Call for General Election
For a calming speech, I call Peter Prinsley.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Order. I remind colleagues that the focus of this debate is not a general critique of the Government, or indeed a general defence of the Government. The focus of this debate is on whether or not there should be a general election.
- Hansard source
Private Rent Inflation
We all know that rent inflation, like all inflation, is caused by over-demand and lack of supply, and we can agree on the need to address problems by building more houses and tackling immigration, but does the Minister agree that the more controls and regulations are imposed on landlords, particularly small landlords, the more they will get out of the rented sector altogether, causing less supply and rent inflation which will hit vulnerable people?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
rose—
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Even more important than the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is the fact that, as I read recently, the average family is paying £12,000 in tax to cover the benefits bill. That is important, because we are taxing entrepreneurial people more, and they will perhaps decide to work a little less hard, so we will all get poorer. I just pray that the Government will have the guts to return to their original proposals—which the Chancellor dropped in the light of pressure—to encourage people back into work, which will mean cutting the benefits bill. I encourage the Government to be true to their original word.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I will not make myself very popular by asking this question, but I will do it anyway. The Minister took me to task earlier because I talked about the total increase in the Department for Work and Pensions budget, which includes pensions. I think all three main political parties are traipsing around the issue of the triple lock. Frankly, if we did not have the triple lock—if there was a serious debate and we could get consensus in this House—we would not have to freeze income tax thresholds, and we could divert more resources to those really, truly vulnerable pensioners. I know that that is not a very popular point, but it is a question that we all seriously have to debate in a rapidly ageing population.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Does the shadow Minister agree that the overall thrust of these clauses is to discourage saving and enterprise, and to hit the people who do the right thing, all to fund more welfare spending? That is not a recipe for growth, is it?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that increasing taxation on dividends will result in more entrepreneurs taking risks, employing people and growing the economy, or fewer?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
rose—
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is he seriously saying that increasing the rate of tax on dividends will result in more investment in this country?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
A Budget is the most important set of choices that a Government can make, and introducing clause 10 is a choice by this Government. I oppose clause 10 because it extends the freeze on the personal income tax allowance and the basic rate limit for a further three years, from 2028 to 2031. That means that rates will have been frozen for 10 years. The choice in this Budget, as in all others, was clear: will spending be controlled or will taxes be raised? For the second year running, this Labour Chancellor chose higher taxes. In 2024, the Chancellor said that to extend this freeze would be to break her manifesto commitment not to raise the level of income tax, but at this Budget, she did it anyway. At the last election, the Government promised growth. They promised not to raise taxes on working people and to fund public services through a stronger economy, but from the moment that they took office, they have done the opposite. Labour have expanded welfare without reform, handed out huge pay deals without productivity gains and piled costs and regulations on to employers. When the inevitable bill came, what did they do? They reached into the taxpayer’s wallet. These tax rises are a political choice. The consequences of these choices are clear. Taxes on working people are at record highs, growth is sluggish and unemployment has risen consistently since the election. Record numbers are now trapped outside the labour market on benefits, with no requirement and no incentive to seek work at all. Those who do the right thing, who work hard to provide for their families, now face higher tax bills to fund an ever-larger welfare state.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which anticipates my next point. Teachers in my constituency have written to me saying that they will be pushed into the higher rate tax bracket by 2030, paying 40% on any extra work that they do—marking exams during the summer, for example—and that doing such work is not worth it any more. Many pensioners in my constituency, who have worked and saved all their lives, and who have done the right thing, are now set to be punished too. Clause 10 will drag more pensioners with modest private pensions into the tax system. Freezing allowances will mean more pensioners paying tax on their income from savings. Anyone with income from a private pension or income from savings will now face having to fill out a tax return, and that number will grow when clause 10 takes effect. Unlike those in work, pensioners cannot put in more hours or ask for a pay rise. They are victims of this Government’s failure to control public expenditure. Where is all the extra money that clause 10 will raise going to go? Rises in welfare spending. With the uprating of universal credit, the rise in the amount of people claiming health-related benefits and now the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, more and more families are finding it less beneficial to work. Clause 10 is perverse. It discourages work and entrenches dependency. Labour says it is all about fairness and compassion, but in truth it is the opposite. The best way to alleviate poverty is through work, and that is exactly what Labour’s Budget seeks to discourage. There is another choice. Had the Chancellor chosen to control public expenditure, then clause 10 would not be necessary. She could have chosen to make work pay. She could have chosen to reduce our welfare bill, to increase productivity in the public sector, and used savings to reduce debt and protect taxpayers, but she chose not to because when faced with difficult decisions, this Government’s guiding principle is their own survival: surviving the next vote, the next headline and the next rebellion by Labour Back Benchers. This Government have now U-turned on headline policies 12 times. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, that meets the definition of serial incompetence. The people paying for the price for this incompetence are working people, pensioners, and everyone who has ever worked hard and done the right thing to provide for themselves and their families. It is no wonder that my constituents are so livid with this Government, and that is why I shall oppose clause 10, which is the cornerstone of this Budget for “Benefits Street”.
