farms will be caught by the tax. It is not a marginal impact; it will affect almost half of farms in Northern Ireland, which together account for 80% of the total agricultural land, 70% of beef cattle, 90% of dairy cows and 80% of all cattle. The proposed changes will disrupt the very heart of our agricultural output. Sadly, that situation is replicated across the whole of the UK.
Despite all the evidence and concerns, the UK Government continue to state that only 500 farmers will be impacted by the changes. The official figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility remain highly uncertain. In fact, the OBR itself acknowledged that the estimates are among the most uncertain in the entire Budget package. According to independent analysis, the true number of affected farmers is likely to be five times greater than the Government’s estimate. I have made this point repeatedly in this place: no farmers, no food.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. With those wise words, she has hit the nail on the head. When the Minister looks round this Chamber, he will see that everybody—those who have spoken and those who are here—is united against the change to APR. We are not going to put the Minister under pressure unduly, but if it were me, I would think twice about getting into a fight where it was 27 to one.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member will be aware that my wife’s family come from Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the price of land there is quite a lot higher per acre than in Scotland or England. Does that not mean that what we are talking about today has a disproportionate effect on the Province of Northern Ireland?
Jim Shannon
It certainly does. For the Minister, we will lay on the line what we are after. The £1 million threshold is wrong, because it does not adequately reflect the rateable value of a farm. If the threshold was £5 million, that would save the small farms. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, who introduced the debate, talked about solutions. I have a solution for the Labour party, and I do not care if the Labour party claims it—that does not matter to me. What matters to me is that the threshold should rise from £1 million to £5 million. If it does, family farms will be saved, and if they are saved, we have a chance of moving forward.
I am trying to put that forward to the Minister as a positive solution. With the Ulster Farmers Union representatives William Irvine and Alex Kinnear, I had a meeting with the Minister away back before Christmas. We put that solution to him, and he said that he would take it to the Chancellor, because ultimately it will be her decision. It is a really clear way forward.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is right in what he says about Northern Ireland. Land values are more expensive in Northern Ireland than anywhere else, which is why the 70% figure is greater for Northern Ireland than anywhere else. We want to have the same mechanism for everybody across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but there are other ideas about mechanisms such as extended payment windows or graduated tax liabilities to alleviate the financial strain on small farms.
I urge the Minister to provide clarity and reassurance to farmers, who are deeply concerned about the future. Again, I say this to him: if we want to do something positive following this debate—as I think we can and must—the issue of the threshold is the way forward. When people add up the value of the land, the value of the machinery and the value of the stock, they are well over the £1 million threshold, but what if he made the threshold £5 million? I have not grasped that figure out of the air; the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union put it forward as a figure that could address the issue.
I am not going to put a lot of pressure on the Minister today—well, actually, I am. We are all putting pressure on him, because we see a way forward—genuinely, constructively and positively. I beseech him to take that message from the debate today to increase the threshold and save family farms.
This is an issue across Northern Ireland, including in the constituencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I represent. All my neighbours are worried sick about what the future holds, as are those tenant farmers in Wales and Scotland—across this great United Kingdom. We need the threshold to be raised. If the Minister does that, we will be on his side.
Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation
Jamie Stone Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes
I do agree, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be speaking later in my remarks about the ombudsman’s report and findings, which will bring me to the constitutional matter I raised about the nature of accountability and scrutiny and how Governments are held to account, and whether ombudsmen are meaningful at all if their conclusions are entirely disregarded. He is right to raise that issue.
I want briefly to describe the events that provoked me to challenge the previous Government on this issue when my party held the reins of power. I am not a recent convert to this cause; I made the same argument then—that we needed to recognise the justice of this campaign and act accordingly—but I did so knowing the events that have occurred.
I will not go over things laboriously—because you would not want me to, Dr Murrison, given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate—but essentially, when pension ages were equalised, which was the result of two Acts of Parliament, the notice given to the people affected was inadequate.
