Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is an honour to stand before you, Ms Furniss, ahead of Staffordshire Day on Thursday, to talk about the hidden gems that make South Staffordshire such a unique and culturally rich area.

I will begin with Codsall, where the past and present meet beautifully. The charming high street lined with historical buildings offers a snapshot of centuries gone by. It is not just about history, however; Codsall has a lively arts scene, with the Codsall community arts festival buzzing with local performances and workshops. It is a place whose creativity flows just as freely as its heritage.

Next door, the village of Bilbrook offers a different kind of charm. It is a village where modern industry and natural beauty co-exist. The partnership between Jaguar Land Rover and the local community to protect Jubilee wood is a perfect example of how local heritage and industry can work hand in hand. A commitment to environmental conservation is a core part of the village’s identity and a fantastic backdrop for many of the cultural activities.

Swindon may seem small, but its contribution to our cultural heritage is anything but. Chasepool in Swindon was mentioned in the Domesday Book, and is now an important part of that industrial heritage. Swindon forge—originally a fulling mill and then a corn mill—was converted into a finery forge in the 1620s, producing the wrought iron that drove the early industrial revolution.

Then there is Himley—a village with a story to tell, which boasts the beautiful and culturally significant Himley Hall and Park, and holds a fascinating piece of British history: on the dark night of 5 November 1605, the gunpowder plot conspirators fled through Himley woods. In Kinver, we have something truly unique: rock-cut houses that have stood the test of time. These homes, carved into sandstone, are a testament to the resourcefulness of past generations and are now a major tourist attraction, with thousands visiting to step inside a piece of living history.

Enville is a quiet, yet rich corner of South Staffordshire. Known for the impressive Enville Hall and the Enville Brewery, this village blends rural charm with modern industry. The brewery’s award-winning ales are a nod to the past, while its ongoing role in the community keeps Enville firmly in the present. The village of Pattingham exemplifies how culture and nature can co-exist beautifully. Patshull Park was designed by Capability Brown. Trysull might be small, but its legacy is enormous. This village is home to the arts and crafts-inspired Trysull Manor, a reminder of the region’s creative spirit.

Then we have Bobbington, a village with a fascinating industrial past, and Lower Penn, with its surrounding areas offering a tranquil setting for outdoor enthusiasts. Perton is a village that has grown rapidly in recent years, but it has not lost sight of its roots. Finally, the village of Wombourne bridges past and present in the most remarkable way. Its roots go back to the middle ages, and it is home to some of South Staffordshire’s most iconic landmarks, such as the Bratch locks and the Victorian-era Bratch pumping station.

Family Businesses

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is an honour to rise today to speak on behalf of the very many family businesses in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, because family businesses are at the heart of our local communities as well as at the heart of our local economies. They provide employment for nearly 14 million people, they contribute £575 billion to the economy and they are founded on solid principles of entrepreneurism and self-responsibility.

I am proud to represent so many fantastic family businesses, ranging from heavy engineering firms in the Black Country to vineyards in Pattingham and Halfpenny Green. They work tirelessly to build and sustain their businesses, creating jobs and prosperity. They offer excellent products and services to customers near and far, and they look forward to their children one day continuing in their footsteps. But their job is being made much harder by Labour’s family business tax, a barrage of burdensome red tape, a trade union charter, a family business surcharge and the national insurance jobs tax, which together mean that businesses will pay more in tax and compliance rather than in growth or jobs.

As has been said, the cumulative impact of all these measures is very damaging. I am not going to pretend that most of the family businesses I speak to are absolutely delighted by the increase in the national living wage any more than they were delighted the previous year when the last Government increased it by a higher amount, but they recognised that wage increases for their staff were the right thing to do. However, they do have a problem when those additional wage costs are compounded by payroll taxes in the form of increased national insurance contributions, which hit those sectors that rely on part-time workers particularly hard—they suddenly face enormous increases. That is compounded further by business rate rises for those in retail and hospitality, who are suddenly finding their business rate bills nearly doubling in April compared with what they have paid for the last few years. Also coming in in April is that flurry of additional regulations. If family businesses somehow survive all that and thrive and develop, they will find that they can no longer expect to be able to leave the business intact for future generations of their family to run.

