Taxes

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend absolutely gets to the core of it. This is an extraordinary point to have arrived at, but this Government, despite their majority, do not have the plan, political will or, seemingly, even the ability now to command enough support on their own Benches to push through vital spending controls that would allow us to get the taxman off the back of businesses and people up and down our country.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Child poverty increased enormously on the Conservatives’ watch. [Interruption.] Yes, it did. Where was their political will to deal with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I would also like to thank the Opposition for giving us this opportunity to set out two competing visions for Britain: growth, modernisation, new infrastructure and stronger public services under Labour; or a return to austerity, Government waste and decline under the Tories—of both their shades of blue. The Tories’ 14 years of power is a tale of two halves. First came—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear it. First came austerity, which broke our public services, leading to the social problems that have increased cost pressures on Government today, but in their final years they did away with austerity, and we saw astonishing levels of profligate waste, dodgy covid contracts, vanity projects and promises that were made to our constituents but never funded.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) described Liz Truss’s Kwamikaze Budget as

“the best Conservative budget since 1986”,

but I think most people in this place would agree that we have to live within our means. The Chancellor has inherited a difficult challenge because, on the one hand, she inherited an economy with a debt to GDP ratio of over 99%—the highest debt since the 1960s. On the other hand, she inherited a broken state.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the bundle of contradictions that we have heard over the last year from Labour Members? I recall that, in July 2024, we heard from the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), that Labour had to abolish winter fuel payments for older people because there would be a run on the pound, and then they were reinstated because the economy had allegedly stabilised. We are hearing from the Chancellor and from Ministers that the economy is in a state that requires additional taxation and additional spending. We are hearing all these noises from the Labour party around the need to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be making a speech in due course. That was a very long intervention.

[Sam Rushworth]

I am not sure that I fully understood the hon. Gentleman’s question or what contradiction he sees, but I will go on to talk about why I feel that we need to see major investment in our public services and our infrastructure.

[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.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I quite understand the hon. Member’s philosophical approach: he wants to spend more money on public services. He knew of all those issues before the last general election, yet when he stood for election, he said to his constituents, “Vote for me because we will not raise income tax, national insurance and VAT.” Will he stick by his own promise?

[Sam Rushworth]

I have confidence in the Chancellor to produce a Budget that will do the things that my constituents need it to. What my constituents are asking for, and what they voted for at the general election, is change.

Look what the Conservatives did to our justice system: prisons are 99.9% full, and we have a court backlog that makes victims wait years for justice. We all know that our surgeries are crammed with these cases. Look at what they did to the asylum system, which has an enormous backlog. Whoever negotiated the contract on asylum hotels must have been the person who did the dodgy covid contracts, given the amount that they wasted. Millions a day were spent on hotels.

Look at what the Conservatives did to childhood. Contrary to what was said earlier, child poverty in our country has increased. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that both relative and absolute poverty have increased. The pattern between 1997-98 and 2022-23 can be described as a U-curve; poverty fell under the 13 years of the last Labour Government, and then relative and absolute child poverty increased. Look at what that means for the communities I represent: 16 Sure Start centres closed; primary school budgets are below their 2010 levels; transport for college students is expensive, and their education maintenance allowance was cut; youth services, boxing gyms and swimming pools have closed; and social infrastructure has disappeared from our communities over the last 15 years.

These are real challenges, but the problem is not just with our public services. Because the Conservatives robbed the capital budget to pay for day-to-day spending, they left Britain in the slow lane. Cancelling Labour’s Building Schools for the Future project left our schools and public buildings infested with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Cancelling nuclear projects left us reliant on expensive fossil fuels, which led to 11% inflation at one point under the Conservatives. Cancelling High Speed 2 to secure a media headline on the eve of a conference has left us without the critical transport infrastructure we need.

All these problems come with a higher social cost. When His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff are sacked, we get more tax avoidance and fraud. When people have to wait two years for a routine operation, businesses have a bigger sick bill. When prisons are not built and the police are cut, there is more crime. When civil servants were cut, the previous Government had to spend £3 billion on agency staff.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Gentleman has missed something from his list: the Government’s own assessment shows that when winter fuel payments are cut, it puts 50,000 people into absolute poverty and 100,000 people into relative poverty. A 2017 report by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), now the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said that cuts to the payment would kill 4,000 people. Was that factored into the hon. Gentleman’s assessment when he went through the Lobby to vote on the measure?

[Sam Rushworth]

The only vote we ever had on the issue was a vote for or against an Opposition day motion. I was always clear that the original threshold that the Government set was far too low. I do not think that millionaires and asset-rich, wealthy pensioners should receive the payment. The policy, as it now stands, and as it will be for pensioners in my community this winter, is as it should be.

[Stuart Anderson]

You voted for it when voting for the Budget.

[Sam Rushworth]

I voted against a motion saying that the payment should be a universal benefit, because I do not think that it should be universal, and I argued for where I thought it should be.

The Conservatives are right about one thing: we do need to control spending. We should not listen to those on the left who think that there is a magic money tree. There is not. Many of my colleagues on the Government Benches and I know how flippin’ difficult it is to get money out of the Chancellor, because she has this difficult job of having to control public spending. Let us talk about that for a minute. The Conservatives failed to invest in our public services, infrastructure and growth when they were in government, but let us also look at what they did on profligate waste. They spent £73,000 in 2019 topping up the Government’s wine cellar; £1.7 million painting Boris Johnson’s prime ministerial planes, including £800,000 on a Union Jack; £500,000 in a single year on chauffeuring ministerial red boxes around Whitehall; £11 million changing the colour of our passports; and £120 million on their festival of Brexit.