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Disregarding the Minister’s comment that we have to wait for the investment plan, most people in this Chamber know that that is because the Treasury is letting him do it. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), I am concerned about supply chain security. We have seen China, for example, put America over a barrel by dropping off renewables and making it reverse. Having supply chains in the United Kingdom is vital. Will the Minister really emphasise to the Treasury that it is a key strategic defence requirement that we are able to supply our military needs from within these borders? Maybe that will get the Treasury to sign off on what he clearly wants to tell us but cannot.
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Leonardo is an important company for Somerset, Dorset and the wider south-west. The Minister will know that corporate decisions are competitive, and his Department plays a key part in shaping what those decisions will be. The defence investment plan is now long overdue. I appreciate that he probably cannot give us a specific date, but it would be helpful if he could tell the House whether we will see the plan in this financial year or the next.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I hate to interrupt the Minister, but the Chancellor in effect told the House and the country when this policy was first introduced that people need not really worry a huge amount, because not a vast number of farms would fall into this trap. The welcome but limited announcement made just before Christmas will of course reduce still further the number of people who will fall into this trap. He has just set out to the Committee a very complicated set of checklists, including this, that and the other. Would it not make more sense to scrap this whole damned stupid idea, and give a big tick of confidence to our food-security-bringing, environment-protecting, job-creating farming sector, which is so vital to UK plc?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My hon. Friend is making a serious point. Given the huge discrepancy in the robustness of the figures from the Treasury and wider Government, the challenges they have faced from industry bodies and experts, and the sensitivity of the issue and importance of the agricultural sector, does my hon. Friend agree that while the Treasury may well wish to stick to its policy, it should pause and take some time to build consensus across the sector on the data and work out the trajectory of costs? This back-of-a-fag-packet, fly-by-night way of trying to approach serious policy is simply insulting.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Leader of the Opposition responded to the Budget and opposed it. The Liberal Democrat spokesman would have spoken later down the list, so I beg to differ from the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party was the first party to oppose this proposal, not the Liberal Democrats.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the Prime Minister saying that “not a penny more on your council tax” would be implemented by this Labour Government, yet constituents in the Worth valley, across Keighley and Ilkley, have experienced a rise of 14.99% in the past two years under Labour-run Bradford council. Does my hon. Friend feel that that meets the Prime Minister’s promise?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Will the hon. Member acknowledge that, in the history of petitions debates, the two most highly subscribed debates have been on petitions asking for a general election in this Parliament? Does he acknowledge that the fact that both those petitions were signed by more than a million people illustrates huge frustration at the Government and that people want them to change course?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Well over a million people signed this petition, a good proportion of them from my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. They want me to speak on their behalf, and to reiterate that this debate is fundamentally about trust—why? Because trust matters in the relationship between constituents and their MPs—and not only MPs, but the Government of the day. Let me take us back to the last general election, when many Labour Members were knocking on doors in my constituency promising change. They promised that, if they were lucky enough to get into Government, they would not increase taxes on hard-working people, would not raise council tax by a penny, would return to a politics of service and would ultimately deliver a strategy aligned to their manifesto. What have we seen? We have seen rising taxes on working people. Council tax has been raised by 14.99% in my constituency alone in the last two years under Labour-run Bradford council, so that tax is increasing on hard-working people. We have seen betrayals and U-turns, and I will go into a few of them because ultimately that is why so many people—more than a million—have signed this petition. It illustrates the level of frustration out there among the wider population. This is the second petition on this issue that the Petitions Committee has considered. Let us start with the betrayals. Our farmers and family businesses have been impacted by choices this Labour Government have made. Those choices and changes were not indicated before the general election, such as inheritance tax challenges with agricultural property relief and business property relief. We have seen 14 months of huge amounts of anxiety and frustration among our farming community and family businesses, which