The Confederation of British Industry and Family Business UK have warned that Labour’s changes to business property relief could lead to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by £9.4 billion. Businesses that have survived economic downturns, global recessions, war on our continent and a worldwide pandemic now face the prospect of being brought to their knees by a tax policy that will force them to break up their businesses when the current owners pass away. This is not just a policy change; it is an existential threat.

The Black Country is a region with a proud history of manufacturing and enterprise. We have always been a place of hard work, innovation and community. In South Staffordshire my constituents are proud of their thriving rural economy built on countless family businesses. Those businesses have not just contributed to our local economy; they have helped to build the United Kingdom, and the idea that a tax change could strip away the future of our local businesses is nothing short of a tragedy.

Fairness would be recognising that family businesses are not just economic units but part of the fabric of our communities. They support local charities, provide apprenticeships and create jobs for those who need them. If these proposals go forward, we risk losing those businesses and with them the local jobs they provide. I have spoken with many family businesses in my constituency. Family-owned businesses that have been operating in the community for generations are fearful and uncertain, and are already having to make decisions about their businesses and their employees because of the Chancellor’s damaging Budget. Sadly, some are being forced out of business because of these measures.

The Government’s blinkered view that sees business as little more than a source of revenue to offset their spending plans is wrong. I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the family firms in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and across the country who will be directly impacted by the changes. These proposals must be scrapped.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

In the 103 days since the Budget and the Chancellor turned farmers’ lives upside down in this country, we have heard stories from farmers across the UK, and will hear more today. Labour Members marched out stories of their own farmers; a few months ago, they did not hear anything from their farmers, but suddenly they have a voice. It is good to hear that they have been listening and now are actually representing those farmers’ voices.

Farmers have been telling us for months about the impact the IHT change will have. I have spoken about the 90-year-old farmer in my constituency whose son is now resigned to the fact that he will have to sell the farm and give up on the livelihood and life he thought he was going to have. I have spoken about the farmer whose wife died earlier last year, who also realised by the end of the year that they were going to lose their farm. However, the Government did not want to listen. They would not to listen to the stories coming from our farmers.

We have heard about the fact that farmers only make 1% profit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, what other businessperson would take a 1% profit and want to continue that life? We have also heard about how investment in farms has fallen off a cliff since this policy was introduced. If we do not invest in or encourage investment in farms, how will we increase profitability? Profit and productivity are linked; if we have poor productivity and profitability, we will never get to a stage where any sort of IHT bill—let alone the one proposed by the Government—can be managed by farmers.

It is not just farmers making the Government aware of where they stand; we have heard the NFU and NFUS say that three quarters of commercial farms will be impacted. Experts in valuing the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers says that 75,000 farms will be impacted. The CLA says that an eighth of farms over 350 acres will have to sell land in order to cover the bill. Savills, the property experts, says that 88% of UK farmland will be impacted, yet, as the Treasury says it is only 20% to 25%, that is the figure we stick with. We stick with the Government figure because it fits the narrative; we do not listen to the industry or the experts, which is how we have got into the situation we are now in.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

When Jane’s husband died just under three years ago, their farm passed to their son—the fifth generation of the family to farm that land. Their accountant says that if that had happened after the Government’s changes, the farm would be looking at an inheritance tax bill of between £80,000 and £100,000. Does my hon. Friend know of any farmer who has that kind of money available without selling off a huge chunk of their farm?

[Harriet Cross]

No, I do not know of any family farmer who has the sort of money to cover that bill. That is the issue. We are penalising the very people who have fed us, who have supported our rural communities and who have been custodians of the land for generations, to fit whatever the Government’s narrative is with this policy.