[Joe Robertson]

Why is the hon. Member going on about spending decisions of previous Governments, when his Chancellor said last year that her Budget had wiped the slate clean? She said, “It’s on us now”. If she accepts responsibility for where she is today, why does he not?

[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.

[Bradley Thomas]

I am not sure that I heard an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). Does the hon. Member support a two-child cap, or would he like it removed?

[Sam Rushworth]

I have never supported the two-child cap. The Conservatives introduced a two-tier benefit system that penalised younger families in a way that it does not penalise older families. My genuine view is that this needs to be looked at creatively. I do not know what the Chancellor will do, but my view is that we need to do something about the problem; possibly we need a tapered system. I have a big family, and I know that my fifth child did not cost what my first child did. I have confidence that this Government, like the last Labour Government, will eradicate child poverty.

I make the point again that child poverty is not just about benefits; it is about what we do to improve childhood. It is about giving children more access to the creative arts, as the Education Secretary this week announced we would. It is about getting youth hubs back; we are working on that. It is about free breakfast clubs, and the warm home discount being extended to more people.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I apologise—I may be a little hard of hearing. Could I ask the hon. Member once more for a quick yes-or-no answer? Would he vote to get rid of the two-child benefit cap?

[Sam Rushworth]

That is not a vote before the House right now, but I have been pretty clear in my answer. I never agreed with the cap when the Conservatives introduced it. They did terrible things that put too many children in my community into poverty. The Government are addressing child poverty in multiple ways, including through the welfare system. However, children are not poor just because we do not have good enough benefits. In Bishop Auckland, people do not want better benefits; they want better jobs, a stronger local economy, better infrastructure, better education and a better health service. All that will require public spending. If I may say so—[Interruption.] Do you want to make an intervention?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I do not want to make an intervention. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) does, but I certainly do not.

[Sam Rushworth]

I was distracted by the chuntering of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and thought that he may have wanted to make an intervention.

I will finish as I started. For me, the choice is really this: do we return to the dark days of austerity, which created the challenges that scourge the community that I represent, or do we lift people out of poverty, give them hope and the public services that they need, and invest in the critical infrastructure that brings our economy and our country into the 21st century? I know where I stand on that. Do the Conservatives know where they stand?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Sam Rushworth]

I spoke to a business in my constituency that said it understands why the Chancellor made that decision. One of its biggest concerns is the number of days that it loses to sickness, and it understands the importance of improving public services and of having a better educated and healthier workforce.

[Stuart Anderson]

I am happy that you intervened, and if you support tax hikes for your—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

This debate is much broader than mere numbers on a spreadsheet buried in the Treasury; it is about trust, stewardship and the future of our country. That matters because, at the last general election, the now Government and all those elected on their manifesto said they would not raise taxes on “working people”, yet at last year’s Budget, they did precisely that. They introduced £40 billion-worth of tax rises—under the guise of national insurance in the majority of cases—which have a trickle-down effect on working people up and down the country.

To compound matters, on 25 November last year the Chancellor addressed the Confederation of British Industry and made a cast-iron promise: no more borrowing, and no more taxes. That was a pledge to every family, every community and every business in this country, yet we are now on the precipice of the Government breaking their promise. To do so would irreversibly damage the public’s confidence in the Government’s ability to manage our economy. Simply put, every tax rise hits families, pensioners and small businesses. There is a simple maxim: borrowing today is merely debt for tomorrow. Every pound borrowed has to be repaid, and it has to be repaid with interest.

I know that those on the Government Benches do not necessarily regularly take the words of Margaret Thatcher to heart, but she said:

“Pennies don’t fall from heaven. They have to be earned”.

That is what people up and down this country are doing every day: they are grafting to provide for their families and their future. She was absolutely right. History teaches us that unchecked spending commitments undermine growth, reduce confidence and erode the state’s ability to serve those who are most vulnerable. By contrast, having control over public expenditure is not an ideology or something to be feared; it is simply common sense. It is about cutting waste, and it is about making hard choices today so that future generations are not saddled with crushing debt. That is responsible government.

It was Churchill who said that

“the price of greatness is responsibility”.

When the Government came into power with great fanfare, there was a sense that they wanted to be a great reforming Government. Well, is there any greater responsibility than to families, who budget carefully; to citizens, who trust the Government to keep their word; and to the public, who expect manifesto promises to be kept? People live within their means.

[Sam Rushworth]

Was the hon. Member a Conservative in 2010, when George Osborne promised not to put up VAT, or in 2019, when Boris Johnson promised not to put up any taxes—both of them made promises that they went on to break because, they said, the circumstances of the country required it—or is he a recent convert to his position?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member may have forgotten the covid pandemic that swept this country, which of course turned the tables, and difficult decisions had to be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Prime Minister tried—half-heartedly, admittedly—to save £4.5 billion from the welfare budget. He put his Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the ridiculous position of starting a debate arguing for £4.5 billion of savings from long-term disability and health benefits, only for her to end the very same debate advocating for a £300 million increase in those same benefits. The Prime Minister has lost control of his Back Benchers, and he has lost control of his Government’s spending.

