Call for General Election

Debate between Robbie Moore and Lillian Jones

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

I have to confess that I am not aligned with the detail of that case, but what I do know is that the hon. Gentleman, who represents York Outer—a very rural constituency—and I believe sits on one of the key all-party parliamentary groups for food security, was one of those Labour MPs who voted against the inheritance tax changes that the Conservatives advocated. I am sure the hard-working farmers and family businesses in his constituency will feel a huge amount of frustration that he did not stand with them.

Then there is our pub industry. The huge rises in business rates and employer national insurance contributions are hitting many of those hard-working businesses within the hospitality sector and the pub industry. No wonder it is very difficult for a Labour MP to get a pint in a pub, many of which they have been quite rightly asked not to return to. Of course, the rise in employer national insurance contributions is hitting all businesses. I have had many conversations with our hard-working teachers and headteachers, who regularly tell me about the tough choices they face about making teaching assistants redundant because of the rise in employer national insurance contributions. The grant that comes out of central Government to cover the rise covers only about 70% of the increase in costs, so the additional 30% must be covered by the existing school budget.

There are also the free school meals and breakfast clubs—but who is paying for them? The schools are, out of their existing budgets. Labour MPs want to roll out the narrative that our constituents are going to receive all these benefits, and of course we want to see those benefits happen, but they must get to grips with the facts of the case. Hard-working hospices now cannot provide end-of-life care and schools cannot roll out education because they are having to make tough choices around paying increased levels of employer national insurance contributions. That betrayal was not in the manifesto.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that children deserve to be fed, and that it was right to raise employer national insurance contributions to pay into public services, in order to free up the resource to introduce breakfast clubs to feed young children, many of whom are in poverty due to Tory policies?

[Robbie Moore]

Obviously I agree that children need to be fed, but I would gently say to the hon. Member, “Be honest with the public.” The Prime Minister promised before the general election that hard-working people would not be taxed. What was then rolled out? A rise in employer national insurance contributions. It is those organisations that provide a public service—our councils, hospices, hospitals, GP practices and schools—that are impacted by that rise, and their budgets have not increased at the same rate as those taxes have. Therefore, the level of service that they are able to roll out is diminished as a result of this Labour Government.

Having spoken to many constituents on the doorstep, I know that what angers them the most—the reason they signed this petition—is they have been duped by this Government through promises that did not come through and a strategy that was not in the manifesto. The Government then followed up with the U-turns—crikey, what have we seen this year alone? Inheritance tax changes have been rolled out on our farmers and small businesses—yes, the relief has increased, but it goes nowhere near far enough. The Conservatives believe that the family farm tax and the family business tax should be axed, but the thresholds have simply been tweaked.

Then, of course, there is the statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Let us rewind to a year ago: the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we would have five local inquiries into grooming gangs, yet every Labour MP voted against having a national inquiry. It was only as a result of campaigning by the Opposition, as well as by many victims and survivors, that the narrative that we had to have a national inquiry continued. A year later, the Government were brought to the House—dragged to the House—to say that we would be having a national inquiry.