5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The hon. Lady is being generous with interventions; I thank her for that. To bring her back to stamp duty land tax, the average house price in her constituency is over £1 million. [Interruption.] I have not quite finished. Her constituents are the precise people who would benefit from this saving. Does she not think that they would welcome the abolition of this tax?
Is that not the fundamental point, and why the comments made earlier about downsizing are so important? This tax stops people downsizing, which means that people are not moving out and not freeing up the houses that young people could and should be moving into.
What has surprised me about this debate is that several Labour Members have seemed to agree that this stamp duty proposal would be a good thing to do, and, as far as I can tell, every commentator on the property market and economics has said the same thing, and yet the Government just do not seem to want to do it.
I would urge the hon. Gentleman not to misquote the two right hon. Members that he has just quoted. Even if the quotes that he gave were whole and full—which they are not—the DPP has categorically said that it was not about policy; it was about whether China was an actual threat at the time. Is the DPP right, or does the hon. Gentleman have some other information?
The Minister is always generous with his time and always has a smile, which is a welcome thing in this Chamber. Government spending this year is approaching £1,300 billion, but Ministers could not save £5 billion because of their own Back Benchers. Is it his complete failure to make even the smallest savings on that monumental budget that makes him find it impossible to believe that others would have the will to do so?
I must say that I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. For once, he is not purely engaging in the “14 years of failure” rhetoric of the Labour party. He recognises that stamp duty is a bad tax, and he says that we need a proper, joined-up and deeply-thought-through approach to getting rid of it. Is he pledging to lead such an operation in the Labour party? Given that for the next four years there will be 400-plus Labour MPs, the debate within his party is more important than the one within ours.
The hon. Gentleman is giving a brilliant speech, I must say, and given the energy that he is bringing to it, it “Smells Like Teen Spirit” to me. I agree with most of the points that he made about council tax. It is outrageous what we see when we compare the tax on a small flat in Beverley with that on a multimillion-pound apartment in Westminster. Does he recognise that the cut in business property relief will impose huge costs on businesses, such as house builders, one of which I met last week? If that business was worth £100 million, say, on the death of the owner, the tax would be £20 million, and the person inheriting the business would have to extract £40 million in order to pay it. That house builder told me that for every £40 million taken out of the business, there would be £120 million of investment not made in housing. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a real problem?
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I think the quality of contributions from both sides has been excellent—which has not always been the case over recent months. No one in Beverley and Holderness likes paying stamp duty—not first-time buyers in Beverley and not grandparents seeking to downsize in Hedon. Of course, as we know, it is not even popular with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Stamp duty was first introduced in 1694 to fund our war against the French. While we may have our differences with our friends across the channel, when I checked this morning, I was pleased to find that we are not currently at war with France. What began as a temporary wartime measure—raising £91,206, 10 shillings and fourpence in 1702—has become a permanent tax. But it is more than just a tax; it is a barrier to opportunity for young couples in Sproatley in my constituency, an impediment to aspiration in Aldbrough, and a block on families in Withernsea trying to climb the property ladder. We, the Conservative party, have always been the party of opportunity, of home ownership and of family aspiration. That is why, at the next election, we will abolish this three-century-old tax. There have been welcoming signs that I did not expect to hear today: too often, colleagues on the Government Benches just slavishly repeat their speaking points, but we have heard thoughtful speeches and a recognition that stamp duty is a harmful tax. They may question our way of implementing the policy, but they recognise that. We will abolish this three-century-old tax and unlock the housing market in Beverley and Holderness—and beyond. I encourage the Chancellor, and colleagues behind her, to follow our lead.
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I may have misheard, so will he clarify for the benefit of the House? At the beginning of his remarks, I thought that he said that this was a very bad tax and that it was harmful, but then, as only a Lib Dem could, he proceeded to argue strongly in its favour. Will he help me out, because I am not following the line of his argument?
May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about the dynamic market that we need? People in south-east England may be thinking of moving to, for instance, Beverley and Holderness to take up a job, but may be put off by the costs involved, and the risk that they are taking in moving to an area where there may be only that one job for them, and no other jobs to compete with it. So they do not make that move, and we do not benefit from their input into a business in Beverley and Holderness, purely because of the dampening effects of this tax. They stay in the south-east, although they, the country and Beverley and Holderness would be better off if only they were incentivised to move and take a chance.