We have had no global event, but we do have Government policies that have been economically disastrous. Labour is truly the tax-and-spend party. It has raised the tax burden to the highest in history—certainly since the second world war. As for spend, it raised £40 billion in tax, borrowed a further £30 billion, and increased spending by £70 billion. According to the Government’s own plans, they intend to borrow half a trillion pounds extra during the course of this Parliament. And for what? Has there been reform of public services? No. Public sector productivity has declined. We are getting less for our money—even more so in healthcare, where the decline in productivity is fully 8.3%. What they have done is increase wage inflation. For public sector pay, it is more than 6%, whereas in the private sector, it is a third less.

The Government are coming back for more. They intend, we are told through multiple briefings to newspapers, to breach their core election manifesto pledge and raise taxes, because they cannot reduce spending.

[Sam Rushworth]

What the hon. Gentleman says about healthcare is not quite credible. I appreciate that his researchers will have tried to find a statistic that works for his speech, but it is undeniable that we have delivered significantly more NHS appointments. Waiting times are coming down, and satisfaction levels are going back up again for the first time since the Conservatives broke the NHS.

[Jerome Mayhew]

One quick clarification: waiting times have actually increased in each of the past three months, so they are not going down at the moment. If we hose enough money at a system, we can get increased results, but what we get per pound spent has declined by over 8%. That is a very serious point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Under Labour, Britain is living in a doom loop of high spend, historically high debt, and higher taxes. That is killing growth, fuelling inflation, reducing opportunities and absolutely weakening our economy.

I have spoken to numerous businesses across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and our surrounding villages, and they are all anxiously awaiting the undoubtedly business-crushing Budget in two weeks’ time. The Government’s lack of understanding of business should surprise no one; Government Front Benchers have more experience of the trade union movement than of business. Indeed, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was asked which companies supported her damaging Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £8.3 billion and cause around 326,000 job losses, she could not name a single one.

The avoidance of engagement runs goes right to the top of this Government. We have seen that in this debate. We have had what I would call a utopian socialist vision from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who mentioned that Labour came into power at the last general election to change. Given how much Labour has resiled from its manifesto, “change” is about the only word left that it is still sticking to. Speak to people and businesses in my constituency—and, I am sure, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—and they will say that things have not changed for the better.

I have to say that the Liberal Democrats’ lack of interest continues. Not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher has chosen to speak in this debate on the fundamentals of how we will grow and run our economy. Not a single one thought it important to talk in it. That is shameful. I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for whom I have a lot of respect, speaks to his colleagues about this.

Our motion asks the Government to stick to their promises; I am concerned to see that that wording would be removed by the Liberal Democrat amendment, which thankfully was not selected by Mr Speaker. It is an extraordinary situation.

[Sam Rushworth]

I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about my contribution. Perhaps because our constituencies are different, his constituents do not face the same challenges as mine. The sorts of changes I am talking about are things like getting NHS dentists back, reopening Sure Start centres, fixing the problems on our high street, improving our schools and getting the waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services down. These are the serious things that my constituents are looking to me to deliver. The hon. Gentleman and I know as much as each other does about what will be in the Budget, but I will be looking for a Budget that invests in the public services that we need, and in infrastructure, which has sadly been neglected for far too long.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman has aptly described the social utopia that I accused him of describing. The fundamental point is that if we do not have businesses contributing to the economy, we cannot fund public services. If 90,000 people in the hospitality sector are made unemployed, they are not paying income tax, and we cannot support public services. The idea that the Government can just raise money out of nowhere forever, inevitably, without consequence, is not sustainable, and we are seeing that in our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarity. Labour Members have been keen to talk about the past, so I am glad that he brought up Gordon Brown, who sold the gold at record levels, which led to a mess that we had to clean up.

Homeowners are concerned, particularly in my constituency, where many people are asset rich but cash poor. Many pensioners are worried about pension tax. People who do the right thing—make responsible decisions that we encourage, whether investing in pensions or saving for the future—are seen as targets, or potential targets, by this Government when it comes to paying for the profligate spending being offered. Those people are desperately worried. The truth is that we have to stop spending money that is not ours to spend.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I read out a list of the billions of pounds of profligate spending by the Conservative party in government. I am pleased that this Government have stopped that and that he is a convert to our cause.

[Dr Spencer]

I have to say that I am getting a bit exhausted by this “14 years” narrative and this recurrent chewing over the past. I want to talk about the future and decisions now. I want to talk about bringing hope for the future again. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the past, we can talk about the past—the dodgy private finance initiative deals under the previous Labour Government, or Gordon Brown selling the gold. We can talk about the International Monetary Fund bailout. I might go back to the future, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to continue in the past, I can do so. I am happy to take an intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

At the Budget we will set out clearly our proposals for the future of the energy profits levy and the oil and gas mechanism. We will ensure that we can provide the certainty to business on the future regime as soon as we can.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

People in Crook and Tow Law are excited by the £20 million that the Chancellor is investing in our area through the pride in place scheme. After years of decline under the previous Government, which failed to spend most of the levelling-up money that they promised our community, what assurance can she give me that this time it will be local people in the driving seat and that we can spend the funds?

