Call for General Election
The hon. Lady is giving a list of her Government’s achievements in Portsmouth North. In her constituency, youth unemployment is up. Will she add that to the list as well?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
The intention of my intervention was to be helpful. The unemployment rate among young people in Dartford has gone up 11% in the past year as a direct consequence of decisions that the hon. Gentleman’s Government are making. What does he say to young people who are having job opportunities taken away from them?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
As the hon. Member will know, there is wide speculation in the Scottish press about a plot among Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. Labour MPs are quoted as describing the Prime Minister as “terrible”, “incompetent”, “mind-blowingly stupid”, and saying they are going to get “slaughtered” in the Scottish Parliament elections. Is the hon. Member part of that plot?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
The Minister is in danger of falling into the same trap that the Government did in their formal response to the petition, in that she is telling people that they should be grateful—“We’re doing all these things. You should be grateful.” People in my constituency do not feel grateful; they feel betrayed by a catalogue of broken promises.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I reassure colleagues that I will not detain them for too much longer. I have to start by thanking the over 1 million people across the UK who signed this important petition, as well as all right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate. Let us be in no doubt; those 1 million people feel very strongly about this issue and the failure of the Government. I particularly thank my Conservative colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—for their excellent speeches that spoke to the nub of our constituents’ concerns. As for the Labour MPs who bothered to turn up to defend their Government’s record, I do not know what sweeties they were being offered to come along tonight. I will give the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) his dues; he got the tone just right, recognising that people out there have big concerns about what is going on with not just this Government but politics generally. While I think he spoke to those concerns, I do not know what he would say to the extra 15% of young people in his constituency who are currently without work because of his Government’s policies. As he will know, youth unemployment is up across the whole United Kingdom, and 15% in his seat. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) got the tone completely wrong and misjudged the moment. I look forward to him bumping into one of his constituents who might have signed the petition this coming weekend, as we will all be out and about in our constituencies. Many Labour Members spoke about how this is a listening Government, which is why they have done so many U-turns. However, I am afraid that does not really wash; it forgets the worry, uncertainty and fear that come while these policies are being implemented. The family farm tax is one such example, and the winter fuel payment is another. Many pubs and other businesses are terrified and unsure about how they are going to pay the higher rates and taxes. Yes, the U-turn may come eventually, but if there are months and months, or weeks and weeks, when people face the prospect of that change, that causes a lot of anxiety. Sadly, many farmers—I suspect this is why the Prime Minister ultimately had to intervene—are no longer here to see the benefit of the U-turn. The reality is that taxes have gone up, despite the Prime Minister saying that they would not before the election. The benefits bill is going up more, and hard-working people are having to pay for it, again despite what the Prime Minister said before the election. There is a real sense of betrayal out there. I think that Labour Members, in the deepest part of their souls, also understand that, despite what they have said today. I am very grateful to everybody who has participated, and I hope that the 1 million people who signed the petition—as well as the 3 million or 4 million who have signed other petitions on this issue—feel that they have had their voices heard today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 727309 relating to a general election.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
As the hon. Gentleman’s constituency neighbour, representing a similarly rural constituency, I know how strongly farmers on my side of the border feel—like farmers on his side. The word “betrayal” comes up time and again among my local farmers. The Labour party said that it would not introduce this tax, and then it did. Does he now regret not following the lead of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who did the right thing by rebelling against the policy?
- Hansard source
Leasehold Reform
Just before Christmas, Mr Rahman, a leaseholder in a Taylor Wimpey property, came to see me. There are 100 years remaining on his lease and a modest ground rent, but he cannot secure a sale because Taylor Wimpey will not agree to a reasonable deed of variation in relation to the ground rent provisions. He has incurred costs of upwards of £5,000 and is basically stuck in his property, so I would be very grateful if the Minister could look at this case—I have written to him—and see whether his plans will address this poor individual’s circumstances.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that this was a tax on the rich because 20% of dividends are paid to the richest 1% of people in this country, but that means that 80% are not. Does he not accept that dividends are right at the heart of the savings culture in this country and that if we tax them, we will get less savings?
