Taxes

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The hon. Member says that he does not really understand the contradictions. Would he like to state how much growth there has been in the UK economy since the last Budget?

[Sam Rushworth]

Obviously, we are in a global economy. We have the fastest growth in the G7; I think that is well known—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress, because it is important to set out why we need to be making investment in our public services and infrastructure.

We have only to look at what austerity did to the NHS. The Conservatives inherited an NHS with the highest satisfaction levels and the lowest waiting times ever, and they reversed both of those two things. Look at the state of our town centres. In fact, look at the state of my own constituency of Bishop Auckland compared with 15 years ago. Look at the state of dentistry. In the year before the general election we lost two NHS dental surgeries but, worse than that, children in the existing practices were sent letters telling them they could no longer be provided with an NHS dentistry service. Look at the rising crime in many of our communities, which exactly mirrors the cuts to frontline police. Look at what the Conservatives did to our defence capabilities, which left us the smallest Army since the Napoleonic era.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

The point I am making is that spending for spending’s sake is not what any responsible Government should do. We should spend every tax pound well. These examples of waste are not things that we should continue.

There was the £100,000 spent on a fake bell that only bonged 10 times during Big Ben’s maintenance. Truss spent £1.8 million on executive travel as Foreign Secretary, not to mention the £500,000 for her private jet for a single trip to Australia in 2022. Then again, she spent £3,000 on a lectern.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member is nickel-and-diming the debate. One big question faces the Chancellor: what to do about the two-child benefit cap, which costs £3.5 billion, so let us not worry about the odd £50,000 here or there. I would like to hear a clear statement from him: is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it?

[Sam Rushworth]

That is a fair question, and I will answer it. It is important that we do not return to the days when the Conservatives were in office and vanity projects wasted so much public money, because child poverty is the scourge of our time. We need a national mission to eradicate child poverty. Some of what we need to do will come through, for example, our looking at the two-child cap, but not all of it. I have argued in this place for us to extend free school meals, and I am pleased that the Government have listened to that and are extending them to more children. I have argued in this place for free breakfast clubs, and I am pleased that the Chancellor is listening and funding them. Unlike the Conservatives, she is funding free childcare, because these things matter, too. This is not just about benefits; it is about ensuring that we give children what they need to have a meaningful childhood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

He raises a huge point. In my constituency of 700 square miles, the local pub and village hall are community hubs. After Remembrance Sunday, I took my family to the Queens in Ludlow. I have met many publicans across South Shropshire. Experienced publicans are still just able to keep trading on reserves, but they are not really making a profit. The ones who are just setting out to build up that reserve are going broke. It is just not a viable situation for them at the moment.

Council tax bills doubled in the time that Labour was last in power, representing an extra £751 on an average band D home. The Conservatives put in veto powers to ensure that council tax did not increase over a certain amount. We allowed local areas to receive the funding that they wanted by raising council tax within 5%, but without excessive rises. At the moment, less funding is going into rural areas but council tax is going up by a dramatic amount, so people are paying more and getting less.

The County Councils Network has named Shropshire council as one of 16 local authority areas that will see significant cuts in direct Government funding. It suggests that there will be about £9 million of cuts to Government funding over the next three years. That will affect many different services, including Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, which has said so on record.

I have written to many constituents as part of my “shop local” survey, and I have heard from almost 10% of them—thousands of people have responded. People say that they love going to the local high street and want to do so. However, the footfall numbers are dropping. Businesses say that they do not have confidence, and that it is getting harder and harder to trade. That is causing major issues on the high street. We must release the stranglehold on the high street and encourage growth. The biggest factor, businesses tell me, is the tax hikes, which are crippling. I make a plea to the Government to change their approach to taxing small businesses, or they will destroy the country.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will my hon. and gallant Friend take an intervention from any Labour Member who is prepared to say that they have spoken to a business in their constituency that welcomes the NI tax increase?