[James Murray]

I am glad to hear that the people of Crook and Tow Law are already thinking about how to use their pride in place funding to improve their local area. Children at Peases West primary school will be reassured to know that improving local playparks and upgrading community facilities will be possible under this funding.

Spending Review 2025

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

There are huge opportunities in Stevenage, both in life sciences and in the defence sector, to take advantage of the investment that we are putting in—whether that is in research and development or lifting defence spending to 2.6% of GDP in the next two years. I know that businesses, working with their tireless local MP, will make sure that that investment gets to Stevenage.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

A third of children in Bishop Auckland live in poverty, so I welcome today’s spending review, which set out how they will benefit not just from the free breakfast clubs, but from the extension to free school meals, warmer homes, more access to sports and the arts, and their parents getting the pay rises that they deserve under this Labour Government. But many of those children live in deprived neighbourhoods, which have seen big cuts to social infrastructure over the past 15 years, including the closure of swimming pools, youth clubs, Sure Start centres, boxing gyms and the like. I noted with interest that, on page 36, there was a reference to 350 deprived communities across the UK receiving Government investment. Will the Chancellor say more about that, because there are no figures in the spending review. If she cannot give a full answer today, perhaps I could engage with her office on this later.

[Rachel Reeves]

This will be a scheme operated from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We announced some of the neighbourhoods that will benefit from that investment today. This is not something that neighbourhoods will have to bid for; this will go to the communities that need it most. The Deputy Prime Minister will be setting out in due course all the 350 neighbourhoods that will benefit from this investment.

Regional Growth

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for her constituency. She is right that we have a shared view that investment in public transport is important for people’s livelihoods and their enjoyment of the communities they live in. Unfortunately, the SNP Government continue to fail to deliver on their promises, whereas in England we can show the difference a Labour Government make. I hope that in the future a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour Government in Scotland will show what a new direction can mean for people in her constituency and across Scotland.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As the shadow Chief Secretary was comparing the records of our Governments earlier, I was reminded of the moment when they made all these transport announcements, and it turned out that half had been delivered already and the other half were cancelled within 24 hours. They included the Leamside line in the north-east, so I am absolutely delighted for my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) that, after 20 years of campaigning, she has secured it, which is also great for growth generally in the north-east. As a champion for my community, I will keep banging the drum for the Weardale railway line and the West Auckland bypass. They will not be funded through this funding settlement, so my question is: will this be the only transport infrastructure spending this side of the next general election, or will there be future rounds that we can bid for?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning so well for his constituents and for welcoming today’s historic level of funding. He asked whether there would be other funding, outside of today’s announcement for city region mayors for infrastructure and other capital projects. The answer is yes, and the details will come in the spending review next week.

Spring Statement

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

If we look at financial markets and follow them closely, we can see that the increases in bond yields in the UK, France and Germany have closely tracked each other. Global financial instability has affected countries around the world, and that is why it is so important that we continue to meet our fiscal rules, as I have set out today.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

A moment ago, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) mentioned GDP per capita; I see that he asked his question and ran away. The truth is that GDP per capita increased by only 4.3% in the past 16 years, compared with 46% in the years prior. What matters to my constituents in the left-behind towns and villages of Bishop Auckland is not just growth, but growth that they can feel, and which has an impact for their pockets. What will the Chancellor do to ensure that working people feel the growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government want people in Bishop Auckland and constituents in all parts of our country to feel the benefits of growth through good jobs paying decent wages. That is why we are increasing the national living wage; making work pay; and backing the builders—not the blockers—who are creating new jobs, new homes for families, new transport infrastructure and new energy infrastructure. The OBR has said today that, compared with the plans we inherited, real household disposable income per person is set to rise by £500 by the end of this Parliament. That shows the difference that the Government are making.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am here to speak up for the farmers in my constituency of Bishop Auckland, which is a Labour farming community. Farmers in my area are worried. They put their trust in us at the general election, and why did they do so? Because they had been so badly let down for 14 years and they knew that the previous Government could have done more on things like trade deals, supply chains, flood defences and crime.

Let me tell the House what farmers in my constituency are telling me. They say that they have no problem with the principle that we should be closing tax loopholes. To quote the Telegraph, they want to stop billionaires “hoovering up agricultural land”, which they know is pushing up land prices. They even support the principle of paying tax and raising revenue for the Treasury, because they know that Treasury revenue is necessary to improve the NHS and improve schools in their communities, as well as having a strong agricultural budget. They are not asking for a full U-turn, by the way; they are asking for some meaningful tweaks that will help the policy to better target the goals that it intends to achieve.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

We have heard quite a few suggestions already of ways in which this policy could be tweaked or amended. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to get Treasury officials to at least model some of those changes, to help to advance the debate in the coming months?

[Sam Rushworth]

I welcome that intervention. There are two areas in particular on which I think farmers in my constituency would like some answers. One is thresholds. Because the policy still keeps the 50% agricultural property relief, it does not actually close a tax loophole at all for the very wealthiest. My constituents would like to see the modelling from the Treasury that says that it would. Meanwhile, because the threshold is quite low, it means that sadly some of the family farms in my constituency will really struggle to pay their inheritance tax bill. They would like to see what modelling has been done around the thresholds; they are not asking for a U-turn, because they understand that it should be neutral for the Treasury, but they would be interested to know whether we could lift the threshold but go to 40% tax at another threshold. Would that better protect the small family farms and do a better job of closing the tax loophole at the same time?