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on tabling this urgent question. It was a real pleasure to visit the Leonardo factory last September and witness how critical it is to employment in his constituency. Visiting the factory, one gets a powerful sense of Britain’s rotary history, but we want it to have a brilliant future too. That is why it is so worrying that the CEO of Leonardo recently warned that at least 3,300 jobs could be at risk if the NMH procurement does not go ahead. It was with those jobs in mind that when I announced the formal tender of the new medium helicopter as Defence Procurement Minister in February 2024, I took the decision to give a much stronger weighting to two key areas of the tender: first, the commitment of bidders to delivering high-skilled rotary work in the UK; and secondly, exportability, so that the supply chain could endure. All that will count for nothing if the procurement is cancelled. Can the Minister confirm whether there is still a military requirement for NMH? If so, is he still committed to procuring NMH? After all, when I asked the question last April, I was told I would get the answer in the strategic defence review, but the SDR document never mentioned NMH at all. Instead, when the Secretary of State announced the SDR to Parliament last June, he said that the detailed decisions would be covered in the defence investment plan, which he said then would be published in the autumn of 2025. Given that it is now 2026, and that promise has clearly been broken, can the Minister tell us in which month he will finally publish the DIP? Can he confirm reports from multiple sources that the reason the DIP is delayed is that there is now a £28 billion black hole in the MOD budget? Finally, the Budget Red Book shows exactly what Labour will spend on removing the two-child benefit cap right up to 2031, but does not say what the defence budget will be that year. Can the Minister tell us? Is the reality not that by prioritising welfare over going to 3% on defence this Parliament, Labour are paralysing decision making in the Ministry of Defence and putting thousands of jobs at risk in our defence industry at Yeovil and across the UK?
- Hansard source
Water Supplies: East Grinstead
I offer the hon. Lady my condolences on the loss of her father. About 5,000 homes in my constituency were without water this weekend. That on its own is bad enough, but then we have how South East Water responded—failing to deliver water to vulnerable people; sending elderly residents on a two-hour round trip to get bottled water, sometimes only to find that there was no water left; and ignoring the pleas from livestock owners for water for horses and other animals. This is a disgrace, and not for the first time. The chief executive of South East Water has shown us he is not up to the job. I urge the hon. Lady to use all and any powers she has to move him on and to get South East Water to appoint somebody who is up to the job.
- Hansard source
Water Supplies: East Grinstead
I have no confidence whatsoever in South East Water. I have worked with it now for nearly 15 years. When things go wrong, and they often do in Kent and Sussex, its communication methods are absolutely atrocious: too little, too late and often very confusing. Often, all someone wants is to know when they can put the kettle back on or get in the shower. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), who has worked extremely hard with the Minister on this matter, instructed that MPs be given two-hourly direct updates. That has not happened. She also instructed that a water station should be opened in Loose in my constituency, where over 2,000 people have been without water. That has also not happened. South East Water is not fit for purpose. Its leadership team is inadequate. It is out of its depth. I hope the Minister agrees that serious changes must be made, including the removal of the CEO, David Hinton.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
It has been many, many months since the agricultural property relief and business property relief changes were first announced by this Government. In that time, they have had so many representations from farmers, the farming industry, small business groups, family business groups, Members of this House, industry sectors, the National Farmers Union Scotland, the Country Land and Business Association, Scottish Land & Estates, Labour Back Benchers, Opposition Back Benchers and the public at large. Everyone was telling the Government that this was a bad policy. Why did it take them so long to change it?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The local government settlement strips £27 million from East Riding of Yorkshire council. I learned today that there will be an additional £21 million cost over the next three years from the minimum wage and the jobs tax. Does the Minister really think it is acceptable that local residents should have sky-high council tax rises and falling quality of services?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I wish to speak, on behalf of the official Opposition, to new clauses 10 to 12, which are in my name, but first, I want to set the scene on clauses 1 to 8.