debates/debates2025-03-19c conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-03-19)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-03-19c conversation_21

Anna Dixon:One in five disabled people in social housing, and one in three disabled private renters, live in inaccessible housing. One of my constituents with severe fibromyalgia and post-traumatic stress disorder lives in a first-floor flat   with no lift access. As we build the 1.5 million new homes that the country needs, will the Prime Minister ensure that they are built to be accessible and adaptable so that disabled and older people can live independently for generations to come? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is right that everybody needs to be able to access a home that is suitable for them and meets their needs. The planning rules already mean that councils must consider the needs of disabled people when planning new homes. We will go further, setting out our policies on accessible new homes very shortly. We are boosting the disabled facilities grant by £172 million, helping more people to make vital improvements and live independent lives. \p Lee Dillon: Despite Ukraine being the victim in Russia’s illegal aggression, President Zelensky has shown leadership to his people by committing to the US plans for a ceasefire. However, it is clear that Putin is playing for time and is still carrying out daily attacks on the Ukrainian people. Is now not the time to take those frozen Russian assets, seize them and give them to the Ukrainian people to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table and punish Russian aggression? \p Keir Starmer: On both points, last night, following the discussions yesterday, I spoke to President Zelensky to discuss the way forward. On the wider question of assets, it is complicated—it is not straightforward—but we are working with others to see what is possible. \p Euan Stainbank: The release of Project Willow today is a step forward in securing good jobs and an industrial future for Grangemouth. However, the Government need to work at pace to ensure that the recommendations in Willow are acted on. Will the Prime Minister outline what steps he will be taking to ensure that barriers to a rapid transition at Grangemouth are removed and investment is progressed as quickly as possible? \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising Grangemouth again, for the second time in this session; that is because it is centrally important. He will have heard what I had to say about the projects that we are looking at to ensure the long-term future of Grangemouth, the interim measures that are being taken and, of course, the £200 million of the wealth fund that I announced just a few weeks ago. \p John Hayes: The Prime Minister and I disagree on much—the family farm tax, the national insurance jobs tax and the cut in winter fuel payments—but we surely agree that the common good is built on public order. Crossbows in the hands of killers cost lives: they cost the lives of three innocent women last year. The previous Government moved to consultation over a year ago on the regulation of crossbows, their sale and use, and yet we have heard nothing since. They are as powerful as guns, as silent as knives. Will the Prime Minister agree for one of his Ministers to come to the House before Easter to give us a clear instruction about what the Government intend to do before any more lives are lost? \p Keir Starmer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this shocking issue; he is right to do so. The case he refers to is truly shocking, as I think is agreed across the House. We are working on this and I will make sure that he gets an update so that he is across the detail of what we are doing. \p Diane Abbott: Most Members of this House will be aware that the welfare system can be a nightmare to navigate and does, indeed, need reform, but could we have less of this rhetoric about the Prime Minister’s £5 billion package of disability benefit so-called reform being moral? There is nothing moral about cutting benefits for what may be up to a million people. This is not about morality; this is about the Treasury’s wish to balance the country’s books on the backs of the most vulnerable and poorest people in this society. \p Keir Starmer: My right hon. Friend is a passionate advocate on this issue and has been for a long time, and I pay tribute to her for that. However, as she rightly acknowledges, the current system is broken. This is where I disagree with her: I think that one in eight young people not being in education or training—that is a million young people—is a moral issue. All the evidence suggests that someone in that situation at that stage of their life will find it incredibly difficult ever to get out of that level of dependency. That cuts across the opportunity and aspiration that are the root of my values, and Labour values, about how we take working people forward. I do see it as a moral issue and I will not turn away from that. I am genuinely shocked that a million young people are in that position, and I am not prepared to shrug my shoulders and walk past it. \p Sarah Owen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Minister for Women, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), just before Prime Minister’s questions, stated at the Dispatch Box that imam Adam Kelwick posted that he prayed for victory of Hamas over Israel. That was totally inaccurate. He made absolutely no mention, in the post to which she referred, of Hamas or against Israel; that was added wrongly by the shadow Minister. He, in fact, called for prayers of peace. The truth is that Adam has spent years working on countering extremism and even uniting people through food and conversations when rioters came to attack his local mosque in Liverpool last year. I ask that the hon. Member correct the record, and I remind her that should she have made such statements outside the House, there would possibly be legal action. What advice can you give to Members to ensure that they do not abuse parliamentary privilege by slandering people? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I am not responsible for hon. Members’ questions, or for Ministers’ or shadow Ministers’ answers. I do not want to extend this question, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the Table Office will be able to advise her on how to pursue the matter. I am sure, without doubt, that it is on the record and that people will reflect on that. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the Groceries Code Adjudicator; to require co-ordination between the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator; to make provision about public procurement in respect of British food products; to make provision about the labelling of food products; and for connected purposes.

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In March 1917, at the height of the first world war, the then Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, sent a letter to an Orkney farmer, Charles Paterson. He wrote:

“In the nation’s interest I urge you, at whatever personal sacrifice, to overcome all obstacles, to throw your fullest energies into the work, and to influence and encourage all who assist you, so that every possible acre shall be sown.”

At that time, there was no question at the heart of Government about the vital importance of farmers in the isles and across the country. In the century since, farmers have continued to play their part in supplying the nation’s table, but their incomes have stagnated. The market for agricultural produce in the UK has not been a free market since at least the end of the second world war. Successive Governments have intervened through the payment of public subsidies to farmers, initially in the name of food security and more recently in the name of cheap food for consumers. That intervention has, over the years, distorted the market and allowed a range of unfair practices to be hardwired into the system.

As a consequence, the market today has a handful of behemoth retailers—the supermarkets—at the top, hundreds of thousands of farmers at the bottom and a variety of processors, distributors and others in the middle. Everyone takes their cut and then, at the end of it all, the farmers get whatever is left. The power imbalance between the supermarkets at the top and the farmers at the bottom is more pronounced than any other market I can think of, and it is well documented that those at the top who have the power wield it to their own advantage.

The extensive debate that we have had in this House in recent months has laid bare the shocking truth about the lack of profitability in farming. Just last week a new report from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that real incomes for farmers had stayed stock-still for the past 50 years.

Shortly after the autumn Budget, a group of younger farmers in my constituency came to see me and brought with them their farm accounts. They were despondent in pointing out to me that their businesses earned a net profit of 0.7% on their capital. They were not much cheered when I pointed out that they were doing better than many of their contemporaries, as figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that the average return is as low as 0.5%. One of those farmers was the great-grandson of Charles Paterson, a seventh-generation farmer who works the same land  as his great-grandfather. We really could not ask for a better illustration of the shift in priorities of our Governments over the past 100 years.

This cannot go on. Farmers are seeing a rapid withdrawal of funding support. In England, the accelerated withdrawal of basic payments, followed by the closure without notice last week of the sustainable farming incentives, has left many farmers desperately worried about the viability of their businesses. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the removal of the ringfencing of money given to devolved Administrations for agricultural payments leaves farmers there feeling vulnerable to adverse change. That is why this market now needs direct and meaningful intervention. Without it, we risk losing domestic food production and any notion of food security. If, as the Prime Minister says, food security is national security, his Government should act urgently to allow our farmers to get a fair price for the food they produce.

I was in government when the Groceries Code Adjudicator was set up. I do not think anyone believed that the GCA would be the last word in the regulation of the food supply chain, but we all took the view that it was better to have something than to have nothing. Twelve years on from its creation, the limitations of the adjudicator are apparent for all to see. The office has fewer than 10 staff, all seconded from other public bodies, and it is funded by a levy on supermarkets. To expect an operation of that size to take on some of the largest retail businesses in the country is laughable. It is hardly surprising, then, that businesses supplying supermarkets are reluctant to make complaints, especially when the office has not issued a single fine in its entire existence. Cases that are pursued end up with settlements and non-disclosure agreements.

Since publicising my Bill, I have spoken to a number of producers who have told me about their experience at the hands of supermarkets. Just yesterday, I spoke to a businessman who had been a supplier of Brussels sprouts to a large supermarket. His company had, on the basis of undertakings made to it by the retailer, invested significantly, borrowing £400,000 to build a state-of-the-art packing facility. In 2022-23, that one supermarket accounted for 47% of its business. Then, in February 2023, the company was told by the supermarket that its supply was no longer wanted for that season. For that business, the news was a hammer blow, and despite it being a prima facie breach of the groceries supply code of practice, the GCA initially declined to intervene.

I would love to say that this was an isolated incident, but the GCA annual survey conducted by YouGov suggests that it is not. It found that 42% of suppliers would not raise issues because they believed the retailer would find out and that there would be consequences. The experiences they described included de-listing without reasonable notice, undisputed invoices not being paid according to agreed terms, retrospective changes to supply agreements, running a promotional activity at the supplier’s expense, and much more.

Practice among supermarkets shows a wide variety of behaviours. Seven of the retailers were judged to have improved or at least stayed the same, with Sainsbury’s coming out on top with a net improvement score of 10.34%. Unfortunately, seven others—Home Bargains, ASDA, Tesco, Ocado, Iceland, Morrisons and Amazon—  were scored as having worsened by varying degrees, with Amazon’s performance being judged to have worsened by a whopping 21.38%. Amazon was also scored as having complied with the code “consistently” or “mostly” only 46.96% of the time.

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph reported that ASDA was threatening a “price war” to regain the market share it had lost in recent years. For farmers, that is a chilling prospect. If supermarkets are about to embark on a race to the bottom, we can be pretty sure that it will be farmers, not company executives or shareholders, who will be expected to take the hit.

It is not for us in Parliament to pick a winner in a fight between supermarkets, but they should know that we are watching. Any supermarket that thinks it can rebuild its balance sheet on the back of Britain’s farmers might find itself in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it better have some good answers when it gets here.

My Bill has support from MPs across political parties; it is sponsored by Liberal Democrat, Labour, Conservative, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Green and Democratic Unionist Members. It also has wide geographical support, with sponsors from Shetland to Cornwall and across the four nations that make up the United Kingdom. I am grateful for the support I have received from the farming unions, the Country Land and Business Association, Scottish Land and Estates, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Countryside Alliance. That is a remarkable coalition of people who all understand that if we fail to act now, before too long there may be no industry left to protect.

Charles Paterson’s family in Orkney still works the same land to this day. If we want to keep farming communities alive for generations to come, however, we need to act now to make it happen. That is why the Bill is necessary and why I seek the leave of the House today to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Alistair Carmichael, Jayne Kirkham, Sarah Bool, Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, Charlie Dewhirst, Sarah Dyke, Ann Davies, Seamus Logan, Ellie Chowns, Jim Shannon, David Chadwick and Tim Farron present the Bill.

Mr Alistair Carmichael accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 203). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 December 2024 (National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Programme): \p UNKNOWN: (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Lindsay Hoyle: I can confirm that Lords amendments 1 to 20 engage Commons financial privilege. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 20, I am satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 December 2024. In accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3), that Lords amendment will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.

Lords amendment 20 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)). \p James Murray: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 19 and 21, and Government motions to disagree. \p James Murray: I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendment to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill, and I place on record particular thanks to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore, for his invaluable support and for so expertly leading the Bill through the other place.

During consideration of the Bill in the other place, 21 amendments were made, 20 of which we will address today, but before I do so directly, let me remind both Houses of the context for the Bill. When we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable. We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in the Bill represent some of the toughest decisions that we have had to take as a result. To restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet, we needed to raise revenue, including through the measures that the Bill will introduce. Many of the amendments from the other place put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise, so let me be absolutely clear: to support the amendments is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. With that in mind, I now turn to the first group of Lords amendments. \p Luke Evans: The Minister has talked about the growth mission, which is the Government’s raison d’être, but last week we found out that the economy had shrunk. Has he done any work to find out how much that 0.1% drop will cost the Government? It will have huge tax implications. \p James Murray: As I have set out to the hon. Gentleman in a number of debates in recent weeks, the Government have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to restore fiscal responsibility after the completely unsustainable situation that we inherited from the Conservative party. That fiscal responsibility and economic  stability are essential for greater investment in the economy, which is the bedrock of the growth that we are so determined to pursue. \p Graham Stuart: Will the Minister outline how many billions the Government will spend this year, what percentage £22 billion represents in that amount, and—if I may be so greedy as to ask an additional question, Mr Speaker—how much the flatlining of the economy has cost the Government compared with that £22 billion? I put it to the Minister that the impact of the national insurance contributions rise has been much greater than that of the mythical £22 billion alleged by the Government. \p James Murray: I am not clear from the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention whether he finally accepts that we inherited a £22 billion black hole when we entered government. I know that several of his colleagues have sought to rewrite history, but the facts are there. We inherited a completely unsustainable fiscal situation, with pressures and a £22 billion black hole, and we had to take difficult but necessary decisions to remedy that. It was important to do so, because without the basic fiscal responsibility and economic stability that a Government should deliver, investment, which is the basis for growth, will not happen. \p Richard Tice: The Minister speaks about facts. Is he aware of the fact that when the Labour party won the election, the economy was growing, and is he aware of the fact that it is now shrinking? \p James Murray: I am very aware of the fact that we inherited an economy and a fiscal situation in a mess. That was completely unsustainable, and it was our duty as a Government to address it. No responsible Government could have let things carry on as they were, with the fiscal situation the way it was. That is why we took the action we did. \p Gavin Williamson: Will the Minister give way? \p James Murray: I will not, as I have already given way several times and must make progress.

We had to take those decisions to put the fiscal responsibility back at the heart of government, to return economic stability to the public finances, and to have the basis for the investment on which we can grow the economy and put more money in people’s pockets.

Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13 relate to the NHS and social care providers. The amendments seek to maintain the employer national insurance contribution rates and thresholds at their current level for NHS-commissioned services, including GPs, dentists, social care providers and pharmacists, as well as those providing hospice care. As Members of both Houses will know, as a result of the measures in this Bill and wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years, helping to deliver an additional 40,000 elective appointments every week.

Primary care providers—general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors that provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult the general practice and pharmacy sectors. \p Jim Shannon: One question raised regularly in my constituency relates to GP surgeries. The national insurance contributions will hit them immensely hard. GPs tell me that their only choice is to reduce staff and cut back appointments. The Minister mentions £22 billion extra for the NHS, but if GP surgeries and health clinics are reducing staff and reducing their capacity to deliver services, is that not a step down in what is delivered in my constituency and beyond? Will he reconsider the measures given the impact on GP surgeries? \p James Murray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of GPs and the funding and support that the Government are providing them. We are investing an additional £889 million in general practice, which brings the total spend on the GP contract to £13.2 billion in 2025-26. That is the biggest increase in over a decade. The changes to the contract will improve services for patients and help to make progress towards the Government’s health mission—shifting from analogue to digital, from sickness to prevention, and from hospital to community care—as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change. That support for GPs is an essential part of what the Budget, including the national insurance measures we are debating, delivers. \p John Milne: Age UK in my constituency has told me that the employer NICs rise will cost it £50,000 a year. Does the Minister agree that it is impossible to improve the public sector by taxing the public sector? \p James Murray: We inherited public services that were on their knees and needed urgent support. Part of the reason why we took the difficult but necessary decisions at the Budget last October was, of course, to restore fiscal responsibility, but it was also to get public services back on their feet. That is not just about the public services that people across the UK enjoy; it is also about ensuring that we have the stability for economic growth. If we do not have a health service that works well, we do not have a healthy population who can go to work. If we do not have a transport system that works well, people cannot get to work. That investment to get public services back on their feet after 14 years of Conservative control is essential for the experience of people in the UK, but it will also ensure that we have the economic growth that will enable us to put more money in people’s pockets. \p Neil Hudson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p James Murray: I will make a little progress. I have spoken about GPs, but the Department of Health and Social Care has entered into consultation with Community Pharmacy England regarding the 2024-25 and 2025-26 community pharmacy contractual framework. The final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way, following the consultation. \p Luke Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. The National Pharmacy Association announced for the first time ever, in 104 years, that it is planning action by reducing services because of the implications of the Budget. One of its requests is the release of an independent report commissioned by NHS England on the future funding of pharmacies. Now that the Government are in charge of NHS England, will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to release that report before the consultations finish, so that the public and the pharmacies can see exactly what the financial situation in that independent report will be? \p James Murray: Reports on work that the Department of Health and Social Care is carrying out are a subject for Ministers in that Department, but on the funding that I am speaking about, the final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way, following the consultation that is under way.