Another point on which my constituents would welcome some consideration is the proposal for a clawback. Someone who inherits a £5 million farm is not a millionaire; they are the custodian of agricultural land, with a responsibility to farm it to produce food for the nation. If they sell a £5 million farm they become a millionaire, but they do not become one simply by inheriting it. Farmers in my constituency would be interested to look at the proposal, and it would be helpful for them to understand the modelling that the Treasury has done. Among that Labour farming community, there is good will for this Government on many things we are trying to achieve. That good will can be retained. There would be no shame in looking at this again.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful contribution. He is clearly looking at ways in which the policy can be amended to make it more palatable to the farming community. That may be the reality that we are looking at, rather than getting rid of it altogether. Does he therefore agree that we should look at changing the transitional arrangements so that succession planning can be properly undertaken, which at present it clearly cannot, or indeed that we should look at leaseback arrangements to enable viable farms to continue?

[Sam Rushworth]

There are a variety of things that could be looked at. I met the NFU this morning and we discussed various points. I feel that these are all things that should be considered. I reiterate that I believe that the community I represent still has good will toward this Government and the intentions of this Government, but there are aspects of the policy that could be tweaked to better achieve their intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, but I have a sense of déjà vu: a month ago, I stood in my place, the Minister sat in his, and we hoped that the Government would listen. They did not listen. I suppose that we should try to be optimistic. That time, apart from the Minister’s aide, there was not a single Labour MP to be found, but they are all here today. Their approaches have varied. I do not mean to rude to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), but in nearly 20 years in Parliament, I have never heard a speech that expressed no opinion on the subject in hand. He gets the vanilla award.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) was perhaps tentative and timid, but none the less wanted to hint that it was possible that the perfect selection of policies put forward by Labour might need a little tweak—congratulations on that. However, the award should go to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who was pretty clear that he does not think this policy is right and that it needs to be changed. Praise the Lord that someone on the Government Benches was prepared to come out and say so! That is what they were sent here for—not to do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to.

As I mentioned earlier, when the 2012 Budget proposed the caravan tax, which would have devastated the industry in East Yorkshire—it happens to be based there—and down the coast, because that is where caravans are deployed, we stood against it and opposed it.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman is going to stand up and find his inner rebel.

[Sam Rushworth]

There is absolutely nothing timid about what I am telling the right hon. Gentleman: farmers in my community were massively let down by the previous Government.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

You voted for this policy.

[Sam Rushworth]

I do not know why the right hon. Lady keeps saying that. We have not voted on the policy yet. There was a vote against a motion that was put forward by the Opposition. It was a cynical motion that was designed to make us want to vote against it, because it was so ridiculous.

[Graham Stuart]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shrunk inside his shell, and the farmers in his constituency will have heard that.

It is possible to challenge one’s Government. I said to my Whips then that the best service we could do the Government was to prevent them from doing something stupid, harmful and alienating to voters. I hope that Government Members can see that, because the Opposition cannot change this. People outside say to me, “Can we get this changed?” It is actually up to Labour MPs. They have the majority. Democracy is not about having a majority and doing what one likes. Democracy is about listening and doing what the now Prime Minister told the NFU when he said:

“You deserve a Government that listens, that heeds early warnings”.

There are one or two warnings about. Listen, change: if the Government change, four years on, no one will remember the U-turn. Whatever civil servants say—they are always very keen to stick with a policy—if it is wrong, stop doing it. And this is wrong. In the minute and 20 seconds I have left, let me say why it is so wrong. We have touched on the various elements, but I am not sure we have pulled it all together.

We have a really peculiar group of businesspeople in this country; they are called farmers. They take a return on capital—the millions they have invested in their farms—that is typically less than 1%. There is nobody that I am aware of—no business I was ever involved in—that would remotely consider continuing in an industry that paid less than 1%. These farmers take a pittance and get up at 4 o’clock in the morning for the privilege. They look after the animals and it does not matter if they are ill; they cannot carry their employment rights and go, “I’m not well, I shouldn’t have to go out,” because the cows do not care: they have to go out and look after them, and then they get less than 1% return. Those farmers, the most beneficent public-minded businesspeople in the whole country, then provide excellent food at among the lowest prices in Europe. If ever there were a business that we would not want to go and mess with, it is these—I should not say it, because I will make enemies of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for a good point well made.

From waking up before the crack of dawn in the lambing and calving seasons, to often finishing the working day beyond midnight during the harvest, it is not hard to recognise the long and draining hours that farmers put in, the huge financial pressures that they work under and the toll that the lifestyle takes on their mental and physical health.

Farmers have to be able to plan for the long term, with their meteorological, financial, logistical and agricultural predictions having impacts for generations to come. Being such forward planners, and having been promised by the current Government when in opposition that there would be no change to APR, it came as a great and not pleasant surprise in Labour’s autumn 2024 Budget to hear that they would indeed be subjected to a change in inheritance tax. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for his point earlier about the injustice of retrospective legislation.

[Sam Rushworth]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, but some of the farmers in my constituents are concerned that the Liberal Democrats have talked about a land tax and a wealth tax. Will she tell us how that would affect the farmers in her constituency and mine?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not Liberal Democrat policy any more.