will now be exposed to an IHT liability of 20%, over and above a rise in the threshold to £2.5 million. That rise only took place at the 11th hour, three days before Christmas, after 14 months of many of those farmers and family businesses raising their concerns. We saw Labour MP after Labour MP go through the voting Lobbies, backing the ambitions of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to increase tax on many of our hard-working farmers. Only one Labour MP had the courage and the backbone to stand up on behalf of his constituents and tell the Chancellor that he did not agree with the proposals she and the Prime Minister had made. All those family businesses, whether in hospitality, brewing, manufacturing or engineering, are being impacted by the IHT changes. I was with the owners of a business that makes furniture in my constituency, who had worked out that their business property relief liability was already about £800,000. They employ 250 people in Keighley, and will be directly impacted by this Labour Government, who—dare I say—said that they would not do this and did not include it in their manifesto. That is a betrayal that this Labour Government has rolled out.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I have to confess that I am not aligned with the detail of that case, but what I do know is that the hon. Gentleman, who represents York Outer—a very rural constituency—and I believe sits on one of the key all-party parliamentary groups for food security, was one of those Labour MPs who voted against the inheritance tax changes that the Conservatives advocated. I am sure the hard-working farmers and family businesses in his constituency will feel a huge amount of frustration that he did not stand with them. Then there is our pub industry. The huge rises in business rates and employer national insurance contributions are hitting many of those hard-working businesses within the hospitality sector and the pub industry. No wonder it is very difficult for a Labour MP to get a pint in a pub, many of which they have been quite rightly asked not to return to. Of course, the rise in employer national insurance contributions is hitting all businesses. I have had many conversations with our hard-working teachers and headteachers, who regularly tell me about the tough choices they face about making teaching assistants redundant because of the rise in employer national insurance contributions. The grant that comes out of central Government to cover the rise covers only about 70% of the increase in costs, so the additional 30% must be covered by the existing school budget. There are also the free school meals and breakfast clubs—but who is paying for them? The schools are, out of their existing budgets. Labour MPs want to roll out the narrative that our constituents are going to receive all these benefits, and of course we want to see those benefits happen, but they must get to grips with the facts of the case. Hard-working hospices now cannot provide end-of-life care and schools cannot roll out education because they are having to make tough choices around paying increased levels of employer national insurance contributions. That betrayal was not in the manifesto.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Obviously I agree that children need to be fed, but I would gently say to the hon. Member, “Be honest with the public.” The Prime Minister promised before the general election that hard-working people would not be taxed. What was then rolled out? A rise in employer national insurance contributions. It is those organisations that provide a public service—our councils, hospices, hospitals, GP practices and schools—that are impacted by that rise, and their budgets have not increased at the same rate as those taxes have. Therefore, the level of service that they are able to roll out is diminished as a result of this Labour Government. Having spoken to many constituents on the doorstep, I know that what angers them the most—the reason they signed this petition—is they have been duped by this Government through promises that did not come through and a strategy that was not in the manifesto. The Government then followed up with the U-turns—crikey, what have we seen this year alone? Inheritance tax changes have been rolled out on our farmers and small businesses—yes, the relief has increased, but it goes nowhere near far enough. The Conservatives believe that the family farm tax and the family business tax should be axed, but the thresholds have simply been tweaked. Then, of course, there is the statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Let us rewind to a year ago: the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we would have five local inquiries into grooming gangs, yet every Labour MP voted against having a national inquiry. It was only as a result of campaigning by the Opposition, as well as by many victims and survivors, that the narrative that we had to have a national inquiry continued. A year later, the Government were brought to the House—dragged to the House—to say that we would be having a national inquiry.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
We have seen it at a national level, and the very same strategy was rolled out across Labour-run Bradford council, where a Conservative group motion was put before the council, urging it to vote for a national inquiry. What did the Labour councillors on Labour-run Bradford council do? They voted against that motion. This gets to the nub of the issue, because it should not be about politics; it should be about the difference between right and wrong. That, I feel, is why so many people have signed the petition. Yet again, this Labour Government—Home Secretary after Home Secretary—have been dragged to the Dispatch Box to carry out a further U-turn.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