I would like to proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I wonder if there is anything the Chair can do to help the Minister. She appeared unaware that her own Government, for whom she is a Treasury Minister, have brought us to the highest ever level of tax in this country.
Just to be clear, does the Minister agree that this is a bad tax? Would she, in a perfect world, seek to find ways of controlling public expenditure so that the tax could be removed and people across the country—first-time buyers and the elderly in particular—could benefit from that?
This stamp duty policy will help to lubricate the system, but my right hon. Friend is talking about putting the houses in the right places. Does he agree that this Government really do need to follow through on that? They have to prioritise brownfield sites and stop bringing in policies that will rip up the green belt, which represents the heart and lungs of areas such as mine.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the study by Jackson-Stops, which looked at people aged 55 and over to see how much abolishing stamp duty would help to move the market along? The study estimated that in the first year, abolishing the tax would allow 500,000 people to downsize to free up homes for families, and in the second year, 1.4 million. Stamp duty is a real blocker. Does he agree that that study shows the power of this policy?
Another term for austerity is “living within your means”. That is what the British public understand, and that is the point we are trying to make in this debate. When the Government have needed to make difficult decisions, they have fallen short. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not living within their means?
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson is making some excellent points. Will she therefore support the motion?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that when supply is tight, if we allow people to move more easily, the right people will be in the homes that are right for their time of life? An elderly couple in a five-bedroom house will make the choice to downsize, while a family can upsize to the right house. When supply is tight, that fits much better for us as a society.
A really important issue, especially for elderly people who are caught in a large home, is social care. We need to make sure that healthcare and support is there as people get older. If they find themselves trapped in a large house, how do we make sure that it is modified? That has an additional cost, which is often lost. Does my hon. Friend agree that freeing up such people to move offers them the benefit of saving money?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the biggest concerns I have is that the Government have taken away the funding for neighbourhood plans. We know that neighbourhood plans give villages their say in where planned housing goes, but more importantly they deliver more housing. Does he believe it is short-sighted to take away that funding, which will compound the problem he is talking about—he is discussing the aspect of style and design—of getting communities to take on extra housing?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is compounded by the Government’s position on spending reductions? We saw that on the Floor of the House, when the one attempt to make spending reductions was gutted mid-discussion, with proposals being pulled from a Bill that dealt with welfare. Therefore, the Government will not make any spending cuts either, which does not leave much else bar borrowing, in my estimation.
The hon. Lady may recall that it was a Labour Secretary of State who removed the word “beautiful” from the national planning policy framework. How does she expect to have those beautiful designs if that has been taken away as a standard within the guidance that her Government provided?
Is it therefore not incredible either way that the deputy NSA did not discuss the biggest spy case this century with his boss, the National Security Adviser, and was left to his own devices to provide the evidence?
Tony Blair was Prime Minister for a very long time. Did he amend the legislation?
The real threat to our security is not necessarily what others do in the shadows; it is what one’s own Government hide from the light. That is the essence of what we are trying to get to in the motion before us—we are asking the Government to publish the papers. Let me take a step back from this issue to look at the way in which the public will perceive it. This is the biggest spy story in this country’s history, at least in this century. We can get into the tit-for-tat about what the PM did or did not know, whether the National Security Adviser speaks to his deputy or not, who told the deputy National Security Adviser that he needs to toe the Government line, and how the Labour manifesto got into the witness statements, but I want to concentrate more on the bigger picture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out the behaviour of the Government. The Prime Minister could have sorted this out by coming to the House and speaking about this topic. He could have laid it all out and put it all forward. The only thing we have had has been a statement before Prime Minister’s questions. Of course, we Back Benchers cannot ask questions after such statements—there is no way for us to do so. If the Government are so angry, why is more action not being taken? Why are people not being fired, and why are we still having this debate several weeks on if all the information is so crystal clear that this House can move on? I am worried that this is a pattern of behaviour with the Prime Minister, because we saw this with the ambassador. The Prime Minister was the decision maker on that issue, but he did not come to this House; he sent one of his Ministers. I expect that the retort from Labour Members will be, “It was always thus”, but the reason this saddens me so much is that the Prime Minister is being judged by the standard that he set. He said that he would do things differently, but he is not. He is not coming to the House to explain when he could do so. We know that the information and the decisions rest with him. When I pushed the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), about leadership last time, that was not directed at him—I have a great deal of respect for him. He is following the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has not come to this House to explain what is going on. If this issue is as clearcut as Labour Members have said, that would be an easy case to make and this House would believe the Prime Minister, but we are not there. That is why I worry, because it leads to a wider debate and wider concerns among the public about whether something is going on.