The Government claim they are targeting the big wealthy landowners, not family farmers, and they say that once inheritance tax allowances are taken into account, most farms will not be affected, but here is what I do not understand: on the one hand the Government are saying they need to raise money to fill a big black hole, but on the other hand they are saying most farms will not be affected by the change. They cannot have it both ways.

Likewise, the Government say that only 25% of farms will be affected, while the National Farmers Union says that 75% of farmers will be. We seem to have two parallel realities, and never the twain shall meet. Persisting with this policy is bad for our family farms, our food security, nature and future generations. I beg the Government to reconsider and have the good grace to back down on this disastrous miscalculation.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

Yes, and the Government should have been thinking about these things. We heard from the Minister that lots of planning and diligence went into this before it came out of the Chancellor’s mouth on Budget day, but it does not feel like it, because there is a whole range of issues that could have been considered in advance.

There is something that will do more immediate harm to farming than even the inheritance tax changes, and that is the Government’s decision to summarily reduce basic payments by 76% in a single year. This will have a direct impact, in particular, on tenant farmers who rely on that money and will end up missing their rent payments. We will see evictions as a consequence.

The Government have trumpeted the £5 billion over two years, which my basic maths tells me is £2.5 billion a year. I am always careful, or nervous, about making confident predictions, particularly in this place, but my confident prediction is that they will not spend that budget. If the basic payments are cut by 76% without the new schemes being up and running to replace them, the Government will not spend that money. By underspending, this Government will end up in the same mess as the last one.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, but I have a question. I think the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) suggested a working farm tax, and it was not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman accepted or rejected that suggestion. We have heard Liberal Democrats talk in recent weeks about land taxes and wealth taxes as alternatives to raise the revenue to fund their many, many spending commitments. Could the hon. Gentleman clarify that point?

[Tim Farron]

To clarify my response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), the Government could have looked at a working farm exemption so that these people will never have to pay this inheritance tax. Who knows, the Government might consider putting people who are not active farmers under the HMRC microscope instead. That would be far preferable to what we have.

Grant payments are a significant issue. With the cut to basic payments and the Government’s failure to be as quick as they should have been on the new payments, I am pretty confident that we will see an underspend from this Government, just as we did from the last one.

In recent days we have seen the Government’s decision to pause capital grant payments, which will be a huge blow to our farmers. The areas that will end up being cut or paused include: hedging, walling and fencing; countryside stewardship grants to allow nature-friendly farming; work to prevent pollution of waterways; slurry storage; covered yards to clean up our rivers; peatland restoration; carbon storage; and being the cornerstone of natural flood management.

My constituent Matthew, who farms in Eden valley, explained yesterday that he has just finished installing 10,000 metres of fencing for a nature-friendly farming project. The pause in the grant funding means that he will not be able to buy any hedge plants to finish the work, and nor will he get the mid-tier countryside stewardship annual payment. He says:

“Some say it could be paused until June…this is a business-breaking issue.”

On top of that, the higher-level payment has not increased since I entered this House in 2005. It was £40 per hectare for moorland restoration in 2005, and it is £40 per hectare today. That is a brutal attack on hill farmers and those who farm our common land. Again, some of the sustainable farming incentive options on common land are good, and they should be applauded because doing more for nature is a good thing, but the SFI moorland options are currently closed to all common land because of technical issues online. We can see those consequences very clearly.

Among all this, farmers are struggling, often with their mental health. The isolation that people feel when their family have farmed a valley for generations and they might be the one who ends up losing the family farm is utterly devastating. However, farmers just crack on with the job, so our job is to be their voice.

Farming is a glorious vocation. Farmers work to protect our towns and villages from flooding, to promote biodiversity, to back the tourism economy, to tackle climate change, to underpin landscape heritage and to produce our food. The fundamental failure of both the last Government and this one is that they have brought together agricultural policies that actively disincentivise the production of food. That is criminal, and it is foolish. The first thing the Liberal Democrats would put right is a food strategy and an additional £1 billion a year for ELMs to back our family farmers.

It is time we listened to farmers such as Liz and Matthew Staley from near Kirkby Stephen, and their sons Luke and Lewis. I regularly talk to Liz, and she says:

“There is so much anguish out there for farmers.”

On the new schemes, she says:

“They aren’t working and there isn’t that crossover just yet… They’re just making it harder to make a living.”

I want to encourage people on all sides, especially in government, to listen to Liz. It is the vocation of farmers to save our planet and to feed our country. The least we can do is give them the value and the future they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago, we heard talk from the Liberal Democrat Benches of a family farm tax and land taxes. It now seems that the right hon. Lady is suggesting we take up Dan Neidle’s suggestion. Will she confirm whether that is the case?

[Esther McVey]

It would be good if Members listened to what I said. I said it is not too late for Labour to reverse this policy; even their own tax advisers are saying, on closer inspection, it needs to be reversed. That is what I am asking those on the Government Benches to do.

We have heard today that farmers are asset-rich, but in reality they are cash poor, and that is the crux of the matter before us today. In the time I have left, I will mention a couple of farmers from my constituency. A seventh-generation farmer told me she was hoping to pass her farm on to the eighth generation, but that now does not seem possible because if they have to sell a proportion of the land, which they will, that will make the whole farm is unviable.