[Stuart Anderson]

I will gladly take an intervention from any Labour Member whose local businesses say that the tax on local business is good. Anyone?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his constituency, which I drove through. I enjoyed a drink or two in one of the pubs in his town of Ludlow, and it was really good to be there. Fortunately, I sat next to some Labour supporters in the pub, so I am grateful for that too.

There has been quite a lot of bluster from the Conservatives today. However, sadly for them, a party that repeatedly broke its manifesto promises, crashed the economy and brought public services to their knees has no credibility. It is all brass neck and no contrition. This Labour Government are still cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives left—a mess that has deep consequences for our economy, with the impact of austerity, their bodged Boris Brexit deal, and Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, which homeowners and many others have been paying the price for.

Changes to fiscal policy are made at the Budget, which will be set out on 26 November, not today. That is just one of the many reasons why we will vote against this motion. What I can say is that my colleagues in the Treasury will ensure that the Budget is underpinned by Labour’s values of fairness and opportunity and focused on the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and improving the cost of living.

[Lincoln Jopp]

It would make things so much simpler for the House if the hon. Gentleman would put a date on when those on the Government Benches will take responsibility for running the country. I do not mind if it is in six months’ time or a year’s time, but we can then all go home—I have lots of things to do in Spelthorne until then. When the Government finally come to terms with the fact that they are in charge and are responsible, we will all be grateful.

[John Slinger]

Frankly, it took 14 years for the Conservatives not to apologise for any of the decisions they took, so I do not think we need any lectures from the hon. Member or from other Conservatives.

Contrast our values with the values of the Conservatives: austerity, financial recklessness under Liz Truss, and a dodgy Brexit deal. We cannot return to austerity and economic chaos.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I am saying to this House that my right hon. Friends in the Government have to take very difficult decisions to deal with the problems this country faces, many of which were caused by decisions taken by the Conservatives. They left mines in our national finances, our public services, our system of taxation, and more besides. This Government are not just manoeuvring around those mines, leaving them for future generations; we are defusing them. We are getting on with the job of renewal and, unlike Opposition parties, we will not take risks with the next generation through undue debt. We will invest in the national interest, and we will reform things, as we are showing with NHS England. We will take the tough long-term decisions that are necessary to rebuild Britain. We are doing this with our Labour values at the forefront: fairness; opportunity for all; protecting the vulnerable; empowering people, businesses and organisations; challenging vested interests; long-term investment; an industrial strategy; skills for the future.

[Lincoln Jopp]

On the topic of tough decisions, I have a really simple question for the hon. Gentleman, which will probably do him some good in the coup that is currently going on. Is he for lifting the two-child benefit cap, or for keeping it in place?

[John Slinger]

I am for doing absolutely everything we can to reduce child poverty. One way in which we can achieve that is by ending the two-child cap—there are other measures. However, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; it is not for me to decide right now in the Chamber.

Our approach is paying off. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, and the average person’s disposable income is £800 higher now in real terms than just before the election, but there is not time for me to go through the long list of our achievements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out more in the Budget. In my view, ours is a can-do approach, not a kicking-the-can-down-the-road approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I have said it a number of times on the record and in this House before, so it is no evasion to say that I am no fan of the cap at all. As an incrementalist, I would like to see at least some solid progress on lifting that cap, and I hope that we will be in a position to remove it completely.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Laurence Turner]

No. I have already taken two interventions and I want to make a bit of progress with my speech, but I might come back to the hon. Member.

I hope that the Opposition do publish more detail, because, if they do not, it will be widely suspected in the country and the House that they know that their claims do not withstand the lightest of scrutiny. It will also be concluded that the real function of that document is to act as an exercise in wishful thinking, and that it is designed to avoid the taking of difficult and unpopular decisions.

