Budget Resolutions
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on behalf of the Government, and to respond to the shadow Chancellor. He went through his lines and, as I expected, he talked a fair bit about welfare. If only he had ever been in a position to do something about it. That is the essential problem with the position of Conservative Members. It is not even that they failed to reform the system, it is that they created it in the first place. Their system created the fork in the road between those judged fit to work and those judged unfit to work. Their system forced people into a choice between poverty and being declared incapable of work, often permanently. It is their system that left millions of people with no contact and no support from the system, other than the payment of benefits. Perhaps most damningly, it is their system that saw the huge growth in inactivity among the young, about which they did nothing while they were in office.
As the shadow Chancellor knows, there is a wall in the Department for Work and Pensions, carefully placed between the microwave and the toilets, on which there is a very fetching portrait of the shadow Chancellor, along with portraits of all his predecessors as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. They all sat in the same chair, in the same office as I do. They saw the same trends and the same graphs that I see, but they did absolutely nothing about the situation. He talked about the changes that he proposed to the work capability assessment, but he was a little quieter about those changes not happening, because they were so incompetent that they were struck down as being unlawful by the courts. He then said that he would have done more but he was interrupted by the general election—the Conservatives had 14 years and the election was called at a time of their choosing.
The shadow Chancellor is asking the House to indulge the fantasy that, having been relieved of the duties of ministerial office, he has suddenly stumbled upon the answer to the problem, like a reverse Nostradamus, granted a magical power that enables him to identify the solutions to problems, but only at the moment when he ceases to have responsibility for fixing any them. The Conservatives remind me of a messy 16-year-old who has turned his bedroom into a tip, but when his exasperated parents come in to clean it up, the teenager says, “I was about to do that.” No one believes the teenager and no one should believe the Tories, because they had their chance and did nothing about it.
On their watch, welfare spending went up by almost 1% of GDP over the last Parliament, the equivalent of about £22 billion a year. When they left office, did the OBR think that they had a credible plan to change the system? No, they did not. The OBR predicted that costs would rise by a further £100 billion. Sometimes the Tories say that they want more face-to-face assessments, which I want too. However, in September 2023, a little over six months before the election was called, they signed off a new set of contracts allowing 80% of the assessors to work from home. Who was the Secretary of State when those contracts were signed? We do not need ChatGPT to tell us—we just need to look on that wall between the microwave and the toilets, because it was the shadow Chancellor. And that was long after the covid pandemic.
The Conservatives created the system, but they did not change it when they had the chance and they increased the number of children in poverty by 900,000, so it falls to us to begin to change the system. We have begun. We are reducing the gap in universal credit between standard unemployment and the sickness rate, a change that the OBR estimates will get 15,000 more people into work and that starts to address the incentives for sickness built into the previous Government’s system, reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.
Changes to the Motability scheme will focus on value for money and ensure that if the UK taxpayer is paying for new vehicles, more of them are made here in the UK—reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about trying to ensure that cars available under the Motability scheme are made in the UK. I looked at the Motability website yesterday and some of the changes have already been implemented, but there are an awful lot of Chinese cars listed. Yesterday, Omoda and Jaecoo, two of the Chinese companies on that list, announced that they would be implementing a 20,000 mile rebate to individuals to pay for the electric vehicle tax introduced in the Budget. That will allow China to get an even greater foothold in the UK economy. Those cars are built with Chinese IP that sends information straight back to the state, allowing it to track where those vehicles are. What will the Government do to address the impact of the growing number of Chinese vehicles and about the fact that the Budget is, perhaps unwittingly, encouraging the use of Chinese cars in this market?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman should be supporting our changes because they have done two things: they are removing a number of luxury brands from the system and they are ensuring that more British-made cars are part of the scheme, and that will continue going forward.
By the end of the decade, we will have provided an additional £1 billion for employment support for the long-term sick and disabled through the pathways to work programme, so that people are not just signed off and written off—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not. We are fixing the long-running injustice to carers that they ignored for years, which is more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not. There is more reform in this Budget than the shadow Chancellor implemented in his 20 months as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
But I know that we have to go further, because the greatest crisis is among the young. We inherited a situation with close to a million young people not in employment, education or training. That is terrible in human terms, expensive in financial terms and deeply unequal, because the numbers are often highest in the most deprived parts of the country. Those are often places where there are already multiple problems and where the loss of hope seems the deepest. Addressing this problem is a cause around which we should rally. That is why in this Budget we offer a youth guarantee, with £820 million of investment, that will offer the young unemployed a training place, work experience or ultimately a job, giving hope and opportunity where previously there was none—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Tax increases of £26 billion and the tax burden rising to an all-time high of 38% of national income—this is a traditional, good old-fashioned high-tax, high-spend Labour Budget. It is a Budget that locks in a debt ratio of 100% and an economy with little or no growth. It effectively ends Labour’s pledge to grow the economy and raise living standards. The growth in real disposable incomes over this Parliament is now expected to be the second worst since records began in the 1950s. This is a Budget to appease the left of the parliamentary Labour party rather than the general public. It is a Budget to shore up the Chancellor’s weak position and that of the Prime Minister. We will see how successful that has been come May.