The unintended consequences also have impacts. There is an impact on hauliers, vets, rural communities, farm shops and workers—they will all be impacted by the policy. It is not just family farmers; they are the start, but the result of the policy spreads through rural communities the length and breadth of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am about to come to some of the statistics to which the hon. Gentleman and others referred. I do not have much time, so I will make a little progress before answering some of those questions.

On the point of how the nil-rate band and spousal exemption allowances work together, anything beyond the nil-rate band, the spousal transfers and the 100% full relief will receive unlimited 50% relief, and heirs can spread any payments due over 10 years, interest free. That is a benefit not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.

[Mike Wood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Mike Wood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I can answer this question: it is the impact that matters. Whatever Opposition Members say as the farmers’ friends, the truth is different: 7,000 businesses closed on their watch. That is what the evidence says.

Let me move on to the reasoned amendment. This Government are fully committed to protecting and supporting our valuable high streets. The fact is that retail, hospitality and leisure rates relief was due to end in its entirety by the end of March 2025, which would have meant a cliff edge for businesses. At the Budget, we stepped in to prevent that by extending the relief further this year by 40%, with a cash cap of £110,000. We have also frozen the small business rates multiplier for 2025-26. Taken together with the small business rates relief scheme, that means that more than 1 million properties will be protected from any inflationary increases next year. That is 1 million properties protected by this Government.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

By the Minister’s logic, are we to assume that support on business rates for hospitality and retail is to end in April 2026?

[Jim McMahon]

That really was not worth giving way for. I have literally just said that 1 million properties will be supported against inflationary increases next year. The 40% will continue, with a cap of £110,000. That is exactly what this Bill is intended to do. If the hon. Gentleman supports it, he can join the Government in the Aye Lobby and vote for it.

We know from businesses that the current scheme of discretionary relief does not provide the certainty needed. That is why the Bill will enable a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from 2026-27 through new lower multipliers, ending the year-by-year uncertainty that the previous Government hardwired into the system. That is doing what businesses have been calling for. That rebalancing—from out of town to in town, from online to on street—is exactly what people have called for in communities and in business, and Opposition Members know it. Their frustration is that they did not do it in the 14 years that they had in office. It is down to us to take the steps that are needed in government now, and we are happy to do so.

The reasoned amendment raises concerns about the impact on schools in the state sector. I can assure the House that protecting and improving state education is at the forefront of the Government’s mind. In fact, we estimate that only 2,900 more pupils will enter the state sector as a result of the removal of the business rates relief for private schools. Let us be clear about what that means in reality: that goes down to about 300 a year. In any given year across England, 60,000 pupils will move between schools; this is 300. We need to keep that in context, because we have heard a lot of scaremongering about the transfer, but that is what the evidence says. That evidence is placed in the House of Commons Library, in case Members want to take time after this debate to go and look. There might even be enough time to find the documents before the vote if they want to bring themselves up to speed.

Importantly, this is about providing much-needed investment in the state school sector. Just how many parents say, “We need specialist support for SEND, because the mainstream provision is not adequate”? How many parents—by their own admission, among Opposition Members—choose to pay for private education because they do not have faith in mainstream provision? Despite what Opposition Members have said about the glory years of the past 14 years, the truth that parents and pupils on the ground feel is very different, and they know it. We have to repair mainstream provision so that parents and pupils can go with confidence to their local school, knowing that they will get the support that they need—support for all pupils, not just some.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the impact on faith schools. I want to offer some comfort. Of course we value and understand parental choice, but based on the evidence submitted through the HMT consultation, as well as the analysis undertaken by the Department for Education on removing the charitable rate relief, it is not apparent that private faith schools will be affected by this measure any more than non-faith schools. There is no evidence of disadvantage.

