Debates between Mel Stride and Liz Kendall during the 2024 Parliament

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Mel Stride and Liz Kendall
Monday 4th November 2024

(2 weeks, 3 days ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- Hansard - -

The number of children in poverty fell by 100,000 in total. I will come to the record of this Government in a moment, but first I give way to the Secretary of State.

Liz Kendall Portrait Liz Kendall
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Figures from the Department that the right hon. Gentleman used to be responsible for show clearly that 700,000 more children now live in relative poverty after housing costs. Does he accept that? Yes or no?

Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- Hansard - -

As the right hon. Lady knows full well, it is accepted that the key measure is absolute poverty after housing costs. She cannot flit between one measure and another when it suits her. The reality is that it is projected that 100,00 more children and 300,000 more adults will be in poverty as a consequence of the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mel Stride and Liz Kendall
Monday 7th October 2024

(1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall Portrait Liz Kendall
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

In 2017, the right hon. Gentleman’s party manifesto promised to means-test winter fuel payments. Until Conservative Members know that they have to apologise to the British people for the 200,000 extra pensioners in poverty over the past 14 years, and for a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which we are now putting right but that has put the public finances at risk, they will remain on the Opposition Benches and we will remain on the Government Benches.

Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I think I need to correct the right hon. Lady: there were actually 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty under the previous Conservative Government. She quite rightly is pressing the uptake of pension credit, but if all those who are eligible for it take it up, that will cost £3.8 billion, which is substantially more than the saving that is scored at £1.4 billion. If she is successful in her aspiration, the costs will substantially outweigh the savings; if she is not successful, potentially millions of pensioners will be plunged further into poverty. May I ask her which it is?

Liz Kendall Portrait Liz Kendall
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

There are 200,000 more pensioners in poverty, and I am happy to put those figures into the public domain to set the record straight. The savings we have put forward take into account the increase in uptake that we foresee. Unlike Conservative Members, we are determined and will do everything possible—they should perhaps ask themselves why they first announced the merger of pension credit and housing benefit in 2012 and then put it off until 2028—to change things and get people the money they are entitled to. We will bring that forward to ensure that all the poorest pensioners get what they are entitled to.

--- Later in debate ---
Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

On 10 September, two days before recess, I led a debate in this Chamber, secured by the Conservative party, on the winter fuel allowance. The right hon. Lady spoke just now about transparency, but there was no equality impact assessment made available for that debate. Indeed, on 30 August, by way of a written question, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) established that the Government had no intention of publishing that particular report. Yet on 13 September—two days after the debate and the vote, and one day after Parliament had risen—the report was made available. It was clearly, in my opinion, deliberately withheld. Does the right hon. Lady agree?

Liz Kendall Portrait Liz Kendall
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is not true. The Conservative Government did not even allow the Office for Budget Responsibility to do an analysis of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget and sat on 31 publications that, under their own rules, should have been published. We published an equality analysis. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that was never done for secondary legislation when he was in government, but this Government will be open and transparent, which is what we are already doing.