The NHS in England invests around £3 billion every year on dentistry, and NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems for 2025-26 have been published, alongside NHS planning and guidance. On social care, the Government have provided a cash increase in core local government spending power of 6.8% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care—funding that can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector. \p Neil Hudson: The figures that the Minister is presenting, along with the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and similar to the Prime Minister, involve money going into sectors that will not mitigate the national insurance rise. Will he confirm that sectors such as hospices, social care, GPs and pharmacies will have some support, rather than tell us about money that is not going to help people with regard to the jobs tax that is coming in? \p James Murray: The various organisations or services that I am talking about, whether GPs, pharmacies or organisations that provide social care, receive money from Government, and the way that those discussions take place is by considering pressures on the providers of those services in the round—that is the way the negotiations take place. Direct support for employer national insurance contributions obviously applies to central Government, local government and public corporations, which is much the same way that the previous Government approached things under the health and social care levy. Pressures on social care or GPs, as I have been outlining, are considered in the round in terms of their funding settlements, and as I said, the £880 million of new grant funding can be used to address a range of pressures facing adult social care. \p Gavin Williamson: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but let us look at children’s hospices, which will be down £4.9 million. Most funding for children’s hospices does not come from the Government; it comes from communities and from people supporting them. Can the Minister, at the Dispatch Box, assure children’s hospices such as Acorns in the west midlands  that they will not be down the money that they will be losing through extra NI contributions, and that that £4.9 million will be replaced by the Government for children’s hospices? \p James Murray: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning hospices, and perhaps I may set out the Government’s position on hospices and some of today’s amendments. The Government recognise the vital role that hospices play in supporting people at the end of life, and their families, and they also recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospice sector has been facing over a number of years. We are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million increase for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million of revenue to support hospices for children and young people. The £100 million will go towards helping hospices to improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients continue to receive the best possible care. \p Wendy Morton: The point that Opposition Members are trying to emphasise is that the Government appear to be giving with one hand, but taking away with the other. The hospice sector is just one example of many sectors that have been adversely affected by the Government’s cruel tax. \p James Murray: As I said a few moments ago, the way that the Government support central Government, local government and public corporations—that is Departments and other public sector employers—is the same way that the previous Government responded to the health and social care levy. That is a standard way in which the Government offer support for employer national insurance costs. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p James Murray: I will make some progress. \p Roger Gale: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p James Murray: No, I will make some progress. The Government want to shift healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting. \p Carla Lockhart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Southern Area hospice, which is located just outside my constituency, has to raise £3.6 million per year, or £300,000 per month. It is not Government funded, as has been mentioned, so what reassurance can the Minister give to those currently using Southern Area hospice for end of life care that the Government will do the right thing and support our hospices by not including them in the increase to national insurance contributions? \p James Murray: I have explained how the Government are approaching employer national insurance contributions and the support that they offer for central Government, local government and public corporations. That is an established way of responding to changes to employer national insurance contributions, which the previous Government did— \p Roger Gale: rose— \p James Murray: The right hon. Gentleman is being so persistent. He must have an amazing point to make, so I will give way to him. I wait with bated breath. \p Roger Gale: It is an amazing point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get it, because it was clear that the Prime Minister did not get it at Prime Minister’s questions. Let’s tell the real truth: the money that is being given by the Government—taxpayers’ money—to children’s hospices such as Shooting Star and Demelza hospices, is for buildings. The national insurance increase is directly hitting the people who do the work on which very sick children depend. Why is that imposition being made? \p James Murray: The £100 million that the right hon. Gentleman alluded to is important funding to help hospices improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients receive the best care possible. As I said a few moments ago, there will be £26 million of revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. More widely, the Government provide for charities, including hospices, through the wider tax regime, which is among the most generous in the world. That included tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, all charities, including hospices that are set up as charities, can benefit from the employment allowance that the Bill more than doubles, from £5,000 to £10,500. That will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest. \p Gavin Williamson: The Minister knows that that is funding for one year, and mainly for buildings, as he has admitted. This will be a cost on hospices every single year going forward. It will be cumulative and mean that hospices have to ask their communities for more and more, just to give that basic help. Will he commit to funding children’s hospices by the £4.9 million that the Government are taking off them every year, or not—yes or no? \p James Murray: The points I was making before I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman are recurrent features of the tax system. The support through the tax regime for charities and their donors, which was worth more than £6 billion in April 2024, is a feature of the system that happens every year. The increase in the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit hospices that are set up as charities, is a permanent change that we are making through the Bill. \p Richard Fuller: As is evident to many hon. Members, the Minister has, for the first time, found himself unable to answer some very straightforward questions from Opposition Members about the difference between the allocation of funding for capital expenditure and for current expenditure, and the impact that that difference will have on our hospices, children’s hospices, GPs and others affected by Labour’s jobs tax.

I am sure Members of the House of Lords who brought these amendments back will also have noticed that the Minister has been unable to answer those questions. Prior to the Bill going back to the House of Lords, will the Minister agree to speak to the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to get a clear  answer to the questions that have been raised today about which money will be available for capital and which money will be available to offset the national insurance charge increase? \p James Murray: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt that I was being unclear—I think I was being perfectly clear on the Government’s position. He may not agree with that position—he is entitled not to—but on the employer national insurance contribution changes I have been very clear that the Government will provide support directly to central Government, local government and public corporations, such as Departments and other public sector employers, as was the case under his Government with the health and social care levy. That does not apply to GPs, dentists, hospices and the other organisations that we have been discussing today.

The important point that I was making, which I hope was clear to him and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, was about the wider support that the Government are providing to hospices, the funding that we are providing to GPs and the discussions we are having with other primary care providers. That is the context in which the Bill has to be seen. We are able to take decisions around funding for public services because of the difficult decisions that we took at the Budget last year, and this Bill implements one of those decisions.

At Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, it was noticeable that when the Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition whether she would reverse the national insurance contribution rise that we are bringing in through the Bill, she refused to commit to that. I am unclear exactly what the Conservative position is—[Interruption.] \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p James Murray: I think one of the Conservative Members said that he will update me in his speech later. I may have misheard him, but I think I heard him say that he will confirm later whether the Opposition will reverse the national insurance changes we are making, so I look forward to that update. \p Jim Allister: Will the Minister explain to the House how it is right for the Government to cover the extra national insurance contributions of those working in the public sector, for example in hospital provision, but it is not right to do that for those working in hospices, in end of life care? How can that circle be squared? Why will they cover the national insurance contributions for those working in hospitals that are treating people, but not for those working in hospices that deliver end of life care? \p James Murray: The fundamental principle is about which organisations the Government will support in response to the changes to national insurance contributions. The approach the Government are taking, which is in line with the approach taken by the previous Government in the health and social care levy, is for the Government to provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), that means central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers are independent contractors and will therefore not be exempt from the changes. \p Calum Miller: The Minister makes the point that this is secondary for primary care providers. However, he does not acknowledge that primary care providers still do not know how they will be compensated by the Government, as I hear from dentists, community pharmacies and social care providers in my constituency. We are very close to the start of the tax year and those small businesses are providing critical primary care services in our communities. How can they operate when the Minister obfuscates and says other people might talk to them at a later stage about the money that they might receive? Would it not be easier for the Minister to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment from the House of Lords and clear up this matter today? \p James Murray: For clarity, primary care providers who are independent contractors will not receive the direct support that the Government provide to Departments and other public sector employers. The pressures that those providers face are considered in the round before funding is provided to them, so the solution is arrived at in a different way from the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

As I set out earlier, the revenue raised by the decisions set out in the Bill will help fund public services, including those provided by the NHS and other social care providers. The amendments would put much of that funding at risk, so to support these amendments is to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. \p Joshua Reynolds: What advice can the Minister give Thames hospice and Alexander Devine children’s hospice service in Maidenhead, which are looking at a £300,000 and £50,000 increase in bills respectively? Is he saying that they should cut services, or is he expecting residents in our constituencies to raise more money for them, for it to be given directly back to the Chancellor? \p James Murray: I do not know the situation of those hospices, so I will not give them direct advice on managing their operations. More generally, I have set out the Government’s approach to providing direct support for Departments and other public sector employers. It depends how hospice care is provided. In many cases, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning palliative and end of life care services to meet the needs of local populations. Where hospices are commissioned by the NHS, contractual arrangements should be discussed with the integrated care board at local level. \p Julian Smith: The Minister has a capital budget and revenue budgets. We are talking about a small amount of money—£4 million or £5 million—so will he consider switching £4 million or £5 million from the capital budget to the revenue budget? Opening up that opportunity would have merit, and would help these very vulnerable organisations. \p James Murray: I have set out the Government’s approach to supporting Departments and other public sector employees when it comes to the changes to employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for  North Bedfordshire, we are taking the same approach that his Government took to the health and social care levy. We are talking about the wider pressures faced by organisations, be they GPs or hospices, and what we can do to support them and their processes. We are considering the pressures on them in the round. I have made a considerable number of points about Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13. In the light of those points, I urge the House to disagree with those amendments.

I turn to the Lords amendments relating to charities, local government and special educational needs transport. Lords amendments 2, 7, 12 and 16 seek to exempt charities from the changes to employer national insurance contribution rates and thresholds. The Government recognise the crucial role that charities play in our society. We recognise the need to protect the smallest charities; that is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 pounds, meaning that more than half of businesses, including charities with national insurance liabilities, either gain or will see no change next year.

As I have noted, it is important to recognise that all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. The Government provide wider support for charities via the tax regime; tax reliefs for charities and their donors were worth just over £6 billion in the tax year to April 2024. Again, the amendments would put much of the funding that the Bill seeks to raise for public services at risk, so supporting these amendments is support for higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. \p Luke Evans: After yesterday’s announcement about benefit changes and benefit cuts, the Government have said that they want more people to go into work. A lot of help to get people into work is delivered by charities, so we are expecting a greater need for such charities. How will they cope if they are being taxed through further NICs? They will have to reduce their services and their ability to provide support, so there will be a gap in the market. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to bridge that gap? \p James Murray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the very important reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out in this House yesterday, which are a crucial part of getting people back into work. Further details on interventions to help people back into work will be set out. We recognise that charities may, in some cases, provide that support, which is why many of the elements of support for charities in the tax regime remain so generous. There was £6 billion for tax relief for charities and their donors in the tax year to April 2024 through features that will continue in the tax year that we are entering. The employment allowance is more than doubling from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit all charities in this country. Charities, particularly small charities, will benefit directly from changes that we have made to the employment allowance. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought you were going to intervene on me. \p Nusrat Ghani: The Minister is making a lengthy contribution; I am just waiting for a conclusion. \p James Murray: In that case, I will not take any more interventions, and I will make speedier progress. I will address Lords amendments 3, 6, 11 and 15, which relate to employers who provide transport for children with special educational needs. In the Budget and the recent provisional local government finance settlement, the Government announced £2 billion of grant funding for local government in ’25-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. That funding is not ringfenced, and it is for local authorities to determine how to use it across relevant services and responsibilities.

Lords amendments 8, 10, 14 and 17 to 19 together seek to maintain the current threshold for businesses employing fewer than 25 members of staff. When it comes to protecting the smallest businesses, the Government are taking action through this Bill by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, as I have said. That means that next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all, and more than half will see no change, or will gain overall as a result of this package.

Finally, Lords amendment 21 would require the Government to conduct assessments on the economic and sectoral impacts of the Bill. As we have discussed previously in this place, the Government have already published an assessment of this policy in a tax information and impact note published by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That note states that as a result of the Bill, around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance contributions liability decrease, and around 940,000 employers will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions.

I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will understand why we are not supporting these amendments from the other place. Through this Bill, the Government are making difficult but necessary decisions in order to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place require information that has already been provided, do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place and, most seriously, undermine the funding that this Bill seeks to secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the amendments, and urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support the Government on that disagreement. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. This debate has to conclude within two hours of its start, so we will have a six-minute time limit, other than for Front-Bench Members. I call the shadow Minister. \p Gareth Davies: I rise on behalf of the official Opposition in support of Lords amendments 1 to 4, 8, 10, 14 and 21.

Before I dive into the detail, I want to get a little nostalgic. One year and six days ago, I opened Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024, which cut national insurance for some 29 million working people across the country. What a difference a year makes. At the end of my speech that day, I posed a simple question to the shadow Minister, now the Exchequer Secretary, which  was really bugging me at the time: how will Labour pay for all its many spending commitments? I asked specifically what taxes Labour would put up, and called for Labour to just be straight with the British people. Alas, no straight answer was forthcoming, but now we know the answer, don’t we? It is just a shame that Labour gave it to us only after the general election.

Labour promised not to raise national insurance, and that it was on the side of British business. It said that it would deliver economic growth; how is that going? The fact is that the Chancellor is delivering a £25 billion tax rise on jobs across the country. That will stifle growth, hold back British business, and harm public services. This Labour national insurance Bill will, unbelievably, take the tax burden to its highest level in history on the backs of working people.

We are debating a series of amendments tabled and voted through in the other place with the aim of mitigating at least some of the damage to three vital parts of our economy and our communities: healthcare providers, charities and small businesses. Lords amendments 1, 3 and 4 seek to exempt from the measures care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, providers of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities and charitable providers of health and social care, such as hospices, as we have heard. That is because we have been warned that as a direct result of the national insurance tax hikes, we could see fewer GP appointments, reduced access to NHS dentistry, community pharmacies closing, adults and local authorities paying more for social care, and young working families being hit with even higher childcare costs. We have to avoid that. \p Jeevun Sandher: Would the hon. Member reverse this national insurance tax change? What spending would he cut to do so? \p Gareth Davies: If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the record of proceedings on earlier stages of the Bill, he will see that we voted against it. If he looks at our record in government, he will see that we cut national insurance for 29 million people across the country. As I have said so many times in this place, why are we not debating the Government’s creation of an £8 billion quango in Great British Energy? Why are they spending £7 billion on a rebrand of the UK Infrastructure Bank? Why are they spending £9 billion on giving up our sovereignty to Mauritius? Let us start with those discussions; we can then have a real debate.