Since Labour came to power, the Chancellor has raised taxes by £66 billion, which is more than any Government in the last 50 years. When the Chancellor proudly announced that growth had increased by 0.5%, there were cheers from the Government Benches, but she did not mention that that figure was a downgrade from the 1.9% forecast earlier in the year, nor did she make reference to the downgraded projections for the rest of the decade. The Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecasts for real household disposable income per person over the next five years. The OBR’s “Economic financial outlook” report states that growth will slump to an average of 0.25% a year over the forecast,
“well below the last decade’s average growth of 1% a year”.
The average household will be £850 poorer at the end of this Parliament than when Labour took office.
The Chancellor said:
“today £1 in every £10 the Government spend is on debt interest—not on paying down that debt, but just on paying the interest”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 389.]
Some £113.7 billion is currently being spent on servicing that debt, and by the end of this Parliament that figure will reach £140 billion.
For a working person on average earnings, the tax threshold is frozen and will be for the rest of the decade. Pensioners will be dragged into the basic rate of income tax for the first time; 780,000 people are going to be dragged into being a basic rate taxpayer, and nearly a million will become higher rate taxpayers. For people on benefits, those benefits are not frozen; they are index- linked to inflation.
The OBR has forecast that over the next five years, welfare spending will rise by £73.2 billion to £406.2 billion. The U-turn on lifting the two-child benefit cap beggars belief. For it to go from a policy that saw seven Labour MPs lose the Whip, and that was effectively the catalyst for the creation of an entirely new political party on the left, to a totemic Labour policy is transparently a move to both appease the Labour Benches and shut the door on the surge in support for a Zack Polanski-inspired resurgent Green party and the stuttering Your party. By the end of this Parliament, lifting the cap will cost £3 billion a year. That is more than the total spend on fire and rescue services in England.
The heavily trailed high value council tax surcharge is lacking crucial detail on how it will be implemented. Doing it properly will require a revaluation of every property in the country by the valuation office by April 2028 in order to understand which houses are in scope. What will the criteria for that be? How will the value of the house be decided if it has not been sold in recent years? Moreover, the revenue will go to central Government, not the local authority. It will disappear into general taxation, and those paying the tax will likely never see any local benefit from it.
The decision to raise the minimum wage looks good at first glance.
Sir John Hayes
I support the minimum wage. It is important that working people, particularly less well-off working people, are adequately rewarded. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real impact will be on small and medium-sized businesses? Those businesses are already dealing with increasing cost burdens. When the Minister sums up, he might want to reflect on the effect that that may have on the creation of employment in those kind of businesses.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. I have spent the last year talking to small businesses in my constituency that have been crippled by the measures in the last Budget. When this year’s measures come in as well, some of those businesses will struggle desperately to keep on lower earners, particularly young people.
My first job as a 16-year-old was working in a supermarket, and I am sure many Members had a similar experience. Those opportunities are going to disappear for young people as a result of these measures. What this Labour Government have not taken into account is that every above-inflation wage increase leads to higher business costs, lower investment and fewer opportunities for those we represent. Many businesses that want to employ people will now find themselves unable to take on staff or to take the risks that the Chancellor mentioned, meaning that businesses cannot grow.
We are very likely to see the wage compression effect, whereby the gap between those on the minimum wage and those in more skilled or experienced roles becomes smaller. That, yet again, leads to a lack of incentive to develop skills and opportunities for those with them. The Government must address that, as it will curtail opportunities for young people and lower earners. Unemployment is now set to peak at 5% and the number of economically inactive people will also rise.
The pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles will surely disincentivise the switch to EVs before the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles kicks in, and the OBR estimates that there will be 440,000 fewer EV sales over the next five years because of the tax. How much tax revenue will be lost because those sales never happen? Then there is the plethora of other taxes that are part of the smorgasbord: the tourism tax, the NI raid on pension contributions, the reduction in the tax-free cash ISA allowance and even a milkshake tax.