I am not an unbridled advocate of the case that every woman who thought that they were going to retire at 60, and then found that they would have to retire at 65, should be compensated. If a woman was young or middle-aged when that happened, there is a fair case that they had time to adjust—they could re-prepare; they could make different plans.
However, if a woman was born in the 1950s and had anticipated retiring in two, three or four years’ time but then had to work up to five years’ longer, it is a very different matter, because many of those women, anticipating their retirement, had prepared for exactly that eventuality. Many of those women, of course, were no longer working. They had ended work to look after elderly parents; they were playing a caring role; or their skills were no longer relevant to the workplace, because they had taken time out of work, first to have children and then, as I have said, to embark on other social responsibilities. These were women who worked hard and had done the right thing, and they are not all, as they are sometimes characterised by their critics, drawn from the liberal bourgeoisie—who, as you know, Dr Murrison, I generally speaking despise.
Sir John Hayes
Having said that, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The words “liberal bourgeoisie” made me think. I represent the mainland constituency that is furthest away from Westminster, and I will just point out that this issue affects women from all over the UK, be they “liberal bourgeoisie” or not. In my constituency—that far away—370 people have signed the petition. This issue is huge all over the UK.
Sir John Hayes
I meant no slight on the hon. Gentleman. He is right: it does affect women across the whole of the kingdom—and of course, he is much posher than bourgeois, so he could not be slighted by my remark.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jamie Stone Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Emma Reynolds
We have seen a 152% increase in pension credit claims since late July, with over 74,000 pension credit claims up to mid-September. We know that many local authorities and, indeed, Members of this House—including me last Thursday—are helping pensioners on low incomes to ascertain whether they are due pension credit.
Jamie Stone
There will be people who are eligible for pension credit living in very remote areas, where connectivity is less than great. It is an appalling thought that they might miss out on what they are due. May I suggest to the Department that the way to reach out to those people might be through a database, followed by a mailshot?
Emma Reynolds
In addition to merging housing benefit and pension credit, which will help some of the people whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the Secretary of State and I have asked the Department to look at what can be done to make the application form simpler. The Department will report back to us by the end of the month, and we will update the House in due course.
Carer’s Allowance
Jamie Stone Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I will be brief. I support the motion and everything that has been said today, and I look forward to the Government’s response.
As many people know—including perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am an unpaid carer for my wife Flora. With the salary that I receive as an MP, I can afford to do that. I care for my wife because I love her. She has been disabled for 25 years. I will talk about one aspect of the support that we get. When I am here in Westminster, a wonderful team of professional carers go and see my wife every morning, look after her and see what needs to be done. They are fantastic people, and I owe them such a big debt.
This is where I might try the patience of the House slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I want to mention an aspect that is not helping those carers: the remuneration that they receive for mileage. In Scotland, carers get 61p per mile for the first 3,500 miles, and after 3,500 miles, they get 25p per mile. That is not good news given the vastness of my constituency—half the size of Wales, they tell me—and the mileage that carers have to cover. A lot of those wonderful people are saying, “Enough is enough,” packing up and calling it a day. In north-west Sutherland and Wester Ross in particular, we have an ageing population that desperately needs that kind of support, but carers are just giving up and going. It is not because they do not care for the people they are helping, but because they simply cannot afford it. The cost of running their cars is far greater than what they receive for the vast mileages involved.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My husband is a full-time carer for his mother, who has had three strokes. By looking after people in their homes and saving lives long term, carers make very large savings for the NHS. Given how much carers save the NHS in long-term out-of-hospital care provision, we should, as a cross-party endeavour, reconsider the compensation for mileage.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Lady makes a very wise point that demonstrates the interconnected nature of unpaid carers and professional carers, because the best solutions come when they work together.
I will conclude with this: we have a problem. It is perhaps not pertinent to the Minister who is before us today, but I hope that the Treasury will consider the issue of remuneration rates for mileages, perhaps with the Scottish Government. Those rates have not been revisited since 2011, and since then, we have had about 40% inflation. We can see what is wrong; let us sort the problem.