The grooming gangs taskforce was rolled out. As an individual, I have been clear; the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse under Theresa May, the Home Secretary at the time, provided a huge number of recommendations, and I have always advocated that they be put into force. But let us look at the timing. The 14 recommendations in the IICSA report—a very detailed report by Professor Alexis Jay—came out in 2022, and an equivalent amount of time has passed since the general election, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) why it is that this Labour Government have not implemented in full even one of those recommendations. That is shameful. There have been further U-turns. The winter fuel allowance has changed. Our pensioners have been hugely negatively impacted by this Labour Government, and we can go on to the two-child benefit cap change and income tax. Labour MPs will say, “Those with the broadest shoulders need to bear the brunt of these choices”—like the Chagos deal, which cost something like £47 million, or the roll-out of digital ID at £1.8 million. But who is paying these bills? Basic rate income tax payers will see their income tax go up by £220 this year. They are not the individuals with the broadest shoulders, but it is these hard-working people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth Valley who will pay for the disastrous decisions that the Government have made in the last 18 months.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I do not agree at all with the basic rate income taxpayer having to pay an additional £220 this year. I do not think the vast majority of the country—including many of my constituents—voted for a tax rise of £64 billion over the last two Budgets to fund things that were not even in the Labour party’s manifesto, such as digital IDs, the Chagos deal and the raising of employer national insurance, which, as I have indicated, has had a huge impact on many of my constituents. The reality is that in areas such as Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oxenhope, Haworth, Stanbury and Oakworth in my constituency, and across the country, people were promised one thing and clearly got another. They have seen chaos and U-turns, and most of all, the effect of Labour’s policies are hitting hard-working people across my constituency. The message to the Government is this: get a grip and start delivering for those hard-working people. Be in no doubt, the public will not forgive, and they will not forget.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I am pleased to hear the hon. Member running through his campaign literature, but does he think it is right that a basic rate income tax payer in his Dartford constituency is paying an additional £220 this year to fund things such as the roll-out of digital ID, which was not in the Labour party’s manifesto, or the £47 billion Chagos deal? Is that the right thing for hard-working constituents in Dartford?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Before the hon. Member moves on, does he recognise the level of frustration there is with the Employment Rights Act 2025? My inbox has been filled with a lot of emails and correspondence from lobby organisations representing those with disabilities and special educational needs. They are frustrated that the Act will make it much more difficult for an employer to take a risk on giving an opportunity to someone with additional challenges or needs, so that there will be much less opportunity for them. Is he proud that the Government are aiming to do that with the Employment Rights Act and are not recognising those challenges?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
That is just not what people in Keighley and Ilkley and across the Worth valley are feeling. Why are the Labour Government increasing the amount of tax that a basic rate taxpayer is paying by another £220 this year? Why is it that Labour-run Bradford council has tried to increase council tax by 14.99% this year? On top of that, the Government are making decisions that were not in their manifesto, such as rolling out digital ID at a cost of £1.8 billon or the £47 billion Chagos deal. Those are things that the Government are doing beyond their manifesto promises, but which they are taxing hard-working people across Keighley for.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Can the Minister explain how we ended up in the bizarre scenario in which two estates—I use the term “estates”, because they need not necessarily be farming businesses; they could be any kind of family business estate—valued at £5 million could generate different amounts of tax for the Treasury, depending on the ownership structure? Secondly, can he explain, because I cannot see this in the amendments that have been tabled, why there is no indexation link to any increase? Obviously, land values will increase over time. Thirdly, when he was last at the Dispatch Box, he said that interest would not be charged, so can he clarify whether, when inheritance tax liability is triggered, interest is or is not triggered in that 10-year period?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