Lords amendment 2 recognises the role that the voluntary sector plays in the provision of essential services by seeking to exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the national insurance rate rise. Charities with an income of less than £1 million make up some 95% of registered charities and undertake vital work in all our communities, yet this Chancellor will force charity staff and volunteers across the sector to raise £1.4 billion more to cover this tax rise next year alone. Supporting this Lords amendment would prevent so many services provided by the third sector from being reduced, or even removed altogether.

Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 seek to exempt the smallest businesses—those with fewer than 25 full-time employees—from the proposed cut to the threshold at which an employer is required to pay secondary class 1 national insurance. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The hon. Member mentions small businesses. Local hairdressers in my constituency have been in touch with me to say that given the difficult economic picture, these NICs rises will mean that they cannot take on apprentices this year. Does he agree that this NICs rise is a tax not just on business, but on education? \p Gareth Davies: Absolutely. To be fair, I do not think the profound impact of this tax is appreciated by Labour Front Benchers. The hon. Lady has pointed out yet another area in which it will have an impact—tax on education. I could talk about the impact on universities as well. \p Julian Smith: Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have assessed the loss of tax revenue that will result from this measure? In North Yorkshire, almost all of the jobs that would have been created in small businesses over the coming year are now being repressed, leading to a loss of income for the Exchequer. \p Gareth Davies: To answer simply, I do not think the Government did that assessment before announcing this tax rise, but with plummeting business confidence, declining economic growth and forecasts for economic growth that are consistently downgraded, the profound impact on businesses and growth—as I was saying—is clear for all to see. \p Rachel Blake: I listened carefully to your answer to the Minister’s question about what you would cut if this change were to be reversed. You have not been clear about whether you would reverse it, but I listened carefully to the answer, and what I heard you say—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister referred to GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund. Will he clarify whether he is really saying that he wants to reverse record levels of investment in energy infrastructure and innovation jobs, and in jobs across this country, to stabilise our economy into the future? \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind hon. Members that interventions should not be short speeches. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; looking at the Chair should hopefully prevent her from saying the word “you” repeatedly. \p Gareth Davies: The problem with that intervention is that the chairman of GB Energy himself disagrees about the number of jobs that it will supposedly be creating. I have set out clearly some of the things that we would do differently, and the different choices we would make from the choices this Labour Government are making.

When we talk about small businesses, and about the impact of this national insurance tax increase on businesses as a whole, the Minister and other Labour Members incorrectly suggest that only the largest businesses will be forced to pay this jobs tax. As I have told them consistently in every debate we have had on this Bill, that is simply not the case. Village butchers, high street hair salons and community pharmacies are not what most people would regard as large businesses, yet businesses such as those will be hit. If the Government really want  to ensure that our smallest businesses are exempt from at least part of this damaging tax, they should support the Lords amendments that are before us today. \p Gavin Williamson: We know that the Minister is having to defend the undefendable—he has got a certain Matt Hancock about him in how he does it with zeal. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the shadow Minister agree that the people who are paying for these increases are taxpayers? They are people who are working hard. I was talking to a manufacturing business in my constituency that was going to give its employees a 4.5% pay increase, but can now only afford to give them a 2% increase. This money is coming out of the pockets of hard-working people. \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind hon. Members that language should be respectful at all times. \p Gareth Davies: The jungle awaits the Minister, clearly. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; in fact, the OBR has clearly demonstrated in its analysis that 76% of this tax increase will be passed on to working people. That is a manifesto breach if ever I saw one. Not only that—the Institute for Fiscal Studies has made clear that this tax increase will not just have an impact on working people. It is the lowest-paid people in our country who will be paying for it, which is another under-appreciated and under-commented fact for the Labour party. \p Roger Gale: It is worse than that, is it not? The money that is being paid to bail out Demelza and Shooting Star children’s hospices is being generously donated by people who have already paid tax. Those working people are effectively being taxed twice on the money they are generously giving to support some of the most needy children in this country—needy in terms of health. Is that not absolutely appalling? \p Gareth Davies: Yes, it is. My right hon. Friend is exactly right; the Government are giving a small amount with one hand and taking a larger amount with the other, but the bottom line is that it is all taxpayers’ money. It is a double tax on those people who now face the brunt of this tax increase. \p Tim Roca: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Gareth Davies: I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, and then give way.

This tax, purely and simply, is a financial penalty on 940,000 businesses—that is how I look at it. The analysis shows that it is going to cost businesses an average of £26,000 per year per employer. Not content with ruining farmers’ futures through the immoral family farm tax, the Chancellor wants to hammer them with this Bill, too. She is going to make pubs, cafés and restaurants stump up more to cover her jobs tax, without regard for the impact on our high streets or the communities they serve. She is going to squeeze the creative industries, from theatres to film producers, in a desperate attempt to keep this circus on the road. It is crucial that we understand the impact that the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21 requires the Chancellor to  carry out a review within six months of the Bill’s impact on the sectors I have described as well as on farming, creative industries, hospitality, retail and universities. \p Mike Martin: The shadow Minister has mentioned cafés, and when we have been debating this point previously in the House, I have mentioned Basil’s café in Tunbridge Wells. It now informs me that it is having to put its prices up because of the NIC rises. Does the shadow Minister think that we are going to see a bump in the inflation figures as a result of this tax? \p Gareth Davies: I remind the House that inflation has already gone from 2% to 3% under this Labour Government, and in fact, the OBR scored the Hallowe’en Budget as inflationary. The hon. Gentleman is right that when these tax rises hit, they will be passed on through higher prices. I hope that that will not put pressure on inflation, but it will inevitably do so.

The combination of factors and how they are affecting businesses, including cafés, is not always appreciated either. The national living wage is going up. Conservative Members have welcomed that—we implemented the national living wage—but it is about the context in which it is going up: national insurance is on the rise and business rates relief for hospitality businesses and high street businesses is being reduced from 70% to 40%. All those things are compounding the impact on cafés, such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). They will be devastated, inevitably leading to job freezes or job losses, which I will come to.

From healthcare to charities and small and medium-sized enterprises, I have made the consequences of this Bill clear since it began its stages in the House. Today, the Government have one more chance to change course, because what many people across the country want to know is this. What is this Bill for? We were told that it was a one-off tax rise to fix the foundations of the economy. We were told that there would be no more tax rises after this, yet we find ourselves just a week away from an emergency Budget, with speculation rife that other taxes may have to rise because the Chancellor will not meet her own new fiscal rules. Some are suggesting that Labour will break another pre-election promise and not unfreeze the income tax thresholds in 2028, but will rather extend the freeze to pay down their new debts. That surely cannot be true—the Minister himself gave me his personal assurance in this House that income tax thresholds would be unfrozen from 2028. I would like him to reconfirm that promise to me today, in order to end the speculation.

This is vital context for Members as we consider the amendments before us today. If more tax rises will be needed—if the original justification for this Bill is now void—why should we stomach the Bill’s terrible consequences? Why should Labour MPs have to go out and defend this to their constituents? Why should we allow the Government to punish the sectors that the amendments before us seek to protect? In fact, why must we stand here and see this entire Bill implemented at all?

One impact that hits every sector of our economy is the impact on jobs. Just yesterday, we heard Labour talk about the importance of lifting people out of welfare and getting them back into work, and it is right to do that. As Conservatives, we know that the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque is what lifts us up as a country and lifts families out of poverty. The tragedy is that this Bill has caused so much concern and so much uncertainty that employment is already declining in anticipation of its passing. The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that the Bill will depress workforce participation for years to come.

Put simply, this Government are cutting welfare to boost employment, while at the same time boosting taxes, which will cut jobs. No wonder business confidence has completely and utterly nose-dived. It is inexplicable and entirely avoidable. \p Dave Doogan: The shadow Minister says it is inexplicable, and I agree that on the face of it, it is. However, is one possible explanation for fiscal misadventure on this scale not that the Government Benches are filled with people who have scarcely any understanding of the real economy, much less what it means to try to start, run and sustain a business? \p Gareth Davies: That is right, and it is an important point, because the decisions made by this Government are having such a profound impact on people in the real economy. I simply say to the British public that if they are unhappy with the decisions being made, they have to change the people making them. [Interruption.] Unbelievably, I am getting heckled on that point. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) should get out and talk to the average businessperson in her constituency. She might quieten down significantly.

The Minister implied that the Government had no choice, and he still seeks to ask me what the Conservatives would do differently. Others on the Government Benches are trying that, implying that there is no other alternative. The Minister should look at the £70 billion of wasteful spending commitments that I have already listed, including the quangos, such as GB Energy, the pay-offs to the unions without any reform or productivity gains, and the billions of pounds being surrendered as part of the surrender deal to Mauritius. We have growth on the decline and inflation, debt and unemployment on the rise. We have a Chancellor on the brink, and confidence crumbling. We may not be able to kill this Bill, but we have our chance now to dent the damage. I urge Ministers and Members across the House to do the right thing and to support these amendments. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Due to the length of Front-Bench contributions, Back Benchers are now limited to five minutes. \p Jeevun Sandher: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 to 19. I want to speak about what makes a good tax system and, in particular, optimal tax theory, which is a topic that is as thrilling to me as it is no doubt to the entire Chamber.

A good tax system is defined by neutrality, simplicity and stability, as set out in the Mirrlees review. A tax system designed along those three principles will raise the maximum revenue with the minimum economic impact. Each of the amendments in isolation might seem reasonable, but together they introduce individual exemptions that make our tax system less neutral, less simple and less stable. The amendments would make our tax system worse.

Today, we are discussing raising national insurance contributions from the largest employers to fix our broken public services and invest in our prosperity. Three quarters of that £23 billion of investment is from the richest 2% of businesses, while we are reducing contributions from the 250,000 smallest businesses. \p Luke Evans: The hon. Member talks about simplicity. If that is the case, why is the Government splitting the NICs? They could have introduced an increase on employees at the same time as the increase on employers, but they have decided not to do that. That would have been a simple measure to raise taxes, without creating this complication. How does that tally with his theory? \p Jeevun Sandher: It is a pretty well established introduction to the tax system to have both employee and employer NICs. The point about simplicity is about where the tax is levied. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member raises later in my speech and hopefully provide some illumination.

The revenue we are raising will be used to invest in our nation’s prosperity: insulating our homes, rebuilding our crumbling schools and hiring more nurses to care for our loved ones. It is about getting costs down and creating good jobs. It is about rebuilding this country after, frankly, more than a decade of despondency and despair.

The amendments before us represent bad policy that puts that at risk. As I may have mentioned in this House once or twice before, I used to be an economist. I can tell the House that a good tax is one that raises revenue and does not introduce perverse incentives. A good tax ensures that resources go to activity because there are higher levels of productivity. A good tax system introduces three principles. The first is neutrality: it treats similar activities in similar ways. The second is simplicity: it is straightforward and easy to implement. The third is stability: it is predictable. \p Vikki Slade: The hon. Member is talking about productivity and growth. How does he square that with the additional tax on early years care? That care allows parents to work. If parents cannot work and employers cannot afford to bring young people through, how are we going to get the nation working? Nurseries are on their knees and they cannot take on more children, because there are strict rules about ratios and the amount of space each child takes. \p Jeevun Sandher: First, there is more funding going into the early years, but I will deal with the tax side as I speak to the specific amendments.

Each amendment seeks to carve out an exemption for something, and I am sure that Members across the House identify with and, indeed, support some of those  individual exemptions. However, if we were to pass the amendments, they would give specified sectors advantages not enjoyed by others. \p Joe Robertson: It seems to me that the hon. Member’s issue is not with some of the amendments, but with all of them taken together. Why does not he not back some of the amendments? \p Jeevun Sandher: I do not, because that would introduce exemptions and perverse incentives and make the tax system less clear. It would make the tax system as a whole less efficient. I will come to the specific ways shortly.

Let us start with non-neutrality. Lords amendments 7, 12 and 16 would create non-neutrality between small charities and non-charities. That would incentivise more social enterprises to be charities instead of businesses. Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 would create an additional NICs band for small businesses, thereby disincentivising them from growing. Under those amendments, if a business saw its revenue go over £1 million or it employed more than 25 people, all of a sudden it would incur a NICs charge. That is a cliff edge. It would introduce a perverse incentive and reduce productivity and economic growth. \p Caroline Dinenage: I am pleased that the hon. Member is talking about growth. He talks about perverse incentives. What possible kind of perverse incentive could he have in mind when removing a jobs tax from a children’s hospice, which cares for children and families going through the most unspeakable heartbreak? Where is the perverse incentive in that? \p Jeevun Sandher: As I think I have set out, the question is not about carving out an exemption for this establishment or that establishment; it is about how we create a tax system overall that is simple and efficient. It is about ensuring that businesses and other organisations are operating more efficiently. I say this to the hon. Member: when the Conservatives were in government, they did not propose abolishing national insurance for all hospices. They should follow their arguments to the end of the line. I will move on, as I am conscious of the time.

The amendments would also reduce simplicity in the tax system. We are not exempting specific sectors or, indeed, specific establishments from this tax. Overall, Lords amendments 1 to 19 would complicate the tax system and reduce stability. Raising rates is accepted policy; introducing special rates for specific sectors or establishments is not. It would make for a less efficient tax system that is complicated to govern, expensive to enforce and more prone to fraud. This is not a predictable way of making tax policy. It is not neutral, it is not simple, and it is not stable. It is bad policy that all of us in the House should oppose.

All this may sound dry, but it matters to our constituents. Bad taxes do not just harm economic growth, but bring in less revenue. That means fewer appointments in the NHS, it means fewer new teachers, and it means less insulation in our homes. We are elected to this place as legislators. We have a duty to make policy that works, and that involves distinguishing the whole from its parts, ensuring we do not introduce loopholes and carve-outs that weaken our tax system, and governing responsibly. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), the Lords amendments were clearly not designed with the aim of creating a simpler tax system. They have been sent to us to consider because they may create a fairer society, and that, in my view, should be a driving force in our consideration of them today and in the work of this House.

Such is the strength of feeling in the other place that it has sent us 21 amendments, and such is the strength of feeling on the Liberal Democrat Benches that we will support every single one. Taken together, they offer exemptions for health and care providers, for small charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million, for transport providers, for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. \p Steve Darling: Rowcroft hospice in my constituency is impacted greatly by the Bill, as is Bay Care, an excellent social care provider. Both those organisations are having to make challenging and difficult decisions about how many people they can employ and how they can support people in their communities. Does my hon. Friend share my fear that this will result in the shunting of costs on to our core NHS services? \p Daisy Cooper: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. One of the main problems with this particular measure is that it is so self-defeating. It is effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. I have said it once and I will say it again: this jobs tax is damaging to growth, and self-defeating for our health and care services. We Liberal Democrats have opposed it, and throughout the debate on the Bill we have suggested alternative ways—fairer ways—in which the Government could raise the same amount of revenue. We have also asked the Government, if they are indeed pursuing this measure, at the very least to exempt health and care providers.