We have not even touched on the absence of the commitment to 3% of GDP on defence anywhere in the Budget. There is not a single reference to it and I do not understand how. We saw today that the service chiefs will write to the Defence Secretary to tell him that it will not be possible to deliver the strategic defence review. I would love to hear from the Minister how Labour will facilitate defence in this day and age.
The OBR has stated that not a single measure contained in the Budget will improve growth, which has, in fact, been downgraded from the figure forecast in the summer. Taxes on working people have been increased by stealth to pay for welfare. That will be Rachel Reeves’s legacy, and this is quite possibly her last Budget—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. You can refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Chancellor or by her constituency name, but not by her own name.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall draw to a close.
It comes to something when the Chancellor can stand at the Dispatch Box to deliver her Budget, make a boob joke and that not be the most offensive thing she says.
Torsten Bell
I did not say anything of the sort. I said that we are not going to have a £10 million mansion in Westminster paying less tax than a terraced house in Blackpool, and that has been brought to an end by this Budget.
I have heard the worries of some Opposition Members about the surcharge, and I want to assure the House that less than 1% of properties will be affected, and even for the £10 million mansion I have mentioned, it will not exceed £7,500 a year. To put that in perspective, it is not even enough to bribe a Russian-sympathising, Putin-praising Reform politician—or a traitor, as we should always call them.
Other reforms in the Budget will ensure that everyone who drives on our roads helps to maintain them. It will address the fact that tenants pay higher taxes than their landlords and tackle some of the tax breaks that have exploded in recent years, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. That is the fair thing to do, and it is the responsible thing to do.
I know that others want to take a different approach, and I heard representations from some to raise income tax. Who was particularly keen? The shadow Chancellor. He told eager listeners—[Interruption.] I think he should listen. He told eager listeners at the Conservative party conference that he would “go for income tax”. In fact, he was more enthusiastic than that, going on to label it the best “thing to do”. We have not taken his advice, and are instead delivering major reforms—reforms ducked by Tory Chancellor after Tory Chancellor.
We have heard a lot about welfare today, and I recognise why. It is because our welfare system is failing, and we are changing it. We are undoing the huge incentive to be labelled too sick to work that the Conservative party built into universal credit, and the OBR has confirmed that this will move tens of thousands more people into work. The shadow Chancellor claimed he had a plan to reform welfare, but he did not mention that it was quashed by the courts. What he actually did as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was to oversee the subsidised leasing of luxury cars, with the ordinary taxpayer bearing the cost of tax breaks for Mercedes and BMWs on the Motability scheme. Well, those days are done. The scheme has itself removed luxury cars, and it has committed to half of its cars being built in Britain. We are reforming its tax breaks to save over £1 billion in the coming year.
Torsten Bell
I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
The last Government cancelled face-to-face assessments for health benefits; this Government are bringing them back. The last Government also oversaw a scandal that has received far too little attention. They allowed people who came to Britain for just a few years—people who left, and never had any intention of returning—not only to buy a state pension, but to buy it on the cheap. The Conservative Government did not just waste money here at home; they wasted it across Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and we are bringing this overseas pension scandal to a close.
What this Government will never do is pretend that the Tory policy of making children poor does anything other than cost us all in the long run. Child poverty costs this country £40 billion a year. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to be in work as an adult, and they earn 25% less at age 30. We tackle child poverty not only because it is a moral imperative, as was laid out by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), but because it is an economic one. This Government will scrap the two-child limit, we will lift over half a million children out of poverty and we will deliver the biggest fall in child poverty of any Parliament on record.
Everyone can see what the Conservatives are trying to do. They cannot defend their record, and we all know why. They have nothing to say about Britain’s future, as the Leader of the Opposition made patently clear yesterday, and now they are salivating at the prospect of trying to hide their total lack of policy behind the cheap, divisive, lazy politics of talking about “Benefits Street”. Well, bring it on, because this Budget is for every street, with potholes being filled, neighbourhood police back on the streets and an NHS that is actually there when we need it. It is a Budget for every street in cutting borrowing because that helps not just mortgage payers, but employers; it is a Budget for every street in cutting energy bills because the cost of living crisis has seeped into everyone’s homes—rich and poor, north and south; and it is a Budget for every street because child poverty exists in every part of Britain, limiting life chances, wasting talents and undermining not just some childhoods, but all of them. With borrowing down, energy bills cut and public services rebuilt, this is a Budget for every street in Britain.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 1 December.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
That sounds like an excellent initiative. Of course, if we are to rehabilitate prisoners, it is important that they get training and the chance to get into constructive employment after their sentence. I am sure that that applies not just to the prison in my hon. Friend’s constituency but throughout the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Alan Marnes is a constituent of mine in Southoe who has staunchly campaigned since 2002 on the issue of the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pension rights, having been one of 140,000 people who lost their occupational pension. I wrote to the Secretary of State more than two months ago asking whether the newly revived Pensions Commission will address the issue of failed pension funds and I have still not received a response. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and Alan to provide some much-needed clarity on such a long-standing issue?