Financial Services: Mansion House Speech

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for credit unions—I have visited those in my constituency several times and know what good work they do. We have made clear our strong support for the mutual sector. We recognise the value that credit unions bring to their members in local communities, including in her constituency. The Chancellor launched a call for evidence on reforming the credit union common bond during the Mansion House speech last week. We want to understand whether reform is needed in that space to help credit unions to grow substantially. Once we have completed the call for evidence, we will consider how much of that reform we can take forward as a Labour Government.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Pensions Minister will be all too aware of the ongoing problems facing members of the west midlands pension fund, one of the country’s largest public sector pension funds. Why does the Economic Secretary think that the Chancellor’s eight mega-funds will provide a better service than the west midlands pension fund in investing those people’s pensions?

[Tulip Siddiq]

We will build on the success of the pools that already exist. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my answer, the Minister for Pensions is happy to meet with him.

Winter Fuel Payment

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel payment from 21,365 of my constituents is cruel. The payments have been a lifeline for so many pensioners, helping them to stay warm during the harsh winter months. Most pensioners live on fixed incomes, so having almost no notice—no time to prepare—means that the impact of this loss of income on many pensioner households will be that it is increasingly difficult for them to afford basic necessities.

A number of Labour Members have talked about difficult choices, but the reality is that the Government have run away from difficult choices. They have ducked the difficult choices. The difficult choice would have been to be upfront with voters during the election campaign, to explain why they felt this was necessary, appropriate and, as some have said, morally right, and to trust voters to decide whether to give them that mandate. Instead, they ran away. There are difficult choices, but unfortunately the difficult choices are the ones that they have left our constituents to face.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this choice sets a dangerous precedent? Free bus passes, prescription charges and, indeed, access to healthcare itself are all now at risk because of the logic being put forward by the Labour party in respect of pensioners’ ability to afford them.

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend is clearly correct. Many people, but particularly pensioners, will be worried about what this Chancellor will take away from them next. Without these payments, many will be forced to choose between heating their homes and other essential expenses such as food or medication—people such as my constituent Linda, who wrote to me:

“My husband has several medical issues this year and I am very worried about the heating situation…I think it is likely that we will cut back on nourishing food.

I cannot believe that a British Government would penalize our generation like this.”

Another constituent, Dawn, wrote:

“Now I fear the winter months, and afraid…of hypothermia.

I personally am just above the threshold to qualify for pension credits. I am a single person claiming state pension and also have a small NHS pension…I can foresee me not using my central heating this winter.”

Those are difficult choices that this Chancellor and this Government have forced on too many of our pensioners, and they are choices that no one should have to make, and particularly not those who have contributed so much to our society.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

The Government the hon. Gentleman supported were responsible for driving living standards down, in the first Parliament on record in which that happened. Does he not agree that it is traditionally bad form for the arsonist to start criticising the fire brigade?

[Mike Wood]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has a huge amount of cheek. He should consider first the inheritance of that previous Conservative Government: the present candidate for the chairmanship of the Business and Trade Committee had written that there was no money left. He should also bear in mind that what we saw during those 14 years was not only restoration in the economy but a huge growth in pensioner income, and what we see now is the fastest growth in the G7, unemployment at record low levels, and inflation also back at low levels.

The Chancellor wants us to believe that this decision suddenly came to her at some point in the run-up to the King’s Speech, some time after the general election, and that it would not have been possible for her to imagine it before polling day. She claimed in July that it was not a decision that she wanted to make. However, as has already been pointed out, in March 2014 she stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box, barely feet away from where I am now, demanding that winter fuel payments be means-tested. In July she said that it was not a decision that she expected to make, yet, miraculously, this year’s Labour manifesto was the first in almost two decades without that specific commitment to protect winter fuel payments.

This is a decision that had been a decade in the making—a decade in the planning. Labour had a decade in which to prepare and get it right, but we are seeing how poorly thought through it was. We cannot have a Social Security Advisory Committee report, and we cannot have an impact assessment. Labour imagined that it could take the money away from pensioners with no impact on our NHS or on charities. This decision is wrong, and it needs to be reversed.