The Government will not get hospitals out of a financial hole by taxing the GPs, dentists, pharmacies and care providers who prevent people from needing to go to hospital in the first place. The Government will not alleviate the pressure on hospitals by taxing hospices, which will now be forced to withdraw services from people who are trying to die with independence and dignity in a setting of their choosing, rather than in a cramped hospital corridor or a sterile ward. The Government will not keep people out of hospitals by levying a tax on the very health and care charities that provide vital services for those who are vulnerable—warm spaces, friendship for the isolated, financial advice, welfare support and social care. The Minister said that extra money would go into social care, but we know that the money allocated to it in the Budget is dwarfed by the increase in national insurance contributions. We cannot save the NHS unless we fix social care. \p Victoria Collins: There are many similar examples, but Quantum Care in Hertfordshire, a not-for-profit social care business, says that its costs will rise by £1.7 million in national insurance contributions alone, which will also have an impact on council and social services. That is certainly not solving our health and social care problem. \p Daisy Cooper: As a fellow Hertfordshire Member, I have met representatives of Quantum Care a number of times and have heard the same reports as my hon. Friend. This is extremely worrying for our social care providers, who are very clear about the impact that this measure will have. They will have to put up their costs, they will have to hand back contracts to local authorities, and they will not be able to provide the level of care that many vulnerable people require.

The measure will also have a huge impact on small businesses and high streets. As I have said before, high streets are the most visual and visceral indicators of whether the economy is working in their area. If small businesses see their local high street going down the pan, they will lose confidence in their local economy. Pubs, hospitality companies, retailers, beauty salons and day centres are the glue that holds our communities together, but they are also the engines of local growth. Small businesses are crying out for assistance. What makes them feel so overwhelmed is the cumulative impact of all the measures that we are seeing from this Government: the national insurance increase, the rise in business rate bills, and the new obligations that are imposed by the Employment Rights Bill without the resources to manage them.

Throughout the passage of the Bill before us, we Liberal Democrats have set out alternative ways for the Government to raise funds. The Government say that this measure will raise £25 billion for the NHS, but the Office for Budget Responsibility says that when behaviour change and reimbursement in the public sector are taken into account, it will raise just £10 billion. We believe that that money could be raised from different sources, from the digital services tax to the gaming tax to reforming capital gains tax so that it is fairer and raises more money than it can currently raise because of the way in which the Government have addressed it.

This measure will destroy growth, decimate parts of our high streets, and cause vulnerable people to lose out on vital services. That is why we Liberal Democrats have opposed the increase in the jobs tax, and it is why we ask for, at the very least, an exemption for our valuable health and care providers. \p Rachel Blake: Lords amendment 21 calls for a review of this policy. I will come to the practical reasons for my opposition to it shortly, but first I want to focus on the cause of the problem and the cause of today’s debate.

The last Government presided over economic chaos, scaring businesses away from long-term investment. The last Government failed to invest in the skills that are required in the vital sectors about which we have been hearing today. The last Government left the NHS on its knees, in desperate need of long-term investment. It will be hard to take the serious steps that will put the country back on its feet, but I believe that the measures we are debating today are necessary. What a contrast we see now: a Government laser-focused on economic stability, a Government determined to invest in skills for the future, a Government who are already reducing the NHS waiting list thanks to a £23 billion investment. That is the outcome of this policy, which is part of a package of measures to stabilise our economy and enable us to invest in public services.

I have to admit that I have been struck by the passion and commitment of Members on both sides of the House who have spoken about important public services. I talk to representatives of those services regularly myself, and I firmly believe that the investment that this Government will be able to make in childcare, in early years, in breakfast clubs, in the NHS and back into local government, where it needs to be, will in the round create the more sustainable public services that we so desperately need.

On the practical reasons why I oppose Lords amendment 21, the OBR has already considered the implications of this policy— \p Joe Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Rachel Blake: I will not give way.

Jobs data is already publicly available that will enable everybody to analyse the impact of this policy, and there has been a detailed assessment of it by HMRC. I firmly believe that this amendment will not deliver on the objectives that our country needs. \p Caroline Dinenage: I rise to speak in support of the Lords amendments, and I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I want to talk about the services that are so integral to our communities, because they are the ones on which our constituents rely. I am talking about GP surgeries, dental practices and pharmacies. I am also talking about our community hospices; the charity hospices that care for our loved ones through the most difficult and heartbreaking of times; the hospices that our constituents work so hard to raise funds to keep going. including our children’s hospices.

I listened very hard to what the Minister said, and he talked really dispassionately about difficult decisions. Has he no shame? This is a choice, and the Government have chosen to impose this jobs tax on children’s hospices and the services that support families going through the most unimaginably difficult and painful of times. \p Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend speaks with so much knowledge and passion, and she is a real advocate for her constituents. When we look across the Chamber, we see that the Labour Benches are threadbare. Is that not testament to the fact that Labour is actually trying to defend the indefensible? \p Caroline Dinenage: That is absolutely right. There are over 400 Labour MPs, but just four of them are sitting there to try to defend this indefensible jobs tax on our most vulnerable. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Do they not have children’s hospices in their constituencies? Do they not have hospices and other settings that their constituents work so hard to raise funds for? They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. \p Joe Robertson: Perhaps I may suggest an easy decision, rather than a difficult one? The Government, instead of giving £9 billion away to Mauritius, should use some of that to support social care and charities. \p Caroline Dinenage: That would be an excellent decision, and I am sure the Naomi House children’s hospice and Jacksplace, which do so much invaluable  work to support families going through the most unspeakable difficulties in my area, would advocate for that.

I want to talk about childcare settings, which ensure that our smallest but most cherished family members are cared for and given the very best possible start in life. It is incomprehensible that the Government have taken this decision to imperil some of the businesses and services that our constituents most rely on—nursing homes, for example. The owner of one nursing home, with 35 years of service in the Gosport constituency, told me that the tax rises in the Budget will add £90,000 on top of its annual costs. This business is particularly vulnerable because a very large proportion of its bed spaces are occupied by local authority patients. Its costs are going to go up by 12% this year, driven mostly by changes to the minimum wage and this jobs tax—the national insurance contributions change—on his 75 members of staff. The council, which is having difficulties of its own, can provide only a 4% uplift to cover it. Quite simply, this an existential threat to his business, and he is not alone.

It is the elderly, the vulnerable, disabled people and their families who are going to pay the price, and we know that these costs will go to those having to foot the bill. If people are not privately funded, some nursing homes will be forced to hand back their local authority contracts and increase the proportion of beds commissioned privately. Since the Budget, I have received messages from individuals who have already seen the cost of care going through the roof. One wrote to me:

“Directly due to the increases in Employers National Insurance contributions the Chancellor has managed to cause an increase of 7.8% in my brother’s care home fees that are already north of £8000 a month… I shudder to think of the overall cost nationally of this increase across all those with relatives and loved ones in care.”

I also want to talk about early years settings. Early years providers are facing a squeeze that many just will not be able to stomach. Just as care settings have their revenue dictated by local government, nurseries are limited by childcare ratios and the fees they get from their local authority for their 30 hours’ free childcare. Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across my region, has told me that these changes will add £1 million to its overheads. It says that, in order to make up the shortfall, it is going to have to put its fees up by 10%, and that 10% will be passed on to my Gosport constituents. How can parents in Gosport face such an uptick in fees? What assessment have the Government made of the impact that will have on parents, on people dropping out of the jobs market or out of the workforce, and, most especially, on women? At the end of the day, we all know that when it comes to childcare, rightly or wrongly, the buck always stops with us. What will be the disproportionate impact of this on women?

I could mention so many other organisations that are facing the prospect of scaling back their activities. They include hair and beauty salons, which are warning that this will result in billions of pounds lost, and many will shut up shop or encourage staff to go freelance. They have previously taken on so many apprentices, but they warn that by 2027 there will be no apprenticeships left in this sector because they will be too expensive.

The common thread is that this national insurance change will hit businesses for which labour is the highest cost and there is no digital solution, and businesses that are unable to find efficiencies because of the nature of their overheads. The amendments passed in the Lords would go some way towards alleviating those cost pressures. In many cases, they would be a lifeline for the businesses and services that our constituents so desperately rely on, and those that by their very nature are reliant on the public sector for revenue. I urge the Minister to change his mind, to show some compassion, to show he cares, to listen to his constituents and to support these amendments. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I am on record previously as calling for more support for hospices, but I have been contacted by a number of constituents about the issue of home-to-school transport for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. That relates to Lords amendments 3, 6, 11 and 15, and I wish to consider those today.

For many children with SEND, their school transport is a lifeline to education, friendships and independence. Without it, these children risk being cut off, left behind and denied opportunities that they deserve. If these Lords amendments are rejected, local councils and transport providers will struggle, families will face uncertainty and, I believe, the fundamental right to education will be compromised. This is not just a technical change to national insurance rates and thresholds; it is a direct threat to the futures of vulnerable children and their families. These dry words on a page have a massive impact in the world outside this place.

There is a genuine fear that the cost of removing these Lords amendments, which will ultimately see more children kept out of school, will actually be greater than the additional revenue raised through the national insurance changes. In reality, to exempt SEND school transport from the national insurance rise is not going to bankrupt the UK. We know that local councils, even with additional funding, are already struggling with the impact of 14 years of austerity. I believe that we could certainly raise the money we need if we had a wealth tax and introduced other changes to capital gains tax. I would appreciate it if the Minister explained why we are unable to compromise on this issue and find a way to exempt SEND school transport from the changes he proposes. \p Dave Doogan: It is almost three months to the day since we were here in this Chamber on Third Reading. The SNP and other parties warned at that stage of the very real, dire consequences for organisations, businesses, charities, hospices and so on. It certainly does not give me, or anybody else on the Opposition side of the House, any pleasure that those threats have come to pass. There is no pleasure in that whatsoever.

The British Chambers of Commerce spoke last month of a “powder keg of costs” for businesses, with 82% of firms surveyed saying that they faced the potential of staff lay-offs, wage freezes or cancelled promotions in the workforce, which will be a terrible drag on the economy. Last month saw vacancies in the UK contract at the second-fastest rate in nearly five years, while wage growth has slumped to an almost four-year low. If we want the evidence of what business thinks of this change,  it is there in the figures: 300,000 small business owners surveyed last month said they intend to lay off employees in order to cope with Labour’s national insurance increase.

The economic impact is now becoming absolutely clear. Last week’s GDP figures show the UK economy shrinking in January. On Monday this week, the OECD downgraded the UK growth forecast for both this year and the next. The reality under Labour is that economic growth has fallen in four of the past seven months. The national insurance grab represents an extraordinary and unforced error in fiscal policy. If Labour genuinely has confidence in this move, then it should have no issue whatsoever in agreeing to Lords amendment 21 and publishing an impact assessment of its national insurance increase. What the Minister detailed as an impact assessment was in fact an analysis. An impact assessment deals not with the numbers, but with output in the real economy—the effect on business. The Minister knows fine that that is not what he is talking about.

On GPs and Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13, the Scottish Government will be investing—or compensating, rather—£13.6 million in general practice this financial year to support GPs in Scotland alone, obviously, to retain and recruit staff in the face of the change. But Scotland’s GPs, any more than England’s, Wales’s or Northern Ireland’s, should not be paying the price for UK Government decisions. Labour’s decision to increase national insurance contributions is a catastrophe for GP practices and for charities across Scotland—the relevant Lords amendments are 2, 7, 12 and 16.

There are 7,000 charities in Scotland at risk from this Labour Government. Marie Curie faces a £2.9 million inflation to its costs, with £75 million across the charitable sector in Scotland. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals alone is exposed to a £400,000 recurring pressure from this Labour Government. Scotland’s public sector faces a £700 million recurring pressure, which, with the Government’s compensation, still leaves a £200 million shortfall. Scotland is again being punished for choosing to invest more in its public services and paying people who deliver those services better.

The Government regularly attack us by saying, “What would you do?” I will tell them what I would do: £30 billion by rejoining the single market; £16 billion by introducing Scottish income tax rates; and £43 billion from a wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million. But this Labour Government will not go after multimillionaires. They would far rather go after the disabled, hospices, family businesses, GPs, farmers, councils and charities. That is what these so-called socialists are intent on doing.

In conclusion, Labour’s fiscal bonfire is what my colleagues in the Scottish Government have had to deal with to try to ameliorate and protect communities from Labour’s economic ineptitude. But even fiscally incompetent Unionists—a cadre in whose number I include the Minister—must realise that the Scottish Parliament cannot exist simply to ameliorate and protect Scottish public services from the United Kingdom’s decisions. Devolution can only ever be a temporary face-lift for the crumbling foundations of Unionism. As the Union crumbles, I shed no tears, but I wish it was not ripping the economic heart out of Scotland on its way down. \p Wendy Morton: I would like to start with a gentle reminder, if it is needed, that Labour promised in its manifesto not to raise national insurance. Yet we are here today because Labour broke that promise. We are  here today because right hon. and hon. Members in the other place tabled some very important amendments to the Bill, which are, rightly, now here for us to consider. Let us also not forget that Labour colleagues voted against protecting small family businesses; against protecting hospices; against protecting GPs; against protecting care providers; against protecting small charities, including air ambulances; against protecting providers of school transport for children with SEND; and against protecting nurseries. Now they all face the jobs tax. \p Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will recall that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) referred in his speech to perverse incentives. Is it not perverse that the Government should, while exempting the health service, be taxing doctors, dentists, hospices and children’s hospices, which are, effectively, all part of that same health service? \p Wendy Morton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I find it hard to believe that we are listening to those arguments being made by Labour Members. The unintended consequences of the Labour Government’s choices are not just disappointing but callous. They are so harsh on some of the most vulnerable communities and vulnerable people in society. \p Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does she agree that it also shows a deep lack of understanding by the Labour party of the way our communities are constructed and the organisations we rely on so much to keep them going? \p Wendy Morton: That is exactly the point. What we see instead is Labour Members continuing to blame their economic inheritance. That is simply not correct. The chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility said:

“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”.

I wonder what the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, makes of all this. In the run-up to the 2024 general election, he endorsed Labour.

What many people now see is a Government who do not really understand the role that so many charities play in supporting the NHS, communities, older people, young people, families, and patients—people who are sick and sometimes terminally ill. For example, why would they protect the public sector and the rest of the NHS from the national insurance tax, but not general practice? Analysis from the Institute of General Practice Management estimates that it will cost each practice an average of £20,000 a year. How many staff hours is that equivalent to? How many hours of a GP’s time or a practice nurse’s time is that?

I have spoken to a number of local charities, and we have heard from others today. Every pound that the Labour Government squeeze out of them through the jobs tax is an extra pound that cannot be spent on frontline services—an extra pound that they have to find just to stand still. I find it so hard to believe that this Labour Government are also taxing those who provide vital hospice care. How can they talk of helping palliative care with one hand, while clobbering hospices and care providers with extra taxes with the other?

I can be cynical at times but I see a complete lack of business expertise, knowledge or experience among those on the Labour Benches. Just visiting businesses is not enough to understand how a business operates. I speak to them in my constituency on a weekly basis. The chair of the CBI has stated that

“business has been milked as the cash cow”.

We simply cannot expect small businesses, or indeed any business, to just be squeezed and squeezed, thinking, “Well, they’ll just increase their costs and pass them on to the end user.” The end user cannot afford them, as we have heard this afternoon. Ultimately, something will have to give: hours, training, development and jobs.

Just yesterday, we were in this Chamber debating the Government’s welfare reform. At the heart of the issue, I really believe people want to get back into work. They need support to do that, but they also need employers and businesses to have vacancies so that they can support them back into work. What I, like others, see in this legislation is the Government taxing businesses out of creating the vital jobs that this country so needs to get the growth that we do not have at the moment.