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I agree. We are trying to create a savings culture. We are trying to get people to take responsibility, and to put their income away for a rainy day and for their retirement. As I will go on to say, the Opposition’s position is that the Bill does not achieve that; in fact, it does the very opposite. As I was saying, clause 4 increases the ordinary and upper rates of income tax charged on dividend income by 2%, a fact the Minister seemed to miss out in his opening remarks. The income tax rate hike will apply from the tax year 2026-27. Clause 5 sets the savings rate of income tax for the tax year 2027-28 two percentage points higher than it is this year, and than the rate set in the Bill for 2026-27.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says. He is right that there is a point at which you overtax risk and enterprise, and people stop taking risk and stop being enterprising. The trick in the Treasury is to ensure that the Government can raise enough revenue from a broad base of different taxes to pay for public services. [Interruption.] They need to try to achieve growth, not overtax growth and growth activity. They should incentivise it through other means. I completely agree with him on that point. I was talking about the increase in tax on dividend income and savings. Together, clauses 4 and 5 will have significant consequences, not just for those who take risks, but for household savers and pensioners, as well as investors in the companies that my right hon. Friend describes. In fact, Hargreaves Lansdown described clause 5 as a “shocking tax rise” for savers. The measures will combine with the Chancellor’s cut to the allowances for individual savings accounts—in the Bill, there is a double whammy tax on savers. It treats saving less like a virtue to be encouraged, and more like a habit to be discouraged. We believe that will have a big impact on savings culture and the financial reality of people across the country. That is why new clause 11 calls for the Chancellor to come to the House to make a statement setting out the impact that the onslaught of this savers’ tax hike will have on all British savers and pensioners. It is not just savers who are impacted by the Bill. Small and medium-sized businesses are, as we were just discussing, the engine of growth up and down the country, in every constituency. They provide 60% of employment. They will feel the pain from these changes. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that through clause 4, the Government continue to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money. Many entrepreneurs and business owners choose to pay themselves part of their income in the form of dividends. For many years, dividend tax rates have been set below the main rate, not by accident or ideology, but to reflect the fact that dividend income is paid out of profits that have already been taxed through corporation tax. I am afraid that even the largest businesses, never mind small and medium-sized enterprises, are not safe. Literally as soon as the Chancellor announced the changes in clause 4, investment managers were warning that the change completely contradicts the Government’s stated desire to encourage more investors to hold UK equities—many of which, by the way, are pretty good income-paying stocks. International investors come to the UK to buy dividend-yielding stocks, yet these measures will discourage that even further.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My hon. Friend touches on an important point. What is this for? People know that they have to pay tax. We may disagree on who pays tax and how much, but ultimately, where is the money going? It is going to the surrender of the Chagos islands. It is used to pay public sector workers eyewatering sums, only for them go on strike again. The hard bit for the general public is understanding where on earth all the money that is being raised by record tax hikes is actually going. That is what the Minister needs to be held to account for today. No explanation has been made. We are not in covid times; we are not in times of great crisis. This money is being raised because Labour is in trouble and in the pocket of the unions. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. New clause 10 includes further assessments specifically on domestic equity markets and institutional investors. This will have a negative drag effect on the international climate as it relates to getting more investment in UK equities from institutional investors. Finally, clauses 6 to 8 and schedules 1 and 2 introduce new rates of income tax altogether, this time on property income. Again, those rates are to be set for the tax year 2027-28 at two percentage points higher than the main rate of income tax. Government Members may take great satisfaction in what could be described as a war on landlords, but we should pause and remind ourselves who many landlords are. They are not barons or vast landowners; they are ordinary people doing what we have encouraged them to do for decades: taking responsibility for their future. They are the couple—one parent works long hours in a steady job, and the other juggles work and family life—who save carefully and invest in a small property because they know that the state pension alone might not be enough when they retire. They are the retired couple who inherit a modest flat from their parents—a flat that is not a windfall, but a source of security in later life—and who rent it out to supplement a fixed income. These are not people gaming the system, as many Labour Members have tried to suggest in the past, but people responding to it. They are good people. Forty-four of them are Labour MPs. This new tax does not just hit landlords, though; it hits renters, too. The British Property Federation and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility have both warned that this measure could restrict the supply of private rental properties, adding pressure to an already strained market. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Residential Landlords Association both say that rents will rise faster as a direct result of the Bill. New clause 12 in my name seeks to force the Government not to rely on their stereotypes about landlords, but to assess the impact of their new renters’ tax on both the supply and cost of private rental properties. In summary, these clauses represent a new front in Labour’s war on the middle class and aspirational households in Grantham and Bourne, Chipping Barnet and across the country. These clauses impose not one, not two but three income tax rises on the British public, totalling more than £5.5 billion. This is not a plan for change; it is a savers’ tax onslaught, carefully phrased, politely worded and deeply felt—the same old Labour.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I wish to speak to new clauses 13 to 15, which are in my name, but first I will cover what the clauses in this group mean for British taxpayers. If you will forgive me, Madam Chair, I will do so slightly out of numerical order. Clause 9 sets the starting rate limit for savings for tax years 2026-27 to 2030-31, keeping it fixed at £5,000. That is an important allowance for so many with relatively low incomes, including those who work part-time or are retired. Clause 69 fixes the various inheritance tax thresholds at their current level for a further tax year, 2030-31. Clause 10 freezes the basic rate limit for income tax at £37,700, and sets the personal allowance at £12,570 for tax years 2028-29, 2029-30, and 2030-31. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Labour Government’s freeze to income tax thresholds will raise around £7.6 billion in 2029-30 alone, and more than £12 billion in 2030-31. This is a £23 billion tax rise; clause 10 alone is a £23 billion broken promise. The OBR is clear: 920,000 more people will be pushed into the higher rate, and 780,000 more people will be pushed into income tax altogether. We have already heard the Minister try to explain away Labour’s breach of the promises that it made to the British people. The best the Chancellor can manage is to say that it is not her fault, because she was very clear in the small print—a technicality dressed up as an excuse. But people are not stupid. It would not be quite so embarrassing if the Chancellor herself had not proclaimed so theatrically in her first disastrous Budget that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. Yet here we are, and it is no surprise that the Prime Minister is breaking records for unpopularity. New clause 13 would ensure that the Government undertook an assessment of the impact of clause 10 on the average earner, because we all know that working people will be hurt very badly by this clause.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will not ask me why we froze the threshold, because he will know that we did so under tremendous pressure, given the covid pandemic and the debt that we accrued in the economy. We are in a very different scenario now. I am sure that is not what he is going to ask.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but as the spokesperson for the official Opposition, I speak on behalf of millions of people who were told that this would not happen, and who voted for a party that told them that it would not be increasing taxes on working people. The Chancellor repeated that claim at the Dispatch Box just a year ago, but then went back on it, which is unacceptable. Whether I agree with it does not matter; we have to represent the millions of people who were frankly let down and misled by this Government. That is our job—to hold the Government to account for breaking that promise, and for where the money is going. I ask the Government: what is this about? Is it about giving up sovereignty—giving up the Chagos islands—or paying off public sector unions, only for them to go on strike once again? There are two issues here. First, the public were told that this would not happen. Secondly, now that it is happening, the Labour party—the Government—is spending that money recklessly. That is unacceptable, and it is the job of the official Opposition to hold the Government to account. Finally, there is an elephant in the room. From April 2026, the state pension rises by 4.8%. The new state pension will sit below the personal allowance next year, but that changes in 2027-28, when, for the first time, people whose only income is the state pension will be dragged into paying income tax. The Chancellor, when challenged on this after the Budget, said that she will protect pensioners from paying small amounts of tax, and the Minister just repeated that. Fine, but where is it? It is not in the Bill. It is not in clause 10, or anywhere in the 535 pages of the Bill. As far as I can see, it has not even been costed. I have two straightforward questions for the Minister: what is the Treasury’s assessed cost of that promise, and how will it be delivered in practice?