Another farmer of mine, Richard Shepherd, a few years ago built a state-of-the-art cow cubicle shed for their dairy herd, a piece of modern technology he believed would prepare the farm for the challenges of the 21st century, investing in methods to produce high-quality, affordable and nutritious food—the type of innovation this country will come to rely on for food security in the future. However, now, with this change from the Labour Government, he will owe between £600,000 and over £1 million in inheritance tax. He has said that, “Like any other business, we need confidence to invest in our farms. That’s what we wanted to do: we wanted to grow our farm, invest in it, and this will destroy this.”

Richard Barnett, an accountant who works with many farmers in my constituency, has warned of two immediate consequences of these proposed changes. First, there will be an increase in the number of individuals seeking to acquire farmland up to £1 million to mitigate inheritance tax, resulting in a reduction in the amount of tax that the Treasury can expect to generate from this policy, as well as an increase in land prices. Secondly, he expects a consequence of these changes to be that the financial industry will enter the land market with individuals investing up to £1 million in farmland, acquiring it and then we will see farmland being lost—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I came here today to speak up for upland farmers in my constituency. Although I am not a farmer myself, I grew up within smelling distance of a dairy farm, and coming from a working background, I have earned a living working outdoors in all weathers as a gardener, so I know what it feels like to have mud on my boots and frozen fingers. For a lot of our farmers, though, the physical strain is only part of the daily struggle; the other part is the anxiety of having so much invested in such a precarious business, and the burden of responsibility for keeping the farm alive in an era of shrinking profits.

Because farmers are working people who deserve secure livelihoods, and because food security is essential for our national security, I hold quarterly forums with the farmers in my area—I say that before anyone tries to intervene to ask me how many I meet with. I hold regular forums and, in fact, some of our council candidates are local sheep and cattle farmers. Of course, I have met with them more in the last few weeks than I had been doing. In the meantime, I am having conversations with fellow MPs and with DEFRA and Treasury officials and Ministers to push for the issues that matter to farmers in our area.

As such, when I went to the Bill Office last night to receive the motion for today’s debate, I was genuinely unsure how I would vote. I read it with an open mind, but when I saw it, I thought, “What a load of tripe.” By the way, I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for taking a much more constructive tone in his speech a moment ago. The Opposition could have come to the Chamber today and presented a constructive motion that many rural MPs on the Government Back Benches would have sympathised with. Instead, this motion seems calibrated to make us want to oppose it. It seems to me that the Opposition are more interested in playing party politics and cosplaying as the friends of farmers with this motion than they are in genuinely addressing issues that they both ignored in government and are now ignoring in opposition.

Some legitimate concerns about the policy have been expressed to me by farmers in my constituency. By the way, many farmers in my constituency sympathise with its aims and with what the Government are trying to achieve. One told me recently that he cannot stand the James Dysons of this world who are hoovering up agricultural land. However, they are concerned that there remains a tax incentive to invest in agricultural land, and I would be grateful if the Treasury reported on some of that modelling. For example, we know that 7% of wealthy claimants account for 40% of the cost of APR, but that means that 93% are costing only £382 million. It would be interesting to know how much money it would cost to slightly lift the thresholds or to address the concerns about life insurance.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sam Rushworth]

I will not take any interventions, but only because other colleagues want to get in.

There are concerns, but I must say that when I met farmers in my constituency recently, they agreed with me that a bigger concern for them, as many colleagues have said, is profitability. The motion could have talked about economic stability for lower inflation and interest rates, and it could have talked about cutting rural crime, which would also cut insurance premiums. If I may say so, I welcome the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), but there needs to be secondary legislation.

[Greg Smith]

I agree.

[Sam Rushworth]

Thank you. Let us work together.

I am pleased that the Government are defending against floods and disease. I am pleased that we are committed to protecting standards in trade deals. I am pleased that we are committed to getting a veterinary agreement with the EU to cut red tape. I am pleased with the public sector procurement targets. However, we need to do something on rules about food labelling in order to prevent “farmwashing.” We also need to do more to strengthen farmers’ bargaining power with supermarkets. I am pleased with the changes to planning laws that will allow a lot of farmers to invest.

I would just say to my own party and to the Government that we need to bring these forward faster. Farming in my constituency is on life support. There is, in fact, good will towards this Government and what we are trying to do, but we cannot afford to wait another 18 months, particularly for the basic payment scheme transition. We need upland farmers to be able to access the sustainable farming incentives. I know the SFIs are in the pipeline, but they cannot wait 18 months to receive them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

VAT: Independent Schools

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I have come here today to speak on behalf of the children and young people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I recently spent half a day at an independent school in my constituency, where I spoke with the students, and I have also hosted them here in Parliament. I found them thoughtful and polite, and a credit to their parents and the school. I recognise the role that the school plays in my community. I think it is right that the school retains charitable status, which allows it to claim gift aid on donations and to reinvest surplus revenue without paying tax. I am fully committed to the school and to its fundraising efforts. That is because I want all children in my constituency, whether they attend state schools or fee-paying schools, to have the best opportunities to develop their talents and intellect, no matter their background.

I wish I could say the same of Conservative Members, but their actions in government tell a different story. At a recent roundtable with primary school headteachers in my constituency, I heard stories of school dinner debts of £1,000 per school because they are having to feed hungry children. I heard of children coming into school with wet uniforms because there is no glass in their windows. One teacher talked about having to support children who had experienced horrific abuse but were not getting support through CAMHS. I also heard about children who arrive at school behind where they should be because of the closure of Sure Start.