As I mentioned, attendance on the Government Benches is somewhat threadbare, giving the appearance that the Government do not care. We have heard from Labour Members who do care, just like we on the Opposition Benches care. I draw my remarks to a conclusion by urging Members on the Government Benches and those listening outside to reflect very carefully. We all have the opportunity today to do the right thing—to protect and help charities and hospices and, by virtue of that, to protect and help some of the most vulnerable in our country and society. We have the opportunity to protect jobs and help businesses to create opportunities and, by virtue of that, to help working people who aspire to a better life. I end quite simply by urging those on the Government Benches to think again and to do the right thing. \p James MacCleary: I wish to express my deep concerns about the Government’s national insurance changes and the devastating impact they are having on essential services in my constituency. The amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats in the Lords are crucial to preventing this policy from inflicting serious harm on GP practices, care providers and the wider health system.

Take our GP surgeries, which are vital to healthcare in Lewes and beyond. I have been speaking to local healthcare providers in my community over the past week. Unlike private businesses, GP surgeries cannot pass their costs on to their patients. Every extra pound spent on national insurance is a pound less spent on patient care, staffing and appointments. The Government’s failure to exempt them will mean fewer face-to-face consultations and longer waiting times, contrary to the Government’s claimed objectives. The Liberal Democrats’ Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13 would protect GP surgeries, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists by keeping their national insurance costs at a sustainable level.

Social care providers are facing the same predicament. A domiciliary care provider in my constituency is already struggling to recruit and retain staff due to rising costs. \p Helen Maguire: I have a similar situation in my constituency with Strada Care, which is under immense strain, having already closed four care homes over the past seven years due to chronic underfunding. Thousands of care providers are on the brink of collapse, and many more may follow if these Lords amendments are disagreed to. With social care services already struggling, more vulnerable individuals will be forced into hospitals and be bed blocking. Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing costs for social care providers will have a devastating knock-on effect for the NHS? \p James MacCleary: I absolutely agree. The care provider in my constituency faces a 9.4% increase in employer’s costs, which it simply cannot absorb. These are the very people keeping elderly and disabled residents safe in their homes, preventing hospital admissions and easing NHS pressures, yet the Government have chosen to burden them rather than support them. The Lords amendments I mentioned would ensure that care providers can continue to deliver essential services without being driven into financial crisis. \p Gideon Amos: The £615 cost per person reported to me by care providers in my constituency will mean that one constituent, who is paying £1,500 a week for care for her 94-year-old mother, will no longer have the money to pay for the care of her disabled brother as well, after the fees go up as a result of this jobs tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a shockingly unacceptable result of these changes, and that the Lords amendments introduced by the Liberal Democrats should be accepted? \p James MacCleary: I thank my hon. Friend for providing such a concrete example of the real suffering these changes will cause. This is not an abstract thing; it is about real people’s lives, and there are people who will suffer as a result, as in the example given by my hon. Friend.

I will move on to nurseries and early years providers, an issue very close to my heart. In my constituency, they are facing the same impossible squeeze. The rise in national insurance contributions, combined with the increased statutory wage costs, is pushing many to the very brink. The National Day Nurseries Association has warned that the average nursery will see an additional £47,000 in costs, which the Government’s funding increase does not come even close to covering. If nurseries are forced to close, it will leave working parents, who are already struggling with the cost of living, without the childcare they need. If schools are exempt from this tax hike, as they should be, the nurseries that provide the very foundation of a child’s education should be, too.

What makes this even worse is that the Government are not just undermining essential services, but forcing more people towards them by stripping away other forms of support. At the same time as these tax hikes, Ministers are cutting vital benefits such as personal independence payment, leaving thousands of vulnerable people struggling to afford the basics, meaning that more people will have no choice but to turn to the very care providers and community health services that are now being hit financially by these national insurance changes. The Government cannot claim to support essential services while actively driving them towards collapse. They are giving with one hand, while taking much more with the other.

I find that a gauge of the level of enthusiasm and pride that a Government have in a policy they have put forward is often the number of their representatives who turn up to support it and be associated with it. Notwithstanding the heroic contribution of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), the emptiness of the Government Benches speaks volumes.

The Liberal Democrat Lords amendments before us today would help to prevent irreparable damage to GP practices, care providers and the wider healthcare system. I urge the Minister to back them, because failing to do so will cost not just money, but lives. \p Aphra Brandreth: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Bill is yet another example of legislation from this Government that breaks their manifesto promises, harms local business, negatively impacts our constituents and limits the prospects of growth in my local economy of Chester South and Eddisbury and, indeed, the country.

Fundamentally, these changes will hit working people the hardest—the very people the Chancellor said would be shielded from the impacts of the Bill will be the most affected. It will mean lower wages, higher unemployment and increased costs for businesses, resulting in higher prices in the shops. Do not just take my word for it: the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that

“additional payroll costs for employers are passed through into lower wages.”

When I speak with business owners in my constituency, they say they feel like they are swimming against the tide, from the NIC increases to the reduction in business rates relief. The recurring message from every company I speak to is that confidence in the economy is down. I must ask the Minister: how is that conducive to growth?

I will speak to two of the amendments. Exempting hospices from this damaging increase in employer national insurance contributions is the right thing to do. I have had the pleasure of visiting both the hospice of the Good Shepherd in Backford and St Luke’s hospice in Winsford, which provide a vital service to the most vulnerable of my constituents at the most difficult time in their lives. They provide the very best care and support, and I encourage the Minister to visit and see for himself the warm, compassionate and welcoming environment that they offer, which reflects the attitude of the doctors, nurses and, indeed, all the staff who go above and beyond in their work.

The financial implications of an increase in national insurance contributions and the resulting consequences for services and staff will be hugely damaging. Those hospices have shared with me their challenges with recruitment and their deep concern that these tax rises will make paying their staff in line with what their colleagues receive in the NHS even harder than it already is. \p Joe Robertson: My hon. Friend talks passionately about hospices. Does she agree that taxing hospices but providing tax relief to hospitals through the relief to the NHS actually disincentivises moving people out of hospitals, which the Secretary of State for Health says is his intention? \p Aphra Brandreth: I completely agree with that excellent intervention. The frustration that hospices have is that in order to recruit staff, they need to pay wages comparable   to what NHS staff receive, and this change is making that virtually impossible to do. Hospices requires a highly specialised workforce to provide the levels of care and dignity that they offer to patients. Without the proposed exemptions, I am unsure as to the sustainability of the hospices that serve my constituents.

The second issue I would like to mention briefly is the impact on transport for children with special educational needs. As we know, the complex needs and challenges of SEN children varies from case to case; some will need specialist transport to and from school, for appointments, or just for everyday tasks. Many of these young people are vulnerable children, to whom process and routine matter. They might have a driver with whom they have built a bond and who understands their needs; they might be a highly anxious child, or perhaps a non-verbal child who has a driver who can use British Sign Language.

For my constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury, specialist transport is of the utmost importance. Our communities are isolated and rural, and parents and children rely on this vital service. There are no transport alternatives in many areas. People cannot get a bus—not even one without a specialist driver—leaving many of my villages cut off with no public transport options at all. \p Daisy Cooper: In my constituency of St Albans, which is not particularly rural, many children with special educational needs have to travel a great distance, because we do not have enough special school places. Does the hon. Member agree that this is an issue that affects children right up and down the country? \p Aphra Brandreth: The hon. Member makes an important point. It does not matter whether we are talking about a rural or an urban community, these young people often have to travel large distances, and we really need to think about their welfare. In my constituency, they literally have no other option. If we make this service effectively unaffordable, we are just taking away that option from SEN children.

In conclusion, I simply say to the Minister and to Government Members that they should consider the real people behind these decisions, the support that will be taken away from vulnerable people and the vital services that will no longer be affordable because of this inexcusable tax increase. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have three more speakers. If anyone intervenes, I will not be able to get all of them in. \p Caroline Voaden: I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Liberal Democrats are extremely concerned that this tax rise risks dire consequences for social care, primary care, the NHS, hospices and charities, many of which are delivering vital healthcare in the community. Thousands of care providers are already on the brink of bankruptcy, and this national insurance increase risks tipping them over the edge.

The OBR estimates that this hike will bring in £10 billion a year rather than the £25 billion estimated by the Government, once employers change their behaviour in response to the tax and once public sector employers are compensated. Yes, we know that finances are stretched, and that the Government inherited an incredibly difficult situation, but the Government could have raised that amount of money through much fairer tax changes, and we Liberal Democrats have come up with many suggestions. For example, they could have reversed Conservative cuts handed to the big banks; increased the digital services tax; doubled the rate of remote gaming duty; and introduced a fair reform of capital gains tax, so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals pay their fair share. This may be something particular to Totnes, but many wealthy constituents have told me that they wish they were being asked to pay more tax.

The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt social care providers and GPs from the employer national insurance tax rise. On average, the tax rise will cost each GP practice an estimated £20,000 a year. The Government have announced an additional £889 million in the 2025-26 GP contract, but have failed to spell out how much of that they believe practices will need to use to pay the additional tax burden, and how much will be left to meet unmet patient needs. What is clear is that the national insurance rise will mean that the uplift to the GP contract is in fact far smaller than it appears, because a proportion will need to be returned directly to the Treasury—robbing Peter to pay Paul, as many Members have said.

What assessment have the Government made of how much of the recent uplift in the GP contract will practices need to use to offset the rise in national insurance? Rowcroft hospice, which is in the constituency next door, but which serves us, says the NIC rise is expected to add £225,000 to annual costs. One of my GP surgeries says that its costs will go up by £187,000, and the Devon Mental Health Alliance estimates the cost increase at £375,000, potentially resulting in a loss of 25,167 staffing hours.

One GP said to us:

“I have been a GP for 10 years and a doctor for 15. It is exhausting and, frankly, I just feel like giving up. This is not an attractive or stable job for training doctors.”

The Devon Mental Health Alliance, which is a strategic partnership, uniting five leading charitable organisations in Devon, said:

“As a sector, we play a critical role in easing the burden on the NHS by preventing thousands of people from needing GP appointments, hospital care, or sitting on waiting lists for treatment. By addressing health issues at their root and offering early intervention and prevention, this sector acts as a frontline defence, reducing demand on overstretched NHS services.”

It cannot fill the black hole by increasing revenue efficiencies or risk management. The organisation estimates costs of £375,000 next year and, as I have said, that could mean losing 25,000 staffing hours. That would mean that more people in Devon with complex needs will not be able to access its services.

Minister, at a time when we have a mental health crisis across all ages and communities, this extra financial impact on voluntary sector services is short-sighted and will only heap more pressure on the NHS. If we do not value the work done in primary care, particularly by GPs, we are putting the health of our constituents  across the country at risk, putting more pressure on GPs who are already working at full capacity and threatening reforms to the NHS, which has already been brought to its knees by chronic underfunding over the past decade. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the NICs rise for GPs, social care providers and all of those working to support health and wellbeing in the communities that we represent.

Just to finish, I would like to echo what others have said about the total absence of Government Back Benchers who have felt able to come in and speak in support of their hospices, their social care providers and their voluntary sector organisations, because they could not come in here and defend a Government policy that they know is indefensible. \p Llinos Medi: I rise to speak in support of these Lords amendments, and I will speak today on those that would protect small businesses with up to 25 employees.

In Wales, more than 99% of all businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises. Of those, nearly 95% are micro-sized, meaning that they employ between one and nine people. For all the protections that the Government say they have put in place for small businesses, the increase to employer national insurance contributions will still hit these enterprises hard.

There is a lack of home-grown Welsh businesses developing beyond the micro-enterprise level and becoming larger businesses themselves. We need a Government who will step up and support local businesses to grow. Unfortunately, this Government are doing the exact opposite, as it is estimated that an employer of 40 people on an average salary is about £29,000 worse off a year under the national insurance changes. Why would Welsh businesses now be incentivised to grow and take on more staff given this extra cost? It is worth noting, too, that the OBR forecasts that 76% of the cost of the national insurance contributions increase will be passed on to workers through higher prices and lower pay rises.

The Government have said that small businesses will be shielded from the national insurance increases through the changes to employment allowances. However, when asked specifically how many businesses in Wales will benefit, the Government responded by saying that they did not know. This Government like to talk about growth as their central mission, but can they explain how this policy is good for growth for our small businesses in Wales? All I can see is that it is bad for Welsh business, bad for Welsh workers, and bad for the Welsh economy.

I urge the Government to support these Lords amendments to at least protect more businesses from the damage that the national insurance hike will cause. I have raised concerns previously in this Chamber that this Labour Government are not considering the needs of small and local businesses in their decisions, and these damaging national insurance hikes are only further proof that that is the case. \p Sarah Dyke: I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13. These amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place would ensure that care providers, NHS GP  practices, NHS-commissioned dentists, NHS-commissioned pharmacies, charitable providers of health and social care, and hospice care continue to pay secondary class 1 contributions at the rate of 13.8%.

With healthcare in such a dire state in Glastonbury and Somerton, it is essential that providers are not put into further financial difficulties due to increases in employer national insurance contributions. Like so many Members, my inbox has been brimming with correspondence on this matter from organisations across my constituency. The measure will disproportionately impact businesses run by women. For example, early years provider Acorn Day Nursery in Somerton has told me that it believes that the employer national insurance contribution increases, in combination with other recent funding announcements, could be the final nail in the coffin for its business, leaving families without crucial early years care provision. I have heard from hospice care providers such as Dorothy House, which provides crucial end of life care for my constituents. It will be hard hit by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, which will impact care provision for people who live in rural areas.

Vine GP surgery in Street shared with me its concerns about the impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions, stating that it will undermine access to patient care following years of neglect from the previous Conservative Government. A constituent from Langport recently wrote to me to raise their concerns about the negative impact of the rise in national insurance on care homes. Already stretched care homes could see an increase of around £650 per employee for anyone working more than eight hours a week. That will have a knock-on impact on the cost of care provision.

Community pharmacies play an essential role in providing care in the community, in line with the Government’s strategic agenda. However, if the rise in national insurance contributions goes ahead, pharmacies such as Bruton, Castle Cary, Stoke-sub-Hamdon and Martock could all be put at risk. If they go, vital frontline services for rural communities will be lost. The National Pharmacy Association has predicted that around 1,000 will close by 2027. The combined effect of changes to the national insurance contributions and the national living wage could add an extra £25,000 to each pharmacy in rural Somerset, affecting their viability. Given the rate of pharmacy closures in Glastonbury and Somerton is nearly double the national average, my constituents will be hard hit by this tax hike.

In rural areas we simply cannot afford to lose any more pharmacies or our critical frontline services. I fear that these measures will only increase the pressure on GPs and other services that will be badly impacted by this decision. I urge colleagues to back the Liberal Democrats’ amendments so that we can protect frontline health providers, who, shockingly, are not included in the Government’s exemption. Without it, health and early years provision across the country will be drastically reduced. \p James Murray: I will respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), repeated many points that I addressed in my opening remarks. He asked a fundamental question: why must  the Bill be implemented? My response is because of the mess that his party left when we won the election last July. I noted that he refused to say whether he would reverse the national insurance changes that we are making, despite being asked by Government Members. He refused to make clear his party’s position, as the leader of his party did earlier.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke of choices in politics. She is right that politics is about choices. But she was also incapable of explaining what different choices she and her colleagues would make, since they oppose our changes to national insurance contributions. Would they go for higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises?