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I want to ask the Minister, as he does, how this will be delivered. What is the definition of what the Chancellor has described, albeit to the media? How will this work, and why is it not in the Bill? We know that when the Government have spoken before, they have not stuck to it.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Exactly. I have nothing to add to that; the right hon. Gentleman puts it perfectly. New clause 14 would require a proper assessment of clause 10’s impact on state pensioners, and new clause 15 would require an assessment of the cost of the Chancellor’s so-called exemption from small amounts of tax—let her define that in a piece of legislation; I do not think she will be able to. Clause 10 is simple: another Labour tax promise has been broken and pensioners will pay the price. I hope that Members from across the Committee can see that and that they will vote with the official Opposition tonight.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I wish to speak to amendments 3 to 23 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). By now we all know what clause 62 and schedule 12 do: they would restrict agricultural property relief and business property relief to 100% of the first £1 million of qualifying assets and 50% thereafter—though I note that this legislation was written before the recent announcement, which I will obviously come on to. Members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party will fiercely oppose Labour’s family farm tax and family business tax in the Lobby today, just as we have since these policies were announced. We must first face the reality of the sheer number of Labour MPs intent on punishing those who dare to feed us, or who take a risk to build their own business. Our amendments seek to mitigate at least some of the damage by removing the anti-forestalling measures that have purposely tied the hands of so many farmers and business owners across our country. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and many others have pointed out that these measures particularly trap more elderly farmers, who have been robbed of their ability to plan. The Government have said all along that they expect farmers and business owners to alter the ownership structure of their assets. I would be really interested to hear just how the Minister believes that elderly farmers, in particular those in the final few years of their life, should do that. Before I turn to the other issues, I note that the amendment paper tells its own story: Government amendment after Government amendment, each one a U-turn and a rushed attempt to bury the incompetence, indifference and hostility that this Labour Government have shown to family farms, tenant farmers, rural communities and family businesses. I ask respectfully of the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked earlier, why it has taken the Treasury more than a year to admit that it got this wrong. Why have farmers been forced to leave their fields and bring their tractors to Whitehall, just to be heard? I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who gave this House five chances before today to vote against these changes. The Government had ample opportunity, but here we are. We know that their partial U-turn will not be enough. The Country Land and Business Association has been very clear that it will only limit the damage. Many serious questions and concerns remain on the impact of clause 62, but I will highlight just three. First, from the very start the Government’s numbers have been, at best, questionable. The Treasury has disagreed with the CLA and others on how many farmers and businesses will actually be affected. Even after the partial U-turn, HMRC expects 1,100 estates to face larger inheritance tax bills in 2026-27, 185 of which will be claiming APR. Yet the experience of many Members, from speaking to farmers and businesses in our constituencies, and that of several industry bodies is that that figure is massively wide of the mark.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has engaged extensively with farmers and those who represent farmers. The reason I am raising this point now is because the numbers are questionable—and not just on who is impacted by the measures but the net revenue to the Exchequer too. Some have suggested that the changes in clause 62 may even end up costing the Exchequer. While the OBR has forecast that £500 million will be raised through clause 62 in 2029-30, the Confederation of British Industry’s analysis suggests instead a net loss to the Government of some £1.9 billion over the forecast period because of the impact that clause 62 will have on the wider economy.