Torsten Bell
I am not absolutely clear whether the particular case that the hon. Gentleman is raising relates to people within the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme or to a pre-1997 indexation within a solvent pension scheme, but if he writes to me with the details I will absolutely make sure that I come back to him.
Winter Fuel Payment
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Jones
Child poverty and the two-child benefit cap are unfortunately sad signs of the legacy that we have inherited. We need to fix the foundations of the economy so that we can start to take measures such as that that may have an impact. We have set up the child poverty taskforce so that we can start to look at that and ensure we make a real and significant difference over the next few years. We have inherited a shameful situation, and we are working very hard to do what we can to change it.
I turn to the triple lock, which I and other hon. Members have spoken about. The commitment to the triple lock is pivotal; it will see the state pension of thousands of people, including people in my constituency, increase by more than £470 this year. Additionally, as a Government we have run a campaign to increase the uptake of pension credit, meaning that we have had an 81% increase in claims, which is good to see. We have also extended the household support fund, so that help is available for all age groups.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Member referring to pension credit uptake. If all the people who are eligible to take up pension credit do so, how much will it cost the Government?
Louise Jones
The costings take into account the uplift in the numbers of people claiming pension credit, as they are entitled to do.
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.
Ben Obese-Jecty
At what point would the uptake of pension credit eliminate the savings from cancelling the winter fuel payment? At what number would the uptake overtake that payment?
Andrew Western
We have never suggested that they would, and the Minister for Pensions addressed that in his opening statement. The savings put forward do take account of that. I have to say that, in accepting that intervention, I was hopeful that, finally, one Tory would come forward with an actual policy in this area—I would say that I am disappointed, but it is only to be expected. Pensioner households who need support the most will continue to get winter fuel payments. We are getting more and more people on to pension credit, so that they can get winter fuel payments and increase their weekly income.
This motion calls for an apology. The only people who should be giving an apology to pensioners and to this country are those in the Conservative party, for the mess that they left behind.
Question put.
Welfare Reform
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
Aspiration, compassion, care and fairness are absolutely the hallmarks of this Government—that is why we are bringing forward these reforms. As I said earlier to the House, I do not start from a spreadsheet; I start from my belief that everybody has a value and a contribution to make, in whatever way, and that we want people to fulfil their potential. That is what these reforms are about.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Given the announced changes to the personal independence payment, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact on injured service personnel claiming the personal independence payment as an interim measure while their compensation claims are processed prior to the awarding of the armed forces independence payment, and will the armed forces independence payment also be within the scope of these changes?
Liz Kendall
I will look into that issue in detail, and will respond to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I say that in order to put the public finances on a secure footing, we had to take difficult decisions. I understand the pressures that businesses are under, but they know that if we do not balance the books, we cannot grow in future. We are taking action not just to put the public finances on a secure footing but to have a genuine programme to get Britain working again. We do not accept the situation that we inherited from the Conservatives, in which so many people were locked out, denied the right to work, and denied a good, well-paid job in every part of the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The CMS modernisation programme delivers increasingly effective and efficient services. The programme has transformed customer interaction with the CMS, providing customers the choice to make contact digitally. Those efficiencies make it easier for customers to report changes and non-payment, so CMS caseworkers can focus on the collection of unpaid child maintenance.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I have multiple casework examples from constituents in Huntingdon who have been impacted by CMS inefficiencies, including incorrectly calculated arrears with no explanation of how the sums have been calculated, and failure to verify the location of fathers who are not providing financial support, with the CMS claiming that addresses needed to be independently verified but not conducting that verification itself. Such cases have resulted in consolatory payments from the CMS for maladministration and service delays. In all instances, my constituents have been frustrated by their inability to contact the CMS over the phone. In the quarter ending September 2024, 41% of calls to the Child Maintenance Service were not answered. What are the Government doing to improve contact with the CMS by telephone?
Andrew Western
I am very sorry to hear of those specific examples. I will take away the point about telephone communication and come back to the hon. Gentleman, but it may be worth our having a broader conversation about his concerns. I will happily meet him to discuss any of the specifics of the cases he cited.