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) Poole and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke about special educational needs transport facilities. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the Budget and the provisional local government finance settlement set out £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. That includes £515 million to support councils with employer national insurance contributions. However, it is not ringfenced, which means that it is for local authorities to determine how to use this funding across relevant services and responsibilities.

There was a comment from the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), although he is not in his place and I do not know where he is—perhaps he is off feeding his spider. He made a rather colourful comparison between some of my points and those made by a former colleague of his. I do not know whether he realised that in doing so he implied that the position that the former Secretary of State for Health was defending was indefensible. I would be interested to see which of the previous Government’s policies he thought were indefensible. When he returns from his spider-care duties I will ask him, but in his absence, let me say what is indefensible: for Conservative Members to have voted for the Liz Truss mini-Budget. What is indefensible is what they did to public services over 14 years. What would have been indefensible would have been our letting the situation carry on as it was when we won the general election.

The Bill makes some of the difficult but necessary decisions that we as a Government have had to take to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place require information that has already been provided. They do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place, and most seriously they seek to undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 182.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 183.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 187.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 190.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 4 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Lords amendments 5 to 7 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 189.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 8 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 9 to 19 disagreed to. \p Judith Cummins: As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendment 20 would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 December 2024. In accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3), Lords amendment 20 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 21.—(James Murray.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 187.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 21 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 1 to 19 and 21;

That James Murray, Christian Wakeford, Imogen Walker, Dan Tomlinson, Chris Vince, Gareth Davies and Daisy Cooper be members of the Committee;

That James Murray be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p Helen Whately: I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to publish data on the number of eligible pensioners it estimates did not receive the Winter Fuel Payment in 2024–25; further calls on the Government to publish data showing the impact of changes to the Winter Fuel Payment on levels of pensioner poverty and the number of hospital admissions; also calls on the Government to set out how it intends to ensure that those eligible for Pension Credit receive it before winter 2025-26; and calls on the Government to apologise for the misery caused to vulnerable pensioners in winter 2024–25.

Now that the sun has come out, I suspect that many of us will quickly forget the chill of the winter—the evenings when it was freezing outside and we reached for our jumpers, and perhaps the switch on our central heating too. However, for many pensioners turning up the heating was not an option, because one of the Chancellor’s first acts in her new job last year was to scrap the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners—something of which she gave no hint before the election, a time when voters rightly expect political parties to spell out their plans. As a result, millions of older people, many with fixed and far from substantial incomes and many living in draughty homes, missed out on £300 this winter. That money makes all the difference. In fact, for some it is literally a choice between heating and eating. At the same time, energy bills went up. Before the election, the Government did not say they would cut the winter fuel payment, but they did promise to bring our energy bills down—by £300, in fact. Instead, they are up by about £170. It was a promise so easily made and so carelessly broken.

Labour Members may not like hearing this, but let us pause for a minute to think about what this means in human terms. I remember well my grandmother in her 90s in layers of jumpers, shawls and blankets in winter, even when she had the heating on. In fact, I remember well giving her a woollen shawl as a Christmas present, because she was always cold. I would describe myself as someone who feels the cold, but I know that what I feel on a winter’s day is not a patch on how someone in their 80s or 90s feels, especially if they have health problems, and I know from my time as a Health Minister about the connection between being cold and ending up in hospital.

To help get the winter fuel payment cut past Labour Back Benchers, some of whom do have consciences, the Government claimed that they were going to protect the most vulnerable because those on pension credit would still get it, but let us look at what that really means in practice—at the facts. Pension credit tops up a pensioner’s weekly income to £218.15 if they are single or, if they have a partner, to £332.95 jointly. Someone with an annual income of £11,500 could be ineligible for pension credit. They may be just £1 or £2 over the threshold, but because of the cliff edge, they do not get pension credit and, as a result of the Government’s cut, they would not get the winter fuel payment either. So we are not talking about rich people. \p Harriet Cross: I certainly remember, and I am sure others will, the Government saying that those with the broadest shoulders would take the strain. Does the shadow Secretary of State consider those on this level of income to have the broadest shoulders? \p Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes exactly the important point I am making, which is that if the Government thought what they were doing would affect just the very wealthiest in society, they were very wrong. \p Mark Pritchard: Is it not very telling that, although when this policy was voted on in this House in September the Government had a majority of 120, there are very few Labour MPs on the Government Benches to defend their own policy in this debate? \p Helen Whately: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. As I said a moment ago, I do believe that some Labour Members have consciences, but I am not sure which ones. Are those with consciences the ones who are hiding away from the Chamber because they feel guilty and do not want to hear this debate, or the hon. Members here who are actually going to stand up in support of pensioners and join us in the Lobby later. \p Paul Holmes: I am looking forward to the opening speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), because if we see the same sympathy that he showed for people in his “Newsnight” interview last night, we should be in for a treat.

When the Government put forward their proposals, they claimed that they were going to save £1 billion. However, the amount of money they would be paying out with the increased uptake of pension credit was going to cost £3.5 billion at that time. Does the shadow Secretary of State have up-to-date figures on whether this policy will actually deliver a saving for the Government? \p Helen Whately: One of the things we would very much like to see is a full set of figures from the Government, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government said they wanted everyone who was eligible to sign up for pension credit and therefore be able to access the winter fuel payment, but if everyone had actually signed up for pension credit, the Government would not have saved the money they set out that the policy would save. \p Luke Evans: The Department for Work and Pensions states that it works to a planned timescale of 50 working days for processing applications. However, on 9 December, in response to my written question, it turned out that, at its peak just before the coldest period, it was 87 working days. Even now, the answer is that it takes on average 56 working days to get pension credit sorted. That is a problem, because the Government directed people to pension credit who cannot then get access to it when they need it, at the coldest time of the year. Is that not a despicable decision? \p Helen Whately: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. He has been every effective in his use of parliamentary questions to scrutinise the Government and get data from them—they do not like to give it  willingly. He identifies the long delays for pension credit approvals and therefore access to winter fuel payment. Some will have applied before the deadline for pension credit and got the whole way through winter without getting money, or even knowing whether they were going to get any money. We know well from charities such as Age UK, which represents pensioners, that pensioners are very reluctant to get themselves into debt. If they did not know whether they were getting the payment, they would have been very reluctant to spend money in the hope that they might. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Helen Whately: Let me make a little progress and then I will be delighted to take more interventions from colleagues.

The Chancellor has previously argued that winter fuel payments should be means-tested and cut for the richest pensioners, but who here thinks that someone on an income of £11,500 is rich? Age UK estimated that over 80% of pensioners living below or only just above the poverty line would lose their winter fuel payment.

The issue is not just that low-income vulnerable pensioners miss out on help with their heating because they are just above the pension credit threshold—the problem is worse than that. Last summer, the Government knew that over 800,000 people may be eligible for pension credit but did not claim it, meaning that they, too, would miss out on the winter fuel payment. The Pensions Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), assured us that the Government would get on top of that. In fact, she told us that her target was to have 100% of those eligible for pension credit claiming it. But here we are many months later, and still around three quarters of a million eligible pensioners are not on pension credit. That is another promise easily made but easily broken. There has been a woeful failure by the Government to close properly that gap, despite all the coverage the winter fuel payment received.

Of course, we knew that this would be hard. We, too, had pension credit uptake campaigns in Government. More people signed up, but still many did not. I expect the Government knew that they would fail, too. Their officials would have told them, but it was easier for them to assure the press, the charities and their Back Benchers, “Don’t worry,” just as we have heard their Ministers do about the welfare reforms in the last 24 hours. For them, it was easier to wait for the spring to come and hope that everyone would simply forget. Well I say to them, “We won’t let you forget.” Nor will millions of pensioners and their families: 10 million pensioners are missing out on help with their heating, among them around 1 million of the most vulnerable people in our country, quite literally left in the cold by this Labour Government. That will not be forgotten in a hurry. \p Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is absolutely right that we ask the questions we are asking today. The statistic that has shocked me most in this debate is that of the millions of pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment, 44,000 are estimated to have been terminally ill. Is she as shocked as I am by that statistic? \p Helen Whately: I was indeed extremely shocked by that statistic; that is one reason why we need to have this debate today and try to get some of the data out of the Government. They were at the time, and continue to be, incredibly reluctant to share whatever they know about the impact of this cut on people, including the terminally ill. \p Luke Evans: Going back to data, this policy does not just impact pensioners, because the Government seconded 500 extra staff to try to deal with pension credit. We know, from another written answer, that those staff came from the services handling child maintenance, counter fraud, compliance and debt, so there is going to be an ongoing impact. Do the Government not need to be transparent about the impact on the Departments that have had to move staff across to try to deal with their own policy? \p Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes an important point about transparency, and he recognises that this policy has had an impact not only on pensioners, but on other parts of Government, and therefore on other constituents. It is another thing that I hope the Government Back Benchers in the Chamber are taking note of, to pass on to their colleagues who, for some reason, have chosen not to be present to discuss this topic this afternoon. \p Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous in giving way. Does she agree that the Government need to be completely transparent about the costs of this policy? It has been estimated that it will cost the NHS—already pressed—£169 million. We know from NHS England that 100,000 extra people aged 65 or over have been through A&E this relatively warm winter. Is this policy not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? \p Helen Whately: My right hon. Friend, given his experience in this area, will know very well the connection between heating and health, particularly for older people. The Government must surely ensure that they understand the knock-on impact of the cut to the winter fuel payment on older people’s health, and therefore on admissions to hospital and on hospitals’ ability to cope. As we know, there are then the consequences for older people, who, when admitted to hospital, often end up having long hospital stays, with significant loss of independence and reduction in quality of life as a result. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Helen Whately: I will continue, because I know that many Members wish to speak this afternoon—at least on the Opposition Benches.

From the moment the Government announced this policy, we were deeply concerned about the impact it would have, which is why we led the opposition to the cut, and why we forced a vote on it back in September. The vote was a chance for Labour MPs to make a stand. Instead, 348 Labour MPs chose to support the winter fuel payment cut. We then saw the Government trying to avoid telling people the impact the cut would actually have, so we are trying again today.

I put it to the Minister that now is his chance to be straight with people. What did the Government know when the cut was announced? Did they know how many pensioners would miss out? Did they know how many would end up in hospital? Their own report from 2017 found that cutting the winter fuel payment could cause nearly 4,000 pensioners to die. Did Ministers ask if that was likely to happen this winter? I would be happy to give way to him if he wanted to answer my questions right now, but, given they have not been answered for months, I fear he will not. \p Deirdre Costigan: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Helen Whately: I will in a moment—I was hoping the Minister might have answers, but he does not.

To this day, the Government have not published a full impact assessment setting out the truth about their policies. Is that because they do not know themselves, or because they do not want to admit the harm that they were willing to do?

Thanks to the effort of colleagues and the public, we have, however, been able to glean some information in the months since. The Secretary of State admitted to the Work and Pensions Committee that she had seen internal modelling showing that 100,000 pensioners would be pushed into poverty because of their political choices. Thanks to a freedom of information request, the Government were forced to publish their equality analysis, showing that 71% of people with a disability would lose their winter fuel payment, while official NHS data shows that the number of over-65s attending A&E this winter soared by nearly 100,000 compared with last year, despite this being a less cold year.

And now, as I have said, it feels as if spring is here. It is time for the Government to be honest with the public and tell us what this policy has done in practice. I hope they will not tell us that they did not monitor the results, because that surely is not credible. It is time to tell us how many eligible pensioners did not receive the winter fuel payment this year; time to tell us how the cuts have hit pensioner poverty; and time to tell us what those cuts did to hospital admissions. Ministers need to know this information so that they can prepare responsibly for next year. Back Benchers need to know this information so that they can represent their constituents effectively. And the public deserve to know the consequence of the actions of the Government they elected. \p Deirdre Costigan: Will the shadow Minister be honest with the House, and honest with pensioners: how many would be affected, and by how much, by the means-testing of the state pension, to which the Leader of the Opposition is committed? \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am sure the Member understands that the shadow Minister is always honest. Perhaps she would like to clarify what she has just said. \p Deirdre Costigan: I ask the shadow Minister to be straight with the House, as she asked the Minister to be. \p Judith Cummins: Order. That is two strikes. Again, I ask the hon. Member please to clarify her question. \p Deirdre Costigan: Will the shadow Minister tell the House how many pensioners would be impacted by the Leader of the Opposition’s plan to means-test the state pension, and by how much? \p Helen Whately: I do not want to fall into the same trap as the hon. Lady did when she made those accusations. What she has just said does not describe the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I also remind her that today is an opportunity for the Government to answer questions, and that is what she should be looking to the Minister, rather than the shadow Minister, to do. \p Roger Gale: I have always said that it is absolute nonsense that somebody like me, who is still working, and my wife, who is still working, should receive the winter fuel allowance. We were going to address that, which was right—so we should have done. If that is what is called means-testing, then I am perfectly happy with that. But what we were not going to do was to take money from the pockets of the poorest pensioners in the country, and that is what this Government have done. \p Helen Whately: I could not have made the point better than my right hon. Friend.

I have one final question before I conclude: what was all this for? We clearly know who lost out and who suffered as a result of the cut to the winter fuel payment, but who benefited? To govern is to choose. All those who got inflation-busting pay increases after Labour did its deals with its trade union friends were the ones to benefit. Billions for the unions, but nothing for the pensioners. This will be the legacy of yet another Labour Government. The last one increased the state pension by just 75p a week; this one have taken away the winter fuel payment.

By contrast, it was the Conservatives who introduced and protected the triple lock, which saw the state pension increase by £3,700 during our time in office; it was the Conservatives who reduced the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty by 200,000—Labour will undo that by a quarter in its first year—and it was the Conservatives who delivered nearly £12 million in winter fuel payments and cost of living payments for pensioners, because we understand the need to help the most vulnerable through the winter. It is astonishing how many people Labour has already let down in just eight months—pensioners, farmers, business owners, young people looking for jobs, and, yesterday, disabled people—in its rush to fix its financial mess.

Earlier we heard the Prime Minister say that if a party has a big majority, it does not need to consult, so the onus is on all of us here. Colleagues, and especially Labour Members, have an opportunity today to make the Government listen. It is a chance to stick to our principles, stick up for our constituents and vote to see the truth. \p Torsten Bell: I listened closely to those remarks but am still none the wiser as to whether the Conservative party is committed to reversing the changes to the winter fuel payment. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. The changes to the winter fuel  payment have been much discussed and debated many times by hon. Members in this place. Governments make decisions and, rightly, they are held accountable for them in this place, especially when those decisions affect pensioners, whom we all want to support. This Government have made, and will continue to make, responsible choices in our management of the public finances, but also in ensuring that we deliver on what matters most. \p Wendy Morton: How on earth can the Minister say to a pensioner that he has made a responsible decision, when that pensioner is sitting at home worried about whether they dare turn up the heating when they are cold, because they cannot afford it? \p Torsten Bell: I was coming to the exact answer to that: responsible choices are how we can ensure that we deliver what matters most to pensioners: a rising state pension and rescuing an NHS that was collapsing on the right hon. Lady’s watch. That means we will make choices that may not always be easy—I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue in this place—but are necessary. Everyone in this House knows the economic and fiscal context. \p Jonathan Brash: In Hartlepool we have taken a proactive approach over this issue. Since October I have been working with Hartlepool citizens advice bureau to help pensioners get the support that they deserve. The campaign ends next week, but as of today we have managed to raise £885,900 of additional annual income by ensuring that pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled. Will the Minister congratulate Hartlepool citizens advice bureau on its extraordinary work? \p Torsten Bell: I congratulate it and I thank my hon. Friend, and probably hon. Members on both sides of the House, who I am sure have engaged with local charities in supporting their pensioners in the months that have gone by. \p Saqib Bhatti: The Minister is being generous in giving way, and I am sure that he will continue to be. He talked about making responsible choices. According to Government analysis, 100,000 pensioners are being pushed into poverty. Is that a responsible choice? \p Torsten Bell: The poverty assessment, which we provided to the Work and Pensions Committee, does not take into account any increase in pension credit take-up, which I will come to shortly. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), talked about absolute pensioner poverty—the kind of poverty that should be falling every year as an economy grows. But relative poverty—a form of poverty that we look at—rose under the last Administration. Opposition Members may not like to hear this, but relative pensioner poverty rose by 300,000 under the last Government. I just gently say that when it comes to pensioner poverty, we have more to do—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point seriously—but the record of recent years is not one of success on that front.

