Support for Renters
The question is about reducing the cost of renting. What is the contribution of the 4% increase to a reduction in the cost of renting? Mr Speaker, my interest is recorded in the register.
Conservative and Unionist Party MP for New Forest West since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
344
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | New Forest West | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
The question is about reducing the cost of renting. What is the contribution of the 4% increase to a reduction in the cost of renting? Mr Speaker, my interest is recorded in the register.
Were he to consult a map, the Minister would understand that the Creator’s purpose in placing the estuary of the Test was to prevent, for government purposes, the eastern part of the New Forest from being treated as a suburb of Southampton.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West). I believe that this is the cut-and-run Budget. Indeed, I read in the papers this morning that the Liberal Democrats—currently occupying the two front Benches below the Gangway—have taken the hint as well and are preparing for a December election, such is the electioneering of this Budget. This is Hamlet without the prince.
I will certainly address the hon. Gentleman’s question. This Budget is certainly not popular with me—I have interests, which are set out in the register. The difficulty is that, in the absence of the spending review and any clear appetite to deal with the £3 trillion debt, the burgeoning growth of debt and, of course, our lack of productivity, this Budget lacks any credibility. It is the “Try not to upset too many people” Budget, to get us through to the spring with the Government unscathed. That is the meaning of the “breathing space”—breathing space to get this Government to a position where they can call an election decently, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister assured the people of <span id="355" class="column-number" data-column-number="355"></span>Makerfield, and indeed has said in terms since, that he has no such intention. That is the reality we are dealing with. The problem that we have at the centre of our economy at the moment was defined—brilliantly and very candidly, I think—by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he said that, in all the meetings he has, the question he is asked is, “Who can we tax in order to give benefits to others?” That is essentially the issue we are having to deal with. The Chancellor has decided not to address that question. He has made a calculation. He calculates that the pain for the Labour party in addressing that issue is greater than the medium-term financial damage of not addressing it. Of course, the financial damage of not addressing it is that we will all pay higher mortgages and endure higher costs, but his calculation is that he can get to the spring before those particular chickens come home to roost. That is the strategy of this Budget: not to do too much, but to have a few things that make it, in the estimation of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), “popular”. The reality, however, is that there is going to be an election, and we are going to have to face the huge question of the enormous costs that the Prime Minister has pointed to in his ambitions, and how that will have to be addressed. He said today that he is going to soak the banks. Now, that has implications for us all, because it affects the cost of everything. It will affect the cost of our mortgages, it will affect prices and, of course, it affects investment. What a signal to send to investors! “If you’re successful, if you’re doing well, we’re coming for you.” That is the message that investors receive. Little wonder that we are haemorrhaging wealthy taxpayers. According to Bloomberg data, we have lost half the billionaire wealth since 2024, either because it has left the United Kingdom or because its exposure here has been reduced. We might ask ourselves why. Well, it comes back exactly to the issue raised by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have terrified those people with mansion taxes and with the international reach of inheritance tax on all their assets, and by merely talking about the prospect of raising capital gains tax. I am very glad that we have not raised capital gains tax, but they can read the runes. Then, of course, we expedite their exit by talking about an exit tax. All those things have consequences. Into this milieu of burgeoning debt and surging unemployment, the Prime Minister hurls his latest grenade: talk of rejoining free movement within the EU. Nothing could be more calculated to be devastating for the prospects of our young people languishing in unemployment than to suck in European labour. So I say we have that election. Let us go for the election that the Government are clearly building themselves towards, because at least that will give the British people the opportunity to get off this road to penury.
Hon. Members should rise in their places repeatedly if they wish to catch my eye.
Order. Can interventions be a little shorter?
Order. May I suggest five minutes for speeches?
Order. I am imposing a formal five-minute limit.<span id="61WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="61WH"></span>
I remind hon. Members not to rise to catch my eye unless they have the permission of both Mr Jermy and the Minister to speak.
On the issue of stalwart supporters, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has been a magnificent supporter. I have come along to these debates for several years, and what I am looking for is at least some prospect of a result, because we have done this year in, year out. I have affected constituents, and I still support them, but what we need from the Minister is at least some sign that we are not flogging a dead horse.