Income Tax (Charge)
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This Labour Government pledged that taxes would not be increased on working people, but they could not even stick to that. It does not matter how cleverly worded their manifesto was, these tax raises are undoubtedly not in the spirit of the sentiment on which Labour’s entire election campaign was founded.
Small businesses have been left reeling by the measures imposed on them. Duncan Blake is a GP at the Priory Fields practice in Huntingdon. I recently visited the practice and discussed some of the challenges it faces. He warned how the increase in national insurance contributions and the lowering of the thresholds will serve only to undermine access and patient care, in addition to the significant financial pressures that GP practices already face. Practices such as Priory Fields are wedded to the NHS and dependent upon it for funding. There is no ability to increase prices to absorb increased costs. GP practices are not eligible for employment allowance, so will bear the full brunt of these rises. Why are the Government not treating GP practices like other parts of the NHS and reimbursing those costs?
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will impact charities, as well as businesses and GP surgeries? They include the Children’s Trust in Tadworth, in my constituency, which is a leading charity that provides support to children with brain injury. That charity now needs to find an additional significant—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions must be brief. I think the hon. Lady has made her point.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I agree with my hon. Friend.
In my constituency, farmers have been left reeling by the Government’s ruinous family farms tax that effectively ends the family farm through their reckless slashing of agricultural property relief, yet the Government repeatedly claimed there would be no tax rises on “working people”. Are the Government honestly suggesting that farmers are not “working people”? Those on the Government Benches made repeated assurances over the past year. The duplicity of the Labour party on this issue is breathtaking. At last year’s Country Land and Business Association conference, the now Environment Secretary stated that
“we have no intention of changing APR.”
The CLA has said that the change could harm 70,000 UK farms, declaring it a “betrayal” that
“puts dynamite beneath the livelihoods of British farming.”
The Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary were more than happy to leverage support from the countryside, with glossy photoshoots of rambling around the countryside in designer wellies. Indeed, the Prime Minister was very eager to make his pitch to rural communities during his Country Life article and photoshoot in September last year, in which he said:
“The need for stability now is urgent: farmers need to plan for the long term more than ever before.”
I doubt farmers were expecting that long-term planning to include being forced to sell 20% of their farms, making them unviable, or taking a 20% loan to cover those costs, potentially saddling the next generation with debts that farming is not profitable enough to repay.
Only yesterday, the Chancellor stated on the BBC that:
“Only a very small number of agricultural properties will be affected”.
A £1 million farm is 100 acres. According to DEFRA’s agricultural facts summary, published the day after the Budget, on 31 October, the average UK farm size is just over 200 acres. How can the Chancellor make her claim when the relevant Government Department has itself contradicted her position?
Given the speed and alacrity with which the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has covered the countryside with solar panels, it should come as no surprise that the Government are so eager to force farmers out of business, freeing up swathes of the countryside to be sold to developers for more of the same. The Government will be forced into rowing back on this policy, whether it be now or after the visual spectacle of demonstrating farmers blockading Parliament Square with tractors. I urge the Government to do the right thing now, rather than being forced to do so in a few weeks.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
May I say briefly, Mr Speaker, that as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, 7 October last year was the deadliest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, and we stand firm in our commitment to bring the remaining hostages home and secure the immediate ceasefire and aid that civilians in Gaza and Lebanon desperately need.
An estimated 880,000 of the poorest pensioners are not claiming the pension credit they are entitled to, so they do not get the winter fuel payment or pension credit of up to £3,900 a year. That is why we have launched the biggest ever drive to increase pension credit uptake and ensure that the poorest pensioners get the support they deserve.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Having spent the run-up to the election scaring pensioners into voting for them by claiming it was the Conservative Government who were a threat to their wellbeing, some of our poorest pensioners will now be forced to find out how difficult it is to keep warm huddled around Labour’s gaslight. Given that the Government’s own equality analysis states that only 100,000 of the 880,000 pensioners who are eligible for pension credit are expected to apply for it, if all those who are eligible do apply, how much more will that cost compared with the initial saving from removing the winter fuel payment?
Liz Kendall
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that upon coming into government, we discovered that 880,000 pensioners are not claiming the pension credit they are entitled to. Given that his former Government failed to take action to deal with that issue, I suggest that instead of making that point, he works with his council to increase pension credit uptake and looks at the £1.8 million we have given to Peterborough council to make sure that all the help for pensioners, including on winter fuel, is made available.