Some parts of the Opposition’s claims can be dispensed with briefly. They tell us that they would save £3.5 billion by closing asylum hotels; I think my constituents would choke on their cornflakes on that one, because they know that the Conservative party was the originator of hotel use, just as small boat crossings were not an issue before 2019. I am glad that, under Labour, hotel placements in Birmingham are down by 50% compared with their peak, and I look forward to their use being eliminated completely.

The greater part of the Opposition’s claimed savings is £23 billion of supposed cuts to the welfare bill, but, again, we have had only the scarcest of details. Let us be clear about the scale of what is being discussed: £23 billion is the equivalent of a quarter of the universal credit bill, more than half the disability social security bill, and two thirds of housing costs.

To give her credit, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said last week that she would be happy to share a further breakdown of those savings. Again, that has not been brought forward. If the Opposition are to ask the House to have any confidence in their proposals, they must provide that information—not examples of proposed cuts, but the cuts in their totality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

We were hoping that this debate would clarify the inability of the Prime Minister to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago: about whether he would repeat the manifesto commitment not to raise the big three taxes. We are in a period of uncertainty that we are trying to resolve, and it has been created by this ongoing kite flying.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Would my hon. Friend agree that the corollary of taxes is expenditure? We have tried to elicit some clarity from Government Members about whether they would like to raise the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £3.5 billion, or leave it where it is. Given the Chancellor’s kite-flying exercise in the media recently, would my hon. Friend be prepared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who suggested that we were the ones spreading uncertainty?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my constituency neighbour, and of course I am always happy to take interventions.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Before the general election, the Chancellor said that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. She spoke recently at The Times CEO summit. Before she was introduced to the CEOs, the host asked how many of them thought that this Government are still pro-business, and not a single hand went up. Why does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think that is?

[Darren Jones]

I was not at the event, so I cannot comment on those discussions, but I point the hon. Member to record levels of investment in this country. We have £120 billion of investment from the private sector in the first year of this Labour Government—including, as the Prime Minister said last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, £40 billion from Amazon. We can look at water infrastructure, housing or digital infrastructure. The United Kingdom is a country that people now want to invest in. It is a stable country with a long-term strategy and with lots of great potential and assets, and we look forward to working with those business partners and investors to get the best deal for Britain.

Spending Review 2025

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We will build more housing, which is what the investment in affordable homes grants will achieve, and that goes alongside transport investment—significant transport investment—in the west midlands and Birmingham. I was very pleased that my hon. Friend joined me in Birmingham last week, when we were able to celebrate the investment to extend the Metro out to east Birmingham and then to Solihull.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Chancellor for her statement, but I fear that she may have misunderstood the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) asked about the River Thames scheme. He asked whether the scheme is included in the £4.2 billion TDEL—total departmental expenditure limit—over three years referenced in paragraph 5.121 of the review. The Chancellor replied that my hon. Friend wants to put up expenditure and will not say where it is coming from, but both he and I are asking this: is the Environment Agency’s half of the River Thames scheme—Surrey county council pays the other half—funded from the £4.2 billion TDEL that she has announced today?

[Rachel Reeves]

The allocations have been made to Government Departments, and the Treasury is not going to micromanage every scheme, so it will be up to Departments to allocate the money in the way they choose. I am sure that the Transport Secretary will come to the House and set out those plans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK international investment summit 2024 on levels of foreign investment.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

Increasing investment in the UK, both public and private, is the Government’s absolute priority. It is the route to restarting badly needed productivity and wage growth. As the hon. Member will know, at the international investment summit, companies committed to a record-breaking £63 billion-worth of investment, which is set to help to create around 30,000 jobs.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I particularly thank him for saying that investment is the Government’s top priority, because the Government announced on 17 October that they had secured this £63 billion. We have heard from the Chancellor that she is going to act decisively, so I just want to check her track record on that. The Government have had six months and £63 billion. How much money has gone out of the door for those oven-ready projects across the country?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member will be excited to know that the Business Secretary will be announcing in the coming weeks that shovels are already in the ground, or will be going into the ground, for some projects. I am a very good colleague to Ministers, so I am not going to pre-empt that announcement today.