On social mobility, is it not the truth that the Conservatives scrapped child trust funds? Under them, Sure Start centres were closed down, school playing fields were sold off and the education maintenance allowance was abolished. Apprenticeships are down, youth services have been cut by 73% since 2010 and there is a five-year waiting list for CAMHS. A decade has been lost because every school budget has less funding per pupil today than it had in 2010. Is that not the truth?

Here is another truth—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like hearing it, but in the past 20 years, private school fees have increased by 55%. I checked Hansard to see whether we had a debate with them all expressing their concern for the state education sector and about the impact of that increase, but it turns out that when the increase is to make elite education even more elite, they are silent. I see no reason why private schools cannot absorb the cost.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the elite, but does he understand the impact of the policy he is advocating, which is essentially that the elite, the rich, will still be able to afford independent education, while those who are making sacrifices to be there will be the ones who fall out, especially those with special educational needs?

[Sam Rushworth]

I was coming on to that, and if anybody in an independent school is struggling to cut their cloth accordingly as the state sector has done, I could introduce them to headteachers in my constituency who have had to do that because of cuts imposed by the previous Government.

I also suggest that independent schools look at social tariffs and other ways to raise revenue. Nobody wants to be doing this; this is not about the politics of envy. Conservative Members have so far opposed every measure that we are taking to increase revenue or cut spending, and perhaps they need to realise that that is why they are on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, as we try to fix state education, which is essential for our children.

Winter Fuel Payment

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I have not written a speech—I have written down a few points—because, like many colleagues, I have spent the past week agonising over how to vote today. In the end, I decided to vote with my conscience, which meant that I voted with the Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but I will tell them why.

Today I listened sincerely to contributions from Conservative Members, and this is what I have learned. First, there were several interventions in which they criticised the Government’s efforts to improve the take-up of pension credit. [Interruption.] Well, they did—Members can go and read Hansard if they want to dispute that. There have been several criticisms of that, almost to the point that, when they talk about who is vulnerable, I wonder whether they have a blind spot for some of our most vulnerable constituents.

Secondly, I have learned about Conservative Members’ disdain for hard-working people, because we have learned that, in their spending plans, they intended to reject the pay recommendations of their own pay body.

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

Does the hon. Member appreciate that some of the hardest working people are the pensioners we are now standing up for, and who we are trying to stop freezing in the winter to come and those ahead?

[Sam Rushworth]

I absolutely do, and Members may recall that I came to this House last week and asked the Chancellor a question about my own constituents. I represent the snowiest and coldest constituency in England, and I have had deep concerns about those pensioners. However, I have studied the detail and listened to pensioners in my constituency. In the last week alone, it has turned out that several people who have come forward to me expressing concerns about this policy are people who could be claiming pension credit but are not.

I want to make a broader point about the winter fuel allowance. The winter fuel allowance was introduced under the last Labour Government in 1997, when the state pension was £3,247 a year. If that had increased at the rate of inflation, today it would be £6,200 a year. Thankfully, it is more than twice that. [Hon. Members: “Because of us.”] Conservative Members say that it is because of them, but, again, they may want to look at the record. In fact, under both the previous Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, the state pension increased at above the rate of inflation, and I absolutely welcome that. The winter fuel allowance, however, has not increased for 20 years. So the winter fuel allowance, in real terms, has become less and less year after year. The point I am making is that we need to consider our people. If the Conservatives’ argument is that, after 14 years in government, people on the full state pension are £100 away from death and destitution, what have they been doing for 14 years?

We need a new settlement for the economy, and this Government are actually answering the concerns of my constituents, who live in cold, stone-built, badly insulated homes, and who lost out when the previous Government chose to cut the funding available to insulate homes. This Government are setting up Great British Energy, which will help to cut bills over the long term. People are poor and struggling to pay their bills not because we do not give away enough taxpayers’ money in small pockets of benefits here and there. What we need are higher wages and better pensions, and I have been convinced by the Chancellor’s arguments that, under this Government, the pension will rise at or above the rate of inflation year on year, while energy bills will fall.

Finally, my constituents would not thank me if I did not take steps to stabilise the economy, because we need to get NHS waiting lists down and we need—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Pensioners in South Devon, in common with pensioners in all our constituencies, will receive a basic state pension that is worth £900 more than it was a year ago, and energy prices are lower this winter than they were last winter. Many of her constituents will be entitled to pension credit but, because of a failure to act by the last Government, are not currently receiving it. We all need to play our part in ensuring that everybody gets the help they are entitled to. We should all ensure that our poorest pensioners get that support from both pension credit and the winter fuel payment associated with it.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The village of Copley, in my constituency, is the snowiest in England and we have many pensioners in receipt of the basic state pension who are, none the less, in fuel poverty. They are not entitled to pension credit. They live in cold, stone-built houses. What assurance can the Chancellor give to those pensioners that this Government will help to warm their homes and ensure they do not struggle to heat their homes this winter?

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government have committed to insulate an additional 5 million homes during the course of this Parliament to ensure that energy bills are as low as possible, saving people money and ensuring that their homes are warmer. That will help my hon. Friend’s constituents in Copley and constituents across the country.