Everyone in this House knows the economic and fiscal context—the economic stagnation of the past decade, visible in flatlining wages, collapsing public  services and strained public finances. Every economist and every person in the country knows that Britain has lived through an unprecedented economic failure. In a challenging fiscal environment, difficult choices are unavoidable. The Government have set fiscal rules and we will stick to them. But, as some older Members may remember, prudence is for a purpose: to support a growing economy that benefits everyone. It is the prerequisite for rescuing our public services and rising living standards for workers, but also for pensioners. \p Suella Braverman: In my constituency, even after taking into account pension credit, 20,000 pensioners will lose out from the Government’s cuts. Maggie from Waterlooville wrote to me to say:

“We have cut back on heating, we are both in our seventies and we both feel the cold.”

How on earth does the Minister justify that as a responsible choice? How on earth will forcing pensioners into pneumonia or influenza help the NHS? How on earth can the Minister come here and justify treating hard-working pensioners with such disdain? \p Torsten Bell: I do not think that anybody in the House is going to be treating pensioners with disdain. That is why the state pension will rise by 4.1% in April, why we have put £26 billion into the NHS and why we intend to learn the lessons of the last Administration’s failure to cut pensioner poverty. [Interruption.] I have already taken quite a few interventions, so I will make some progress.

As hon. Members know, winter fuel payments are now targeted at lower-income pensioners. The benefit is paid to over a million households who are receiving pension credit in England and Wales or on other income-related benefits. Pensioners in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance can also qualify for pension credit. Crucially, those benefits do not reduce the pension credit award and can mean receiving additional support.

I am sure that we all want to see every pensioner get the support they are entitled to, but in recent years far too many pensioners have missed out, with over a third of eligible pensioners not claiming. So since September, we have been running the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign, building on campaigns run by the previous Government, as the shadow Secretary of State mentioned. The campaign has included adverts on television, radio, social media and advertising screens in GPs’ surgeries. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders and partners including local councils, community groups and charities. I have certainly done that in Swansea, as I am sure hon. Members across the House have done in their constituencies. \p Wendy Morton: The Minister is being generous in giving way. I welcome the fact that the Government have done work to raise awareness of pension credit, just as we did when we were in government, but that does not really reach the group of hard-working pensioners who are too proud to come forward and apply for pension credit; it is just not what they would do. The £300 winter fuel allowance was a lifeline that they have now lost. \p Torsten Bell: The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. I will come back to what more work we need to do to understand the barriers to people applying for pension credit. Research shows, though, that awareness is the biggest barrier. We need to keep breaking down those barriers, but I recognise the point she makes. \p Melanie Ward: Does the Minister agree that it is extraordinary to be lectured about responsible choices by members of the last Cabinet, whose irresponsible financial choices left this Government with a £22 billion black hole? We have to clean that up because of their irresponsible financial management. \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend proves that, while Conservative Members may be disappointed by the quantity of hon. Members behind me, that is definitely made up for in quality. \p James Wild: Will the Minister give way? \p Torsten Bell: I will make some progress, because otherwise we will be here for several days.

I take this opportunity to thank each and every organisation that supported the pension credit take-up campaign, as well as the many friends, neighbours and family members who looked out for pensioners and helped them to claim. A few weeks ago, we released the first data on the impact that the campaign has had. We have seen 235,000 pension credit applications in the 30 weeks since July, which is an 81% increase on the comparable period in 2022-23. On the question about processing rates, with over 500 additional staff allocated directly for that, we have seen a similar rise in the number of claims processed. Most importantly, that has led to almost 50,000 extra awards compared with the same period last year. \p Joshua Reynolds: What would the Minister say to residents in Maidenhead who have told me that they are not eligible for pension credit? He talks about responsible choices, but the choice those residents now have to make is whether to dip into their savings to pay for their energy bills or to turn off their heating at night. A Labour voter contacted me who had had to make exactly that decision, and she said that she will never vote Labour again. Is that really the change that the Government were elected to introduce? \p Torsten Bell: No, the change that we were elected to introduce was to save our NHS and to return our economy to growth so that we can raise living standards for pensioners and for workers right across the country. That is the change that we were elected to deliver and that is what we are going to do. \p Andrew Murrison: The Minister is being generous in giving way; congratulations to him on making the best of a bad job. He knows that old people die in cold homes. In 2017, the Labour party did some research on which to attack the Conservatives, which showed that 4,000 old people would probably die in the event that we removed winter fuel allowance; we did not do that. I wonder whether he got his officials to repeat that research and, if so, what it showed. \p Torsten Bell: All of us in this place should be slightly careful when talking about what is a highly sensitive subject. There is not robust analysis that can separate out different causes of excess mortality over the winter. [Interruption.] I will come on to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question. If we look at the excess mortality data for this winter, we see that deaths are actually down. It is hard to separate out the effects of different measures—[Interruption.] No, this is an important point, because some hon. Members have been looser with their language than they might have wanted to be in past debates. We have seen the level of deaths come down this winter. There are lots of things— \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Torsten Bell: I will make some progress, and then I will give way further. \p Luke Evans: Will the Minister give way on the data processing point? \p Torsten Bell: Go ahead. \p Luke Evans: I am terribly grateful to the Minister. He made the point about there being 235,000 applications, which was great. In my written question, I asked about that and he came back and said 117,800 claims were awarded, but 114,500 were not. Those were clearly people who felt they were entitled to pension credit but who will now struggle. What support is available for those people, who are clearly right on the cusp and are now not eligible and do not have pension credit? \p Torsten Bell: The hon. Member makes an important point. We should encourage people to apply, even if a percentage of those will always not qualify. The criteria under which people have been assessed are those put in place by the previous Administration for pension credit. However, he is right; we want as many people as possible to apply, even if some of them are not successful, for exactly the reason raised by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—we need awareness of pension credit to be higher and we need to encourage claims, because a lot of people who are entitled are missing out. It is not always absolutely clear whether someone is entitled, for example if they are in receipt of attendance allowance.

All the progress since September that I have spoken about is a real achievement, but I am the first to say very clearly that it is far from job done. Far too many people are still missing out on pension credit. We are already building on this winter’s campaign, and that includes writing to all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit and who appear to be entitled to pension credit. In the longer term, this Government are committed to bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, making it easier for pensioners to get support. That was also a policy of previous Administrations at different times, even if delivering it was not prioritised.

We will also undertake new research on what helps boost take-up—that goes to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. There is a slight misunderstanding about people wanting to apply but being reluctant—the evidence does not support that significantly. The key problem is awareness of the system. \p Iain Duncan Smith: The Treasury always says to every new Government, “We have this jolly good idea. Just get rid of the winter fuel payment and save yourselves a lot of money.” We looked at that when I was in the Department and eventually rejected it based on two elements of the impact assessment. First, there was the point about those who were right on the cusp of poverty—80% of them, as has been mentioned, will be damaged by the policy. Secondly, there is pension credit take-up. We get hammered either way, because if we push for pensioners to take up pension credit, the savings are lost and we spend more, but if they do not take it up, they end up in poverty. That was why we rejected the idea and, I think, every other Government up until now have too. Will the Minister have another review of that and ask his team at the DWP whether they should reject this policy now, because it will not work? \p Torsten Bell: On the question of savings, this measure will make savings, even taking into account the increase in take-up; the evidence of that is very clear. I will also just reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s point that his party’s Government did not take up the opportunity that the Treasury presented to means-test winter fuel payments. The truth is that the last Government and the new Labour regime before that allowed pension credit to be eroded year after year by inflation. Since the period when he considered the measure, there has been over 50% inflation erosion, so the policy of the previous Government was to cut the winter fuel payment year after year. In real terms, I am afraid that is how inflation operates.

We will not just carry out research; we will put the evidence that it provides into practice. I welcome suggestions from right across the House on what more we can do to drive take-up of pension credit. \p Richard Foord: My point relates to the cliff edge. Anne Addis from Cullompton is a 76-year-old widow. Her late husband’s Army pension pushed her just £15 over the pension credit threshold. That means that she is one of 130,000 people who are worse off than those on lower incomes who continue to qualify for pension credit. Will the Minister consider introducing a taper to get rid of that cliff edge? \p Torsten Bell: We have all met constituents who raise this issue, and the hon. Member is right to say that there are challenges with the cliff edge. It is in the nature of the pension credit regime, because the regime is about a minimum income guarantee. People sometimes think about it as if it had a threshold, but it is about providing minimum guarantee of minimum income, so I do not think that that is an appropriate way forward, but I would be happy to discuss this with him, as it is always useful to discuss these issues. \p Mark Pritchard: Does the Minister agree with the Resolution Foundation, which I think he knows very well, and its enlightening paper “Public Pivot” from January this year, which talks about big implications for living standards? He may well know that document, although he did not actually write that one, for a change. It mentions the winter fuel allowance and states:

“Tax rises on top of lacklustre economic growth make for a gloomy living standards outlook in 2025.”

Is there not a direct correlation between living standards and this cruel cut to the most vulnerable in our society, whether in Swansea West or in the Wrekin in Shropshire? \p Torsten Bell: I thank the right hon. Member, not least for his kind words about a very impressive organisation that goes from strength to strength under far better leadership than it had in the past.

I do not want to get into the details of economic forecasts and living standards forecasts—[Interruption.] “Please do”, Members say. Right—the reason why forecasts of living standards and of growth are often lower than we might like at the moment is that, although we talk about forecasts as forward-looking measures, what they are often actually doing is looking backwards at the disastrous growth this country has seen—[Interruption.] Those are the facts about what is actually going on. The only way we are going to sort this country out is to get growth going once again, and that is what this Government are trying to do—[Interruption.] Well, we actually are. We are currently seeing significantly faster wage growth than we have seen for quite some time. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Torsten Bell: I must make some progress. I have taken lots of interventions, and at some point even your patience may start to run out, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As hon. Members know, wider help is also available for pensioners. The warm home discount provides eligible low-income households across Great Britain with a £150 rebate on their winter energy bill. This winter we expect to find that over 3 million households, including over 1 million pensioners, have benefited. We have also set out plans to expand the scheme to cover a further 2.7 million households. We are providing £742 million in England to extend the household support fund for a further year, supporting all households, not just pensioners, with the cost of essentials. The devolved Governments will receive consequential funding through the Barnett formula. \p Sarah Dyke: Around 40% of properties in Glastonbury and Somerton are not connected to the gas grid. They are more expensive to heat, and people experience more fuel poverty as a result. Off-grid pensioners, who are particularly suffering, are obviously more reliant on their winter fuel payment. Will the Minister commit to developing a rural winter fuel poverty strategy for those pensioners, who are suffering now? \p Torsten Bell: I have heard from many Members the point the hon. Member makes about the different ways people heat homes, particularly in certain parts of the country, including Northern Ireland. I would be happy to talk to her about that specific suggestion, having asked for suggestions earlier.

As I said earlier, our top priorities are to raise the state pension and to rescue the NHS, which pensioners in particular rely on. It is precisely because the Government have taken some difficult choices that we are committed to delivering on the triple lock throughout this Parliament. It is true that targeting winter fuel payments saves a bit over £1 billion a year, but spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion— \p Iain Duncan Smith: indicated dissent. \p Torsten Bell: I have already engaged with the right hon. Member.

Spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion during this Parliament, which puts that into context. What does this mean for individual pensioners? The full new state pension is expected to rise by around £1,900 a year, and the basic state pension by around £1,500, benefiting over 12 million pensioners.

Then there is the health service, the state of which is the biggest betrayal of older generations today. The Conservatives left pensioners far too often not receiving the care and support they deserve and need. We are investing and reforming the English NHS through the 10-year plan by abolishing NHS England so Ministers are accountable for the health service once again. For pensioners who have spent their lives paying into the system, our priority is to ensure a resilient NHS that gives back to them at a time when they need it most. \p James Wild: During the general election campaign, we on the Conservative side had the triple lock-plus policy to prevent pensioners in receipt of just a state pension from paying income tax. Does the Minister recognise that millions of pensioners in that position will have to start paying income tax, and is he happy with that? \p Torsten Bell: The vast majority of pensioners started paying income tax under the previous Government because they abolished the age-related allowance for pensioners, so the taxing of pensioners was a decision taken by the previous Government. The majority of pensioners pay income tax because of decisions taken by the previous Government.

This is an Opposition day, so it would be rude not to talk about the Opposition. It is hard to know where to start—maybe with the hypocrisy. It comes in the general form of many Opposition Members claiming that they are in favour of a smaller state, but opposing this targeting of winter fuel payments. Worse, there is the more specific hypocrisy of campaigning against this change, but not being honest about whether they would reverse it. \p Lewis Cocking: Will the Minister give way? \p Torsten Bell: I will if the hon. Member will tell me whether he plans to reverse that change in government. \p Lewis Cocking: Does the Minister not agree that it is the hypocrisy from the Labour party, which did not include this policy in its manifesto at the general election? \p Torsten Bell: While we are on broken promises, the hon. Member promised to tell me whether the Tory party policy is to reverse the change, and I have heard nothing on that front. I will come on to manifestos shortly.

There is the specific hypocrisy of the Opposition campaigning against the change having called for it in their own 2017 election manifesto. Back then, they attacked the winter fuel payment for being “paid regardless of need”, and that is before we get to the Leader of the Opposition’s bold plans to means-test the state pension— \p Harriett Baldwin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that, as it is an Opposition day debate, he will speak exclusively about what the Opposition think and say. Is it your understanding, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is in order for a Minister at the Dispatch Box not to defend the track record of his own Government? \p Judith Cummins: That is not a point of order. \p Torsten Bell: I will return to the Conservatives’ policy, because I was just coming to the bold plans set out by the Leader of the Opposition to means-test the state pension. Apparently, she said,

“that’s exactly the sort of thing”

we “will look at.” \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Torsten Bell: No. Apparently, means-testing the winter fuel payment is beyond the pale, but means-testing the state pension—the bedrock of pensioners’ incomes—is the future. The Leader of the Opposition’s self-image is of a bold iconoclast, but means-testing the state pension is not bold; it is bonkers. Never mind what the Conservatives say they would do now, what about what they actually did? Let’s talk about pensioner poverty. \p Roger Gale: Will the Minister give way? \p Torsten Bell: I will not. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government, but the Conservatives’ record was higher pensioner poverty—an increase of 300,000 people on their watch. We are not pretending that all the problems facing the country can be solved overnight, but we are honest that unless we tackle the big challenges and take some tough choices, they will not be solved at all. This is a Government raising the state pension, rescuing the NHS and delivering for pensioners every single day. \p Hon. Members:: More! \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Steve Darling: I am sure the Minister almost opposite me felt that it was a brave decision by the Conservatives on my right—in fact, from the noises off during the speech of their spokeslady, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), it may even have been a bit quackers—to choose this topic for a debate. As the Minister highlighted, pensioner poverty increased under the watch of the last Conservative Government. The Tories left the economy in an absolute state. They completely crashed it, leaving the new Labour Government a massive mess to deal with. However—[Interruption.] Don’t worry; I am coming to some Labour-bashing now.