Family Businesses

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is a good one, in that he demonstrates that his party believes philosophically that it has to either tax or cut. The Government have no appreciation of the fact that money could be spent more effectively in the first instance. It is a fundamental ideological weakness of the Government.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. You have 10 seconds left, Mr Thomas. Do you want to finish?

Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray]

I will turn to amendment 5 in a moment, but I will begin by briefly setting out what clause 2 seeks to achieve. The clause makes changes to the Crown Estate’s governance to bring the Crown Estate’s constitution in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. The clause makes three changes, which I will deal with in turn.

First, the clause increases the maximum number of commissioners on the Crown Estate’s board from eight to 12. That will provide the Crown Estate with the flexibility it needs to satisfy best practice standards for modern corporate governance. For example, the change will allow the Crown Estate’s board to include a wider combination of executive and non-executive members, both to reflect its increasingly diverse and wide-ranging activities and to enable it to adopt appropriate committee structures.

However, I assure the Committee that although we are increasing the number of commissioners, we are not changing the way in which they are appointed to the role, except for the new commissioner roles introduced by clause 6. The exact number and the respective roles of the commissioners within that new maximum will remain subject to the public appointments process. As such, additional commissioners will be appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, as is usual practice. That also includes the new commissioners with special responsibility that we will consider in our debate on clause 6, for which there will also be a process of consultation with the relevant devolved Government. The chair will face additional pre-appointment scrutiny, as the Financial Secretary confirmed in the other place.

Secondly, the clause removes the requirement for the second Crown Estate commissioner, a post currently held by the chief executive, to be deputy chair. This change will align the Crown Estate with best practice standards that set out that the roles of chair and chief executive should not be exercised by a single individual.

Thirdly, the clause will require the salaries and expenses of the commissioners to be paid out of the return obtained from the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, which is the current position. Changing the source of funding for commissioner salaries is intended to demonstrate more clearly the relationship between the relevant expenditure and Crown Estate income, while also reflecting the Crown Estate’s commercial functions. However, the pay of the chair and other non-executive commissioners will continue to be set by Treasury Ministers. In line with the UK corporate governance code, that will not include any performance-related element.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Clearly, the highest standards of independence and probity will be required of the chair in order to execute their duties, particularly given that we have not brought back to Parliament the ability to raise debt on the assets of the Crown Estate. I feel duty bound therefore to ask the Minister whether he is aware of media reports that the Chancellor’s preferred candidate for chair is a recent Labour party donor who gave £15,000 to the Labour party in 2023 and £30,000 to the Foreign Secretary. It is not unreasonable of the shadow Minister’s amendment to seek that level of transparency by asking for any future changes to salaries for chairs to come back to Parliament.

[James Murray]

The hon. Member asks about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, to which I was just about to turn. If he will allow, I will address the amendment and that will answer at least some of the questions he raises in his intervention.

Amendment 5 would require the commissioners to notify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any proposed changes to the remuneration framework for the chief executive set out in the framework document and for such notification to be laid before Parliament by the Chancellor. I will set out the current arrangements on remuneration for the chief executive of the Crown Estate.

How the chief executive is paid is a matter for the Crown Estate’s board in the first instance. However, the pay is set with reference to the agreement between the Treasury and at a level that is at the lower end of the Crown Estate’s comparable peers, reflecting the national significance of the organisation. The framework document between the Crown Estate and the Treasury is clear that the Crown Estate

“will share any planned changes to the remuneration framework with HM Treasury to seek their agreement.”

I think that very much delivers on the spirit of the amendment.

The Crown Estate’s annual report and accounts already include as a matter of course a comprehensive report on remuneration and details of the chief executive’s pay. Taken together, those arrangements already deliver on the essence of the amendment and I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The primary intention of the Bill is to modernise the Crown Estate and ensure that it is best able to operate in a modern, commercial environment. These changes are central to that aim.

Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We recognise that when the Conservative party was in government, it got it badly wrong. The country decided to change course, which is why they elected us into government to fix the public finances, put our public services back on their feet, boost investment and get the economy growing.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

They say that one ought to build one’s enemy a golden bridge. I think the compromise and pause proposed by the National Farmers Union is an elegant solution. That golden bridge is now being signposted by Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, the Co-op, and all the major retailers the Minister claims to be engaging with. Why does he not just pause, go back, listen, and review the policy?

[James Murray]

As I set out in answer to a previous question, the Government are committed to delivering the reforms announced in the Budget. They were carefully calibrated to retain generous inheritance tax exemptions, while ensuring that we balance the public finances as fairly as possible.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Like many on the Government Benches, I have spent many years of my career in business—in my case, as a lawyer. I have worked with some of the largest companies investing in the United Kingdom and some of the smallest companies in the country, such as charities, third sector organisations and others. What they value most of all is economic stability. What they do not value is huge increases in interest rates overnight and rampant inflation.

I understand how important it is to investors to ensure that the public finances are managed in a prudent way, which embraces and faces up to the realities. That is the foundation of the Budget and of our approach to the difficult decisions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken on national insurance contributions. A number of the parties on the Opposition Benches, and the Conservatives in particular, criticise, but they broke Britain’s economy and we are left to clean up their mess. There is nothing clever or great about promising that hospital after hospital will be built and not having the funds to cover that. That is the politics of the Santa Claus letter.

The Budget of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivers on our commitments to the electorate. It puts an end to non-dom tax status and gets rid of a VAT exemption on private school fees to fund state schools, such as those in Glasgow. The national insurance contributions are an important part of that financial package. The Budget delivers a fairer, more sustainable tax system. Under the previous Government, the tax burden was placed mainly on the shoulders of working people. We heard from the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who represents a beautiful constituency, that that is precisely what SNP members are fans of—increasing income tax and national insurance on working people. We have seen that in Scotland time and again. The tax burden that working people face is absolutely enormous. If a person works in Newcastle and wants to move to Edinburgh, they will have to pay more tax to work in the NHS in Edinburgh. If that is supporting Scotland, who knows? We are delivering on our promise not to raise taxes on working people.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Grady]

I wish to make some progress if I may; I have been waiting a long time to speak.

Our plans will not see additional taxes coming out of a worker’s payslip. We are supporting small businesses by doubling the employment allowance before companies and charities have to pay national insurance, which will protect hundreds of thousands of employers from paying any national insurance at all.

According to the OBR, changes to the employment allowance will see 250,000 employers across the UK gaining from these changes, while an additional 820,000 or so will see no change. This means that around half of all businesses that are liable for national insurance will pay the same or less than they were previously, while, set against that, many businesses and charities in Scotland and Glasgow will be protected against the increase. This strikes a fair balance.

As a Scottish MP, I must turn to Scotland. The context of this national insurance rise is that around one in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list. On a Friday evening a few weeks ago, I was contacted by a constituent whose wife of 40 years was in hospital. He was petrified and devastated because there was no bed available for his wife after she had suffered a stroke. That is the context of this national insurance rise. It is correct to raise taxes to invest in our health service, and that is the beginning and the end of it. In Glasgow, this year, 172 teaching posts have been removed. That is the context of this national insurance rise.

Our Budget delivered the largest settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution—£4.9 billion of additional funding and further funding to cover the national insurance rise over the next two years. This is a UK Government delivering for Scotland and giving the SNP the tools to clean up its mess. The changes to national insurance are critical to this additional funding, which will benefit the people, charities and businesses of Glasgow and Scotland.