Absolutely. Not only have the Government not done anything with the case, there are wider debates that could take place—about what legislation needs to change and other measures that could be included in the Budget, for example.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. It is because of these unprecedented facts that I would expect the Prime Minister to come forward and provide answers, not send a Minister in his place.
I will not, because I have taken two interventions already. My worry is about what the public perceive, because it is a statement of fact that since the Chancellor went to China, decisions have been made about the Chagos islands, for example, or British Steel and £1 billion—what is going on there? A spy case has now been dropped, and there is the possibility of a super-embassy and even ID cards. My constituents are coming to me seeing a running theme.
To repeat the quote we heard earlier, we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is easy to call China a threat, but still to engage. That is exactly what the Chinese Government do to us: they say, “We’re embarrassed. We’re upset. You promised us something”, and we just say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry about that.” We could stand up for ourselves and say what we think. Let us not forget that we are in a trade deficit with China; it is economically in China’s interest to be working with us, as much as it is in our interest to be working with China. My worry, though, is that the public are joining dots. The Government will say that there are no dots to be joined, but the longer this goes on and the more incidents come out, it becomes harder to make that argument. That brings us full circle to where I started, because this is about transparency and releasing the documentation.
I feel I am being misquoted, because I have simply asked for all this to be resolved by publishing the information. The Government could come out and say that China is a threat. I have also said that we can call it a threat and work economically with the Chinese. That is what I hope will happen. [Interruption.] I will finish at that point.
The Minister is making a powerful point about the active threat. At this point in time, do the Government perceive China to be an active threat?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As the Minister outlined, the regulations extend the period during which Ministers can use powers under the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020. The Act allows the Government to implement international agreements on private international law through secondary legislation, rather than by bringing forward new primary legislation each time. Private international law deals with cross-border legal issues, such as which country’s courts can hear a case, which country’s laws apply, and how judgments made in one country can be recognised and enforced in another. It affects families, businesses and individuals alike, helping to provide certainty and clarity when disputes span different jurisdictions. The Act was introduced by the previous Government as part of the UK’s post-Brexit legal framework. After we left the EU, many of the reciprocal arrangements we had previously participated in stopped applying automatically. The Act therefore provided a mechanism to fill those gaps quickly and efficiently, ensuring that the UK could continue to enter into and implement international agreements that support co-operation in civil and commercial matters. It was recognised at the time that giving Ministers the ability to implement such agreements through secondary legislation raised important constitutional questions. As a result, Parliament agreed to include the safeguard that the powers would expire after five years unless extended by further parliamentary approval. That is the purpose of the regulations: to extend these powers until December 2030. My understanding is that since the Act came into force, the powers have been used only twice, and I am assured that both instances appear to have been straightforward and to have received broad cross-party support. That limited use reflects the narrow scope and careful oversight that Parliament intended. Extending the powers will ensure that the Government can continue to give effect to new international agreements in this area without unnecessary delay or legal gaps. It will also maintain the UK’s credibility as a reliable partner in international legal co-operation, giving confidence to those we negotiate with that we have the tools to implement our treaty commitments effectively. However, transparency will help to maintain confidence that the powers will continue to be exercised proportionately and only when necessary, so I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The Minister mentioned a number of future intended uses, including the Singapore agreement and two UN-related trade agreements. Are there any other agreements on the horizon that the Government intend to use this mechanism for? He also mentioned that the majority of consultees were happy with how things had been promoted to date, which suggests that some people were not. Could he perhaps outline examples of where there have been misgivings about the use of the legislation?