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I completely agree. We would not be doing this, and we should not be here, but clearly the policy has been executed without a plan—without serious thought, analysis or engagement. I would welcome anything that the Government can do to make this less painful for those affected and to get the numbers right. The Minister explained that the Government expect to raise around £300 million even with the U-turn, but the initial costing was labelled in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook as “highly uncertain”. For those not familiar with this, there are different categories of uncertainty in the EFO, and “highly uncertain” is the most uncertain that one can be about a figure. Surely this new figure of £300 million is uncertain, just as the £500 million was. What assurance can the Minister provide that the Exchequer will not in fact lose out overall, despite the pain that the Government are determined to inflict? How confident is he in these numbers? Secondly, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, family businesses and farmers have had to make many difficult decisions. Family Business UK and Make UK say that 55% of BPR-affected and 49% of APR-affected businesses have paused or cancelled investments. Family-run farms are putting off the purchase of new, more efficient machinery and family-run shops no longer see the point of expanding to an additional site or another high street, or of taking on more staff. It comes back to the questionable figures I talked about and the CBI’s analysis of the impact on the wider economy. Finally, we should have no confidence in the practicality of the measures before us. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that extending 10 annual interest-free instalments to APR and BPR property does not solve the problem; those instalments will still be a significant burden. In practice, it is unlikely that many families will be able to pay the tax without selling up.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
That is exactly right. I will let the Minister address that point, but let me pay tribute again to my hon. Friend, who has been a forceful champion for farmers across the country and has consistently raised these issues. That goes back to my point about the warnings provided to the Government about the practical implications of the changes, with their impact on family farms in particular. They were ignored until this point. The Minister will have to explain why that was. Indeed, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that schedule 12’s failure to allow allowances to be allocated to specific property could undermine many wills as currently drafted. This creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, disputes and real hardship. Where the cap is exceeded, the first inheritance tax payment will fall just six months after death. If that deadline is missed, the estate will be hit with a punishing interest rate. Within six months, family farms must secure probate, value complex agricultural and business assets, calculate the liability and then raise the cash—often by selling parts of the estate to make the first payment. The NFU has been clear that expecting probate within six months is “unrealistic” given the complexity of valuing agricultural businesses, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In practice, families and personal representatives will miss the deadline—through no fault of their own—without a confirmed tax bill and without the funds to pay for it. The Government’s expectation is simply unrealistic. The approach is flawed, and the window must be extended. If clause 62 is agreed to and the Government do not finally concede, family farmers and businesses in my community of Lincolnshire and those across the country will not rest until these changes are fully reversed. The only consolation I can offer farmers and businesses watching the votes closely tonight—they will be watching every single one—is that the next Conservative Government will scrap these immoral changes.
- Hansard source
House Building: London
At the outset of the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), one could be forgiven for thinking that we had an entirely new Mayor of London. In fact, this year we celebrate, or perhaps more appropriately commiserate, a decade of Sadiq Khan’s tenure as London Mayor. In that decade, in the most prosperous city in Europe, Sadiq Khan has overseen not just stalling but consistently falling rates of private construction starts. Recent figures from Molior show that London began building just 3,248 new homes in the first nine months of 2025, leaving it on track to start building fewer than 5,000 in total in 2025. Incredibly, the Government’s response has been to cut their floundering mayor’s housing targets by 11%, but skyrocket targets in outer London authorities, where the vast majority of greenbelt land is. That includes an increase of almost 400% compared with previously approved London planning targets in my local council area of Bromley. Will the Secretary of State please explain why people living in places such as Bromley and our local greenbelt must pay the price for Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure and uselessness?
- Hansard source
House Building: London
What the Secretary of State did not say is that local boroughs are not in charge of building out planning consents, and he did not acknowledge that London boroughs are subject to the London plan. The Secretary of State claims that he is working with the Mayor of London, who writes the London plan, to build more homes, but unlike the Secretary of State, the facts do not heed the mayor’s spin. According to Molior, there were just 3,950 new homes sold in London during the first half of 2025 and just 3,248 private housing starts in the first nine months of 2025, against a nine month target of 66,000. The Secretary of State said last year that his own job should be on the line if he fails to meet his housing targets, so why does he not practise what he preaches, do Londoners a favour and tell sorry Sadiq to pack his bags over his decade of failure?