Despite this extra funding, the SNP repeatedly criticises our Budget and our management of the public finances. This is—as some say of Christmas dinner—somewhat rich coming from the Scottish National party. After almost 18 years of the SNP Government in Holyrood, public finances are in a catastrophic mess. Let me provide a simple example: the replacement Arran ferries are hundreds of millions of pounds over budget and years late, making lives miserable for people trying to get from Arran and damaging the tourist industry. It would be unwise to choose Rod Stewart’s song “We are Sailing” for the SNP Christmas karaoke, because no one is sailing under the Scottish Government’s appalling management of the economy.

The SNP has criticised our choices. This Government have not been in power for even six months. The Tories were in power for 14 years and the SNP have been in power for 17 and a half years. On any view, the criticism of our Budget after nearly six months defies logic, but that defiance of logic does not end there. The Conservatives criticise our choices, but they do not say what they would do instead. They may have a shopping list of additional spending commitments, but they simply do not explain how they will tax or fundraise those spending commitments. This is not serious.

We are having to make difficult decisions. The Government are asking employers to contribute more. That will enable investment in public services, which is good for employers. We are being straightforward about the choices regarding the public finances, spending, tax and national insurance. I say to Opposition Members that cakeism is for Christmas. It is not an approach for serious Government or serious Opposition. The job of a serious Government is to make serious choices to progress the country—choices that will allow us to invest in our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have made changes to a whole range of taxes in the Budget, and it is important to note that the scale of revenue that the Liberal Democrat party is talking about would not cover the additional funding that we are providing—£20 billion for our health services and additional funding for a whole range of public services. I understand that in the coming weeks, the Health Secretary will come forward with more details on many of the vital services that Members have mentioned today. I must put on record that I very much enjoyed meeting GPs in my constituency over recent weeks. They raised a whole range of issues with me, including the big challenges they have faced over the past 14 years in getting the support and funding that they need. I hope and trust that in the coming weeks and months, this Government will put that right.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East will enjoy my final point. My sixth reason for voting for this Bill, rather than for the mistaken and erroneous amendments that have been tabled, is that the changes we have put forward in this Budget, including on national insurance, will pave the way for higher growth and higher living standards. As in all good speeches, this last point brings together some of the other points made—so this may not have been just a boring list. Through ensuring economic stability and funding our public services properly, we will make sure that people get the health services that they need, so that they are not struggling with ill health that drives them to economic inactivity and pushes them away from the jobs market. We will make sure that people feel secure on their streets, and that businesses feel safe, rather than struggling with shoplifting, which has become all too rife. Those are the changes that this Budget and the measures in this Bill provide.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, particularly on the subject of growth. He, like me, is an avid reader of the Labour party manifesto, so he knows that sustained economic growth is the first mission of this Government. I think we all agree on the point that sustained economic growth is a really good thing, so could he simply tell us whether he thinks these national insurance changes are pro-growth or anti-growth? It is a very simple question.

Winter Fuel Payment

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When I was 14 years old, I started delivering Meals on Wheels on Christmas day for the disadvantaged around west London, and I have done so every year since that I have lived in London. The scheme is organised by Age UK and it is a privilege to be invited into people’s homes in midwinter. I look forward to doing it again this Christmas, and I hope that those I visited last year will be there this year.

The Government are seeking to raise money, and I get that. They are seeking to do so by getting those with the broader shoulders to take the heaviest load, and I get that too. In order to achieve those goals, the Government are means-testing the winter fuel payment—and there is the rub. By choosing that means test, the Government are indeed taking the winter fuel payment from millionaire pensioners, but they are also taking it from the much less well off and from the not well off at all. In short, they are cutting too deep.

Mistakes happen, but it is how we deal with mistakes that is important. I spent the weekend listening to the Prime Minister using the word “tough” as many times as he possibly could. On the battlefields of the world, which I have been on for the last 25 years, toughness was not one of the things that people looked for in their leaders. The two things they looked for were courage and competence. Courage—moral courage—sometimes means that people need to admit when they have made a mistake and change their plan. However, the people of Spelthorne—and, I suspect, the pensioners across the country—would just settle for a bit of competence. This Government need to get good at governing, and they need to do so quickly.