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this important debate, and I thank the British Liver Trust and others who provided information and reading material in advance of today’s debate. Fatty liver disease, as has been said, is often asymptomatic in its early stages. Even when symptoms do occur, they can initially be non-specific symptoms such as tiredness and feeling generally unwell. Initially, the fat deposits in the liver; in the next stage the fat causes inflammation, which causes metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis. It can then progress to fibrosis and then cirrhosis. As mentioned earlier, liver deaths have increased substantially in the last 50 years, but early detection can help to prevent them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that liver function tests and fibroscans are more available? Does she regret having to delay her workforce plan? Will that have an impact on the treatment of liver disease? As many have said, fatty liver disease is caused by obesity. Two thirds of adults are now overweight or obese, but obesity starts in childhood. As an NHS consultant paediatrician, I have in my time seen a 12-year-old weighing 120 kg and a nine-year-old weighing over 90 kg—around three times the weight of an average nine-year-old. That has a serious cost in terms of life expectancy, taking three to 10 years off a person’s life. It also has an economic cost to the state of about £11.4 billion on the NHS, estimated at £75 billion per year when taking into account the wider economic factors. We all know someone who has struggled with their weight and who has had huge success recently, including Members of this House who have talked about it in other debates, using Ozempic, Wegovy or Mounjaro. That is great, but do we want a future where a substantial proportion of the population are dependent on medication to maintain their weight?
I certainly think it is wise to ensure that people get off to a good start in infancy and that unhealthy products are not advertised as healthy if they are not, although the definition of healthy is somewhat elusive and difficult to pin down. It is also important that we do not routinely feed little babies under one high-sugar foods, although I do not want to see them fed artificial sweeteners, either. It is about making things less sweet, so the reformulation will need to be done carefully. That is my personal view. Going back to the medications, we know they can be very helpful for some and can improve their health. They may be able to help with fatty liver disease as well, although they are not licensed yet. Can the Minister update us on when the Government expect applications to be approved and whether the NHS is ready to deliver for all eligible patients? We have heard about the prevalence and burden of the condition across the country and the number of people affected. What is she doing to ensure that the NHS is ready so that, when these drugs are licensed, it has the capacity, workforce and money to provide them? We have seen that drug prices can change quite dramatically. In August, Eli Lilly announced a huge price increase for Mounjaro. What plans does the Minister have to guard against that? Will she update the House on negotiations on the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access? We understand she is reviewing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality threshold; when does she plan to reach a conclusion? We have seen investment in this country’s life sciences sector by companies such as Merck and AstraZeneca being withdrawn from the United Kingdom or paused due to the environment created by the Government. We need urgent action to support that sector. Will the Minister update the House on discussions she has had with industry and the Treasury on that? Medications are part of the issue, but there are also surgical implications. Many people who have lost large quantities of weight require surgery for excess skin, which can cause further medical problems. What is the Minister doing to ensure there is an assessment of demand for post-weight loss surgery? Are surgeons and capacity available to deliver it where medically indicated? As many have said, prevention is better than cure. We know that fewer than one in three people eat five portions of fruit and veg a day, and that that is falling. We also know that starting early is important and have talked about children and infants. What is the Minister doing to ensure that school food is healthy and good for children? What work is she doing with the Department for Education on food choices and preparation, particularly advice on food that can be made in advance or quickly? We know that many young people will become adults in households where there are two working parents, where one of the largest challenges is not just the money needed to buy food, but the time required after returning from work to prepare and deliver it to children before they do their homework and go to bed. We have talked about reformulation. The soft drinks industry levy has reduced sugar per 100 ml by 47.4%, but I am concerned that is leading to an increase in artificial sweeteners rather than a reduction in the sweetness of the product, ultimately meaning that people are still hooked on the sweetness. What does the Minister think of that? Some hon. Members talked about the advertising ban on less healthy food. Will the Minister tell us why that has been delayed until next year? Why have the Government added the brand exemption? Do they think the addition of the brand exemption will make it harder for new market entrants, compared with well established brands? If I whistled the short tune for one food brand—I will not—it would be immediately recognised, without further introduction. That would be more difficult for advertising new