Helen Whately

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 170

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   I thank my right hon. Friend for her important speech. Recently, a development in my constituency for 8,500 homes that was due to go to the local planning committee was suddenly taken away from it, having been called in by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). The decision now sits with the Secretary of State, taking this important decision, which will have a huge impact on the area, out of local hands. This is clearly denying local democracy, given that we have locally elected councillors who know the impact this development will have on my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely wrong to take those powers to influence local planning decisions away from local councillors, and that it is absurd that a Government who talk about increasing devolution are the ones taking these powers away from local councillors?

   Hansard source
2. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Pensions Triple Lock

   Thirty years ago, nearly one in three pensioners in our country lived in poverty. Today, that figure has halved, thanks in no small part to the decisions made by our party, when in government, to stand by pensioners—people who have done the right thing, worked all their lives and paid into the system. That is the fair and right thing to do. Yet we are faced with a Government that do not seem concerned about what is fair and right. Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners instead of tackling the fastest growing part of the benefits bill: working-age welfare? Working-age benefits are costing us £140 billion a year, and rising fast. That includes the cost of benefits to 6 million working-age people who are not working. Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits; it is unaffordable and morally wrong. However, the Secretary of State has <span id="200" class="column-number" data-column-number="200"></span>done nothing of substance about it, and now his party’s refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the state pension in jeopardy. The Prime Minister is desperate for cash to pay for his new national care service—that is why he is ditching the triple lock. Let’s not beat around the bush and say that it is some kind of adjustment—it is ditching the triple lock. To look at the numbers, the savings that the Secretary of State is hoping for will hardly touch the sides. Come the mid-2030s, a national care service is forecast to cost over £18 billion, versus potentially £4 billion a year in savings from the triple lock. Those numbers are extremely uncertain; the care service could well cost more—demand tends to grow for something that is free—but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour’s policy creates a £15 billion black hole in the public finances. And what a way to announce it: a couple of lines in a conference speech—no proper explanation or detail, just millions of pensioners left wondering what it means for their retirement. Labour Back Benchers should remember how these things go. Their last Prime Minister came after pensioners’ winter fuel payments. That was not a plan that stood the test of time; it was the Government’s first U-turn. How many Labour Members in the Chamber today defended that ill-conceived policy, only to see it abandoned in the face of pressure? Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, it is clear that he is branding this plan as the Pensions Minister’s idea. It is not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see that this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the Government’s own Pensions Commission has even reported. Did the Secretary of State forget that he had one? The Government asked it to look at whether people will have enough to live on in retirement. Why bother asking for independent advice if he has already made up his mind on the biggest question? The Secretary of State will know that more women rely on the state pension than men. Had he even thought about them before rushing to this change? What happens if the savings from scrapping the triple lock are lower than he expects? Will the Government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher? The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour’s pension rise of 75p a week, and we have backed the triple lock ever since. Unlike working-age adults, most pensioners live on fixed incomes and most are unable to work. If the Prime Minister wants to make savings, he should start with working-age welfare; that is what a Conservative Government would do. We have a plan to save £36 billion from the benefits bill and get Britain working again. But the reality is that with the Budget looming, the Prime Minister has no plan for fixing the country’s finances, and this announcement is simply a distraction from the tax rises that are coming. This is Labour doing what Labour does best—dodging the tough choices, ducking a fight with its welfare-loving Back Benchers, leaving a black hole in its fiscal plans and hammering those who have worked and paid into the system to give more handouts to “Benefits Street”. I am appalled, but frankly I am not surprised. All we have seen on welfare is a Government missing in action without the backbone to do what is right. <span id="201" class="column-number" data-column-number="201"></span>They are clearly not on the side of pensioners or hard-working taxpayers. The question is: whose side are they on?

   Hansard source
3. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Employment Support: Young People

   Every DWP Question Time, Labour Members dutifully line up to give the welfare Secretary a chance to make it look like he is doing something about the youth unemployment crisis—a crisis of their own making. Their jobs tax and their unemployment Act have killed 300,000 jobs, hitting young people hardest. We have had enough talk about hubs and schemes. Young people tell me they want real jobs. That is why we will halve national insurance for 21 to 24-year-olds, so it is cheaper for businesses to hire them. Under the Conservatives, there will be thousands more jobs for young people. Will the Secretary of State get the Chancellor to use his Budget to do the same?

   Hansard source
4. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Topical Questions

   The working-age welfare bill is set to reach £170 billion by the end of this Parliament, up £45 billion on the welfare party’s watch. All around the country, the residents of “Benefits Street” are doing better under Labour. The welfare Secretary is always across his brief, so can he tell me the benefits bill for his constituency?

   Hansard source
5. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Topical Questions

   I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer, but I can help him. It is £400 million a year. That is why he is dragging his heels on welfare reform. The number of personal independence payment claimants in his constituency exceeds his majority, and the same can be said for 203 of his fellow Labour MPs. It is no wonder all his colleagues ask him who they can tax in order to spend more on benefits. Will this month’s Budget just be more of the same—hiking taxes on working families to pay for “Benefits Street”?

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   European Entry and Exit System

   Every holiday period, Kent and my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent is brought to a standstill, and that has become much worse with the introduction of the EU entry-exit system, despite the fact that our ports and Eurotunnel have invested in the technology. I understand that it is not working because the French have not managed to get it to work. I disagree with the Minister that everything is fine when Operation Brock is on—Operation Brock is terrible for my area. However, I agree with his point that this has nothing to do with Brexit. I hate to break that to the Liberal Democrats and others who have being trying to make that argument, but the problems have nothing to do with Brexit. The situation could be horrific this summer: imagine people, including children and elderly people, and potentially pets, waiting in their cars in this heat for around 12 hours. It is a disaster. I implore the Minister to involve the Prime Minister—and, most likely, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), as this could happen under his watch—in the negotiations with the EU to suspend these checks in advance, not to wait and see, so that we can stop these queues happening?

   Hansard source
7. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

   I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is making an important point about the fact that we need not just the minimum but the maximum. We need really strong commitments. The Cleve Hill solar development in the village of Graveney in my constituency is huge. It has obliterated 900 acres of agricultural land and marshland. While it has been in construction, there has been enormous disruption to the local village and schools, and damage to the roads and to people’s properties. I want my constituents to get proper compensation and ongoing economic benefit—not just lip service in the form of a playground or cycle path, but something that recognises the massive impact of the development on their lives.

   Hansard source
8. 30 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

   On the point about considering the community benefit, what counts as a community is really important. In some circumstances—this has come up in my local area—a large geographical area is considered as a community, even though the number of households that are very substantially affected is very small. It is what they want that should really matter. Yes, of course I care about what the wider community wants, but we need to think about the small number of households in which there has been a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Benefit Cap

   Well, there we heard it a moment ago: a Labour Back Bencher calling for yet more money to be spent on benefits. What we should be doing is talking about all the households who are avoiding the cap, when 100,000 households get over—

   Hansard source
10. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Benefit Cap

    Some 100,000 households get over £50,000 in benefits, and 16,000 households get over £60,000 in benefits. That gives them the same income as the top 10% of earners in this country. British people are sick and tired of footing the bill for “Benefits Street” and seeing welfare claimants living lives of luxury at their expense. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has called for more collaborative politics, so will the Minister adopt our plan to toughen up the benefits cap and save £1 billion off the benefits bill?

    Hansard source