On practicalities, I would be interested to understand whether the Minister or the Treasury has done any analysis of the impact on the district valuer. There is a real challenge in that when a farm is valued, that value will be disputed by either the Treasury or the agent acting on behalf of the landowner with that tax liability. Secondly, if we look at two farms in different parts of the country, we see that values vary dramatically. What consideration does my hon. Friend think the Treasury has given to how tax liability varies based on the value of 200 acres of land in one part of the country and 200 acres valued at a higher rate, such as in Northern Ireland? Practicalities matter.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I will speak to clause 62, schedule 12 and the amendments to them tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers. Throughout debate on the Finance Bill, we have heard about the changes to inheritance tax, predominantly in relation to the agricultural and business property reliefs. My comments refer not only to the many family farming businesses affected by the Government’s changes, but to many other family businesses, be they hospitality or manufacturing businesses, including in my Keighley constituency. They are all affected by the direction that the Labour Government are taking. The changes that the Government have brought to the Committee do not get rid of the cliff edge associated with the measure kicking in a few months from now in April. Changing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million does not remove that cliff edge for a family business that has an IHT liability kicking in. I would like the Minister to explain further why the Government are not addressing that stark cliff edge, even though Members from all Opposition parties have reiterated that problem to the Government over the past 14 months. The second matter I will raise is the absolutely bizarre and bonkers scenario that we find ourselves in. Two estates valued at £5 million could be subject to different tax liabilities depending on the ownership structure. How bizarre is it that we now find ourselves in a scenario in which an estate valued at over and above £2.5 million and owned by a single person could be subject to an IHT liability of 20%, but a farm valued at £5 million and owned by a married couple is subject to no IHT liability at all? I would like further explanation from the Minister on that specific point. Of course, values vary dramatically across the country. In Northern Ireland, where most farmland assets are given very high valuations, farms of 200 acres, say, could be valued significantly more or less in different parts of the country, so they would be subject to different tax liabilities if they surpassed the £2.5 million and £5 million thresholds, depending on their ownership structures. Let us not forget that, for arable farmers, feed wheat prices have not changed dramatically over the past 20 years—they still average about the same—but input prices are going up, no thanks to this Government’s raising of employer national insurance contributions and imposition of the fertiliser tax. In reality, the productivity and return rate for a farming business, if it breaks even at all, is about 1%. Those with asset base that is valued significantly higher will be subject to a higher tax liability, and they will have to sell off more assets to pay the same amount, despite their level of return being 1%, if that. That is different from a farm that has been valued at a much lower rate. Will the Minister explain what level of detail the Government have gone into to explore such challenges that are facing many farming businesses?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
The hon. Lady has mentioned, I think two or three times, that it will be possible for the ultra-wealthy to be exposed to the inheritance tax liability. However, having a huge asset base that may be worth a great deal of money does not mean having a good income. A business could have a cash flow that is not generating any revenue to keep that business going. Is she classifying businesses and farming families in her constituency who might have an asset base of over £1 million as very wealthy people?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I hope that the Minister will answer my question, which I have asked twice in this debate, about indexation and the scenario in which two estates valued at £5 million are subject to different IHT liabilities depending on their ownership structures. Given that this issue is so important, not only to our farming community but to family businesses more broadly, why on earth did the Chancellor not announce this change at the Budget? It seems very peculiar to make a big fiscal change outside of a Budget announcement.
- Hansard source
New Homes
With a new year often come new year’s resolutions. Will the Secretary of State make a new year’s resolution to accept the truth that the Government will not meet their 1.5 million housing target, which he set out? Will he confirm that he still thinks his job is on the line if he does not achieve that? Huge focus has been placed on rural areas with no infrastructure, but cities—often Labour cities—have been left off the hook, so will he commit to changing the formula to make it fairer and, more importantly, more deliverable?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that these tax rises are damaging to our middle earners? The number of people who are being dragged into taxation—essentially, a fiscal drag—will increase from 15% in 2010 to 24% by 2030. Does he agree that that is bad for the economy?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Order. I have no desire to intervene on the hon. Member—“Would the hon. Member like to intervene?”