entrants to the market. The 10-year plan talks about mandatory healthy food sales reporting. Will the Minister update us on what she defines as healthy? There are also mandatory targets on healthiness of sales. What does that mean and when will it be implemented? We understand there is a planned update to the nutrient profile. Some are concerned that the free sugars that that includes mean that items such as date paste will fall under unhealthy sugars. Will the Minister provide information on that? Has she made an assessment of the Conservative Government’s step of informing people by adding calories to menus? What effect has that had on consumption and food portion sizes in the restaurant sector? Exercise is also important. We know that physical exercise strengthens joints, increases weight loss and helps in the reduction of diabetes, depression and dementia. The previous Government gave £1 billion to support the sports and leisure industry during the pandemic so that it could continue, and had a school sports action plan, guaranteeing at least two hours of PE and supporting after-school clubs. The current Government have pledged £400 million for new sports facilities, but delivery of that money seems to be at a standstill. Will the Minister update us on that? Many grassroots sports facilities need that money. Will she also update the House on what the Government are doing to improve girls’ attendance in sports? We know that teenage girls in particular are not taking the advised amount of exercise. In summary, we need an NHS pathway to detect liver disease in the early stages so that it can be treated; an NHS that is ready to deliver the new treatments that are becoming available; and action to tackle obesity to prevent liver disease in the first place. There has been an emphasis throughout the debate on what the Government can do to prevent obesity and on state culpability in that regard. It is important that people recognise that they have agency and do not need to wait for the Government to do something about this. People do not need to wait for the soft drinks industry levy or for changes to regulations. They have the agency to help themselves; they can do that.
I do not think it is sticking up for the food industry to suggest that people have agency over what they eat. I will give an example. I saw a very small patient—about five years old—who was very obese. I asked the mum what sort of things the child was being fed, and the answer was, “Well, Doctor, he eats lots of crisps all the time.” But there is a simple point there: where was he getting those crisps from? He was getting the crisps from the cupboard without asking, but the crisps did not get in the cupboard because the five-year-old put them there. It is a question of making sure that what is available is healthy and what is being fed to children is healthy. I have seen even in the last few weeks patients who have low vitamin D levels, critically low vitamin B12 levels and critically low iron levels as a result of the diet that they are getting. It is not just a case of, “It’s all the Government’s fault. The state must make sure that everyone eats healthily.” People have a responsibility of their own as well. This is about working together. There are wider policy impacts as well. The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) talked about food pricing and food security. This Government want to cover Lincolnshire—the breadbasket of the UK, where a third of the country’s fruit and vegetables are produced—in glass solar panels. That is what his Government want to do, so there is a wider policy framework about food affordability. Food inflation is going up hugely under this Government, so they need to look in the mirror and see what they are doing to reduce food prices for people. We need to work together: it is a combination of what the Government can do and what the individual can do.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important debate. Strokes are life-threatening medical emergencies that affect more than 100,000 people in the UK every year, taking over 38,000 lives and leaving many survivors with life-changing disabilities. A study in The Lancet Healthy Longevity estimated their annual cost to be £8 billion, comprising public spending on care and lost economic productivity. The number of cases is rising—in England, stroke admissions increased by 28% from 2005 to 2024—and, as the Stroke Association has said, demographic reality makes it all the more urgent for the Government to take action today to improve stroke care and reduce modifiable risk factors. As we have heard, when stroke care is delayed, the typical victim loses 1.9 million neurones for each minute they are untreated. Of course, delay is measured not just in brain cells, but in lost independence, lost potential and, all too often, lost lives. The Government cannot just acknowledge the challenge; they must act. The previous Government designated stroke as a national priority area in the 2019 NHS long-term plan, with several commitments to improve prevention, treatment and care. We set out to increase the proportion of people receiving clot-removing thrombectomy to end their stroke, improve post-hospital stroke rehab models for patients, and enhance the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme. That important work was led by a network of 20 integrated stroke delivery networks, which were established in 2021, with a national service model setting out best practice. The previous Government also invested more than £57 