- Hansard source
Water Supplies: East Grinstead
May I, from this side of the House, offer my sincere condolences to the Minister and her family for their sad loss? Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). The shortage of water supplies in Sussex and Kent continues to have terrible impacts on local communities. Tens of thousands of homes have been without a water supply, schools and libraries are shut, businesses—in particular, hospitality businesses—have had to close their doors, farmers and horse owners fear not having enough water for their livestock, and some hospital appointments are being moved online. This is simply not good enough from South East Water, especially given its repeated failures, and given that this is the second major incident in a matter of weeks. I understand the distress, anger and, frankly, exhaustion that many in the local area feel. They need clear communication, rapid action now and reassurance for the future, yet we have heard from my Conservative colleagues in Kent and Sussex repeated accounts of poor communication and logistics from South East Water, including bulk sharing issues with Southern Water. We have been told that constituents have travelled to and queued at vital bottle collection points, only to find that no water has been delivered. Can the Minister confirm when the thousands of households affected by the shortage can expect their service to be restored to normal, and can she provide guidance on what is being done to ensure that homes can access adequate supplies, particularly vulnerable households in more isolated areas, where travelling to bottle collection points is not feasible? When will schools reopen, and what is being done to ensure that GP surgeries and hospitals can deliver their appointments and care? What measures have been put in place so that farmers and horse owners have enough water for their animals? Finally, given the Cunliffe review’s focus on ensuring water supply, can the Government confirm what they will take forward from that review to address this as a structural issue, to ensure supply and consumer confidence for the long term?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T7. The Government insist on forcing through local government reorganisation when there is no agreement in Leicestershire. There are three different plans ahead. One thing that Leicestershire does agree on is no expansion of Leicester city. Will the Minister put that to the test and have a referendum on it, so that the people of Leicestershire can show the Government just how much they do not want the city expansion?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
indicated dissent.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
When the Chancellor looked at these measures for her first Budget, she said that they would breach her manifesto commitments. Does the Minister believe that they breach the manifesto commitments?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
The other point is: what is a small tax? What is the definition? Are we talking about £100, or £1,000? The Government have not even set that out. The Chancellor has just come up with a term that we have no reference for, no use for, and no understanding of when setting tax policy for this country.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
It is a shame that the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) is not still in the Chamber, because he hit the nail on the head. He asked the question that I am keen to get answered and that is the reason why I have come to this debate. It is about the freezing of the thresholds and what the impacts will be on pensioners. I too am worried about pensioners suddenly being brought in to pay tax and having to do a tax return. I am glad that the Minister saw the interview with Martin Lewis, because the Chancellor was very clear, so he has to try to answer the questions. When Martin Lewis put this case to the Chancellor, she said: “If you just have a state pension…we are not going to make you fill in a tax return” at any time. That is great, but how does that work? What does it look like? Where is that written down? The Chancellor went on to say: “In this parliament, they won’t have to pay the tax…we’re looking at a simple workaround at the moment.” That was back in November, so my curiosity was pricked to think, “Maybe it will be in the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee.” Yet, as pointed out by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), the Bill has 535 pages, and there is no answer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Minister on behalf of my constituents how he will answer that question. What is the workaround in play? If it is there, we should like to see it. Is there an impact assessment that goes with it to help us to understand whether people will have to do a tax return? How many people will have to do a tax return? If they will not have to do a tax return, how will we know whether they need to pay the tax? Will it simply be part of PAYE? That is a solution; it could be moved, and adjustments are already made. Will we simply say that it is an easement and write it off? We then get to the problem of the Chancellor talking about small tax. We have no definition of what small tax looks like. This Government’s definition of it is as close to a definition as their definition of “working people” is, and we all know what the definition of “working people” is under this Government—well, actually, we do not, and that is the problem. I am here asking the question on behalf of my constituents: what does the workaround look like? How will it take place? How will it affect my constituents? That is why I support new clause 15, which would go at least part of the way to understanding the assessment of this decision taken by the Government, but I appreciate that that is outside of the Bill. If the Government turn around and say that they do not need to do primary legislation—the best protection for my pensioners—the Minister can find another way to do it, but I look forward to hearing what that will look like in statements to the House.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I know that my right hon. Friend has been a stalwart in making that point. That leads on to the wider point of thinking about social care and how we will fund it. These sticky points are really important, so we need to ensure that we have this debate. The fact is that we are dealing with the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee. When the Government are making these choices, I am really keen to try to understand the direct impact they will have on my constituents. At the last general election, the last Government—now the Opposition—had a solution in our manifesto to deal with this issue, which was the “triple lock plus”. That would have negated the issue at source. There is a ready-made solution if the Government would like to go for it, but I understand the difficulties of the associated cost, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has pointed out. That brings us full circle to where the hon. Member for Poole started. How exactly are we going to solve this issue for pensioners? Do the Government just need to be up front with them and say that they will have to do a tax return? Will they be pulled into this tax? If they will not, how?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am about the fact that plan 2 student loans seem to be particularly impacted by the thresholds? I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the way in which people will have to make their repayments.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I think the Chancellor knows that, given her statement at the first Budget that changing the thresholds would be a tax on working people.