million in mechanical thrombectomy, and by the end of 2023, 24 centres were open and delivering mechanical thrombectomy across England. Do the Government have a delivery plan to create more of those centres, or do they think there are enough? Prior to the general election, the previous Government began work on a major conditions strategy to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of six major conditions, including stroke, but rather than see it through, this Labour Government chose to take an axe to progress, pausing the scheme in August 2024 and, a year later, announcing a service framework for cardiovascular diseases in the 10-year plan. Have the Government incorporated the strategy’s findings in the 10-year plan? The plan mentions stroke just twice, and only in the context of smoking and obesity. I am pleased that the Government have shown an interest in reducing modifiable risk factors. Prevention is always better than cure. Those categorised as obese face an elevated risk of stroke—64% higher than those of healthy weight—and one in five children leaves primary school obese. We spoke about obesity in this morning’s debate, but I did not get answers to most of my questions. I appreciate that the Minister is covering for someone this afternoon, but will he undertake to get answers not just to the questions asked in this debate, but to those asked in this morning’s? I am encouraged to see Ministers showing an interest in furthering the previous Government’s work to tackle smoking, a habit to which one in four strokes is directly attributable, but it seems to be taking quite a long time. Just yesterday, health leaders warned that more than 120,000 young people have started smoking since the Tobacco and Vapes Bill was introduced. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will prioritise the Bill and pass it without delay? High blood pressure remains the single biggest risk factor for strokes, and it is generally asymptomatic, which is why it is so important that tests are carried out in locations that are convenient for people. Last year, community pharmacies in England delivered more than 140,000 blood pressure checks and diagnosed nearly 11,000 cases of hypertension. As the Government complete the latest round of pharmacy negotiations, will the Minister commit to expanding that service further, so that pharmacies can detect more cases and prevent more strokes? The Government’s delay to the NHS workforce plan is particularly concerning. We need enough doctors to train to perform thrombectomy and care for patients, and enough physios, occupational therapists, nurses, speech therapists and so on to support rehabilitation. After the Government cancelled the major conditions strategy last summer, their 10-year plan promised a service framework, as I said. Given that they have now delayed the workforce plan, the cancer plan, the neonatal and maternity plan and the HIV plan, will the Minister assure the House that they will not also delay the service framework for cardiovascular disease? We need action and not just words, so will the Minister explain what the Government have done materially to improve early stroke diagnosis since they came to office? Stroke care is not only about medical interventions. For many survivors, recovery starts when they return home and have to re-learn to walk, speak and carry out daily tasks, so access to physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and other support is vital. How do the Government plan to improve that provision, and what are they doing to provide psychological support to the families of stroke victims and victims themselves, especially in cases where there is a change of personality or emotional disturbance? Prevention is better than cure. Work on smoking, obesity and high blood pressure are important. In the event of a stroke, every minute counts. Every minute the Government spend perfecting plans instead of putting things into action is a minute of suffering that could have been spared.
I am grateful to the Minister for answering the question and talking about universal services being available from next year. Can he confirm whether they will be 24/7 and what he means by “universal”? If someone is living in a rural area, what is the greatest distance or time they should expect to travel to get to their local thrombectomy centre?
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that stamp duty also gums up mobility, so that people are unable to move, and if they lose their job under this Labour Government it will be more expensive for them to move to another house?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also see hypocrisy? An example would be Cabinet Ministers who say “Build, baby, build” while at the same time writing letters to the Mayor of London trying to block homes in their constituency.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister intends to do to un-gum the housing market. I think he will accept that it is an important part of our economy and he says that he is very keen on growth, so what will he do to un-gum it? And what does he say to those legions of tradespeople—electricians, plumbers and kitchen fitters—who are all looking to the Government to provide them with some relief in the months ahead?
The average price of a property in St Albans is £642,000 a year. Under the proposals of the hon. Lady’s party, how does she think her constituents would face paying ever more taxes, either through stamp duty land tax or the council tax reforms that she and her colleagues propose?