We Liberal Democrats are deeply disappointed about Chancellor’s botched autumn Budget, however, when she balanced the books on the backs of pensioners. Yesterday the books were being balanced on the backs of people with disabilities throughout the United Kingdom. The scrapping of the winter fuel allowance means 100,000 more pensioners in relative poverty. It has been estimated that approximately 800,000 pensioners who could benefit from pension credit have sadly not taken advantage of it. Conservative colleagues to my right have highlighted that there continues to be significant delays, and they are right to say so. When I have asked questions about that, I have been told that there are 90,000 claims in the queue, resulting in pensioners going through the winter unsure about whether it is safe to put on their heating.

The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, received evidence from a medic who said that when people get to the age of about 65 or 70, they find that their bodies begin to become less resistant to cold weather, and they have a much greater need for heating. That is why the winter fuel payment was and continues to be the right decision. In fact, I hope that the Labour party will listen to Unite, which has undertaken surveys highlighting the fact that two thirds of pensioners are feeling the cold more but choosing not to put the heating on because of their fears about bills. \p Sarah Dyke: A constituent from Tintinhull who is suffering from stage 4 stomach cancer contacted me because he has recently had a gastrectomy, which has caused him considerable weight loss. Despite that, he has now lost his winter fuel allowance, which is making it more difficult for him to keep his heating on as it costs him a lot more. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must urgently reassess exemptions to ensure that all pensioners with cancer are eligible for the vital winter fuel allowance? \p Steve Darling: My hon. Friend is spot on. In fact, we Liberal Democrats feel that the winter fuel allowance must be reintroduced across the board.

The Liberal Democrats want the introduction of a social tariff that supports pensioners in poverty and pensioners on benefits. We also want to ensure that the whole United Kingdom has a home insulation scheme that gets people warmer in their homes, tackles climate change and gives employment across the country for those who need it. We call upon Members to back the motion and ensure that winter fuel payments go back to pensioners, where they should be. \p Louise Jones: Before I begin, will the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), clarify her earlier comments? Does she not support pay rises for the armed forces? [Interruption.] She is more than welcome to clarify; I can see that she looks a bit confused. \p Helen Whately: The hon. Lady asks about something that I have never said, so I was surprised to hear it. \p Louise Jones: I very much thank the hon. Lady for those comments. I know she vociferously criticised pay rises for public sector workers in her speech, so I am glad to have clarified that.

The winter fuel payment was a policy that the Labour Government introduced in 1997, and it stands as one of the great achievements of that Labour Administration. When it was brought in, pensioner poverty was significantly higher than what we face today, and it made a real difference to many pensioners who were struggling with heating, eating, and many other living costs. Along with many things that that Government achieved, we had the shortest NHS waiting times in history, we brought crime down, and we created Sure Start, which made a difference to many young people’s lives. We had record results in schools, we introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and we brought in the first ever Climate Change Act in 2008. All those things made a huge difference to the lives of people in this country, in particular pensioners. \p Joe Robertson: Does the hon. Lady really think that going through Tony Blair’s greatest hits is any comfort to pensioners on £13,500 who lost their winter fuel payment in 2024? \p Louise Jones: I thank the hon. Member for his comment. It is important to stress that this was a policy that the Labour party brought in, and the Conservative party voted against it at the time. The inheritance that this Government got from the previous Government was so dire—we really cannot forget how big a black hole £22 billion is. The economic situation of this country as a whole, and the finances that the Government inherited, meant that even the Labour party knew we had to make tough choices that we would never had made if we had had the inheritance we gave to the Conservatives in 2010. \p Julia Lopez: Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a real problem with Labour’s framing of its choices? Labour Members have made out that there is an absolute necessity to get rid of the winter fuel payment, but at the same time they are spending £8 million on GB Energy. They are spending God knows how much on the Chagos islands—they will not tell us—and hundreds of millions on pay rises for train drivers. Does she accept that the pensioners find it rather confusing that there is a complete necessity to cut winter fuel payments, when the Government are splurging cash on all manner of other weird projects? \p Louise Jones: One reason why I decided to get into politics—I was quite happy doing something else—was because I was looking around this country and seeing the huge systemic issues that were facing us. None of those issues would go away if the Government just said, “We’re going to keep giving out pots of money to people,” and the hon. Lady knows that. As a proud member of the Labour party, I support people receiving fair pay for their fair work, and I support the rises that we gave to our nurses, our soldiers and our teachers. I am very proud of that. We face so many systemic issues that we know we need to make some big changes. Things such as GB Energy, which was in our manifesto that millions of people voted for, is a huge change that will make a difference. \p Oliver Ryan: My hon. Friend talks about manifesto commitments, and it was a clear manifesto commitment of this Government that we would provide the triple lock throughout this Parliament—something that was only ever suspended under the Conservative party. Does she agree that the £1,500 increase to the state pension that pensioners will see over the course of this Parliament will be a good thing, and put cash into the pockets of pensioners that they did not have under the previous Government? \p Louise Jones: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The triple lock is a serious commitment that we are utterly committed to, and it will make a difference to every single pensioner in this country—far more than trying to pretend that we do not face the systemic problems that this country faces. \p Saqib Bhatti: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Louise Jones: I was going to go back to GB Energy, but why not? \p Saqib Bhatti: The hon. Member is being very generous with interventions. She talked about fairness in pay. Those pensioners also worked all through their lives and also deserve fairness. What is fair about the hundreds of millions being given to train drivers as opposed to what has been taken away from pensioners? What is fair about the £18 billion, or whatever the figure is, being spent on the Chagos islands, compared with what pensioners deserve? \p Louise Jones: What is fair is a 4.1% rise in the state pension and a 5.5% to 6% rise for our soldiers, teachers and nurses, and I will say that as many times as I need to say it.

Many people in this country have been grappling with skyrocketing energy bills, which have caused real poverty. Those bills have skyrocketed largely because we are at the mercy of international markets, so it is vital that we take back sovereign control of our energy and energy prices, and GB Energy is a vital part of that. \p Harriet Cross: The interim chief executive officer of GB Energy has said that reducing energy bills

“is not in the remit of GB Energy”,

so how is GB Energy going to help with energy bills? \p Louise Jones: GB Energy will turbocharge renewables across the country. Once we have that, we will have more control over our energy systems and, as the hon. Lady knows, we will have control over what happens with bills. \p Melanie Ward: My hon. Friend mentions GB Energy, which is headquartered in Scotland. I note that there is a Scottish National party Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who I am sure will shortly make a passionate speech about the issue. When she does so, I hope she will remember that the winter fuel payment is already devolved to the Scottish Government and that if they want to follow a different policy, they are able to, perhaps using some the additional funding—record funding of almost £5 billion extra—that they got in the Budget this year. \p Louise Jones: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I will now turn to a quote—[Interruption.] I hope Opposition Members will settle down. The quote states:

“we will look at Winter Fuel Payments, the largest benefit paid to pensioners, in this context. The benefit is paid regardless of need, giving money to wealthier pensioners when working people on lower incomes do not get similar support. So we will means-test Winter Fuel Payments, focusing assistance on the least well-off pensioners, who are most at risk of fuel poverty.”

Does the shadow Secretary of State recognise that quote? No, and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) does not appear to recognise it either. It is taken directly from the 2017 Conservative party manifesto, which I understand both Members stood on. Would they like to stand up now and say whether they regret doing so? \p Lewis Cocking: Last July, the hon. Lady stood on an election manifesto that did not include the removal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. Is she proud of the fact that she was elected on a manifesto that said something completely different from what she is supporting the Government in doing now? \p Louise Jones: I am fully committed to bringing forward all our manifesto commitments, including the triple lock for pensioners, fixing the systemic issues facing the country and tackling the backlog in the NHS. Our record is something to be proud of so far. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Louise Jones: We can carry on with our history lesson—[Interruption.] I am sorry, does the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) wish to intervene? \p Roger Gale: I intervene simply to inform the hon. Lady that it was David Cameron who introduced the triple lock. \p Louise Jones: I believe it was then suspended, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In his earlier remarks, he raised the valid point that no Member of this House should be receiving the winter fuel payment, and he spoke about the very poorest in this country facing that payment being taken away. We have protected the very poorest pensioners, but whenever there is a threshold, there will always be people who fall on the other side of it. I and my colleagues have been very aware of people coming to us who need us to help them find alternative sources of help. \p Karen Bradley: rose— \p Gregory Stafford: rose— \p Louise Jones: I will just make a bit of progress and then I will let the right hon. Member and the hon. Member intervene. I do not think there is a single Labour Member who is not conscious of the impact of the decisions that we, as a Government, are making. We rightly laud our achievements, but we recognise that we have had to make tough decisions.

Pensioners are not the only group facing poverty in this country. Child poverty has rocketed over the past decade to a shamefully high level. Not one of those children ever received a winter fuel payment. Plenty of others have been facing the effects of poverty, and shamefully that includes a rocketing number of people in work. As a Labour Government, it is our task to ensure that we are ending the scourge of poverty once and for all, whether for children, people in work or pensioners. \p Mike Martin: Is one of the main causes of child poverty not the two-child benefit cap that the Conservative party introduced and the Labour party is continuing? \p Louise Jones: Child poverty and the two-child benefit cap are unfortunately sad signs of the legacy that we have inherited. We need to fix the foundations of the economy so that we can start to take measures such as that that may have an impact. We have set up the child poverty taskforce so that we can start to look at that and ensure we make a real and significant difference over the next few years. We have inherited a shameful situation, and we are working very hard to do what we can to change it.

I turn to the triple lock, which I and other hon. Members have spoken about. The commitment to the triple lock is pivotal; it will see the state pension of thousands of people, including people in my constituency, increase by more than £470 this year. Additionally, as a Government we have run a campaign to increase the  uptake of pension credit, meaning that we have had an 81% increase in claims, which is good to see. We have also extended the household support fund, so that help is available for all age groups. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I appreciate the hon. Member referring to pension credit uptake. If all the people who are eligible to take up pension credit do so, how much will it cost the Government? \p Louise Jones: The costings take into account the uplift in the numbers of people claiming pension credit, as they are entitled to do. \p Josh MacAlister: Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes made to the winter fuel payment to secure it for those most in need actually save £1 billion net, with the extra costs of the rise in those claiming pension credit? Does she also agree that the Government’s choices across the board mean that we are able to make the decision to protect the triple lock, nearly double the warm home discount and get the NHS back on its feet? It is pretty shocking that we have so far not heard one example of how the Conservative party would make different choices to do those same things. \p Louise Jones: Sadly, it is a feature of this debate that it is very easy for Members across the Opposition Benches to say, “You shouldn’t do something,” but very difficult to say what should be done instead. \p Gregory Stafford: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Louise Jones: I will keep going, because I have been speaking for a long time and I know that lots of Members want to get in. I am terribly sorry.

To cut to the chase, the Government are determined to fix the foundations of this country, sort out the systemic issues that we face, tackle the cost of living and deliver an NHS fit for everybody in this country. \p Joy Morrissey: This winter, pensioners across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages felt abandoned by the Labour Government. Many across this country voted for a Labour Government in good faith, thinking that they would actually have a reduction in their energy bills of £300, only to discover that many pensioners were going to lose their winter fuel payment, which is a lifeline to pensioners, who have served their communities and worked hard their whole lives. It was brought in by a Labour Government and never abolished during the entire time that the Conservatives and the coalition were in power. There is a reason for that: it is fair, equitable and ensures that no one is left behind. The reason why it was not scrapped before is that a means-tested mechanism was not in place, so it was quite shocking to see that the first act by the new Chancellor was to scrap a winter fuel payment that Labour initially brought in without an impact assessment. \p Oliver Ryan: Will the hon. Lady make it clear whether it is the policy of the Conservative party to reintroduce a universal winter fuel payment at the next election? \p Joy Morrissey: It is clear that we did not get rid of it in the first place, and we had 14 years. The interesting thing that we keep hearing— \p Gordon McKee: Did the hon. Lady hear the question? Yes or no? \p Joy Morrissey: I think our record speaks for itself—we had 14 years. It is very interesting that the Labour party talks about tough choices. For pensioners, turning off the heat—being made to choose between heating and eating—is a tough choice. That is a choice that this Labour Government have made for the most vulnerable. \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend is correct that this is about actions, not words. Labour’s decision on the winter fuel payment was not in their manifesto; it was brought in with a piece of legislation that was voted on without an impact assessment and then put into place. Yesterday, we heard an announcement about disabilities that was also not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. It was brought forward with a gap before the impact assessment—we will see that in a couple of weeks’ time—and it will then be taken through. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British public are being taken for fools? These are not transparent policies or policies that were put forward in a manifesto; they are being brought forward later on, under the guise of trying to do something better. \p Joy Morrissey: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about transparency and keeping our promises to the British public, and it lays bare the truth about this Government. \p Joe Morris: The hon. Lady talks about transparency and honesty, but is it not true that the Conservative party concealed the true state of the public finances from the Labour party when we were preparing for Government? Do they not need to reflect on their own spirit of public service and decency? \p Joy Morrissey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, although the Office for Budget Responsibility contradicts what he is saying. The truth about this Government is that they talk a tough talk, but they are the masters of outsourcing every tough decision for others to make. We see that in the tough choices they have forced on small businesses across this country—whether to stop hiring, cut staff, raise prices, or close altogether in order to deal with this black hole that the Chancellor has created through her socialist spending spree—but we saw it first in stark terms in the way that the Government treated pensioners.

The Chancellor chose—yes, chose—to make pensioners make the tough choice between eating and heating. She was not able to be tough with the train driver unions, and she was not able to be tough with the Energy Secretary to stop him wasting £8 billion on GB Energy or £11 billion on overseas climate aid, but she was able to be tough with the pensioners of this country. She is a Chancellor who can be tough with the weak, but melts before the unions and her Cabinet colleagues. This is a Government who have abandoned evidence-based policymaking, such as by attacking parents who send their children to independent schools, engaging in a tax raid despite the clear evidence that it will damage the life chances of young people in both the state and the private sector. \p Calum Miller: The hon. Lady talks about abandoning evidence-based policy. Could she set out the basis for the Conservative party abandoning the UK’s net zero targets? \p Joy Morrissey: I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for his advocacy on this issue. [Interruption.] I will respond as I go through my speech; he has made a very sound point.

This is about tough choices. We all have to make tough choices, and being in government is hard. Those of us on either side of the House who have been in government know that it is difficult, but we make choices, and then we are held responsible. Conservative Members understand that, because we were held responsible. \p John Glen: On 20 November 2023, when I was the Paymaster General, I made some comments about the winter fuel payment. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote to the Chancellor at the time and asked whether we could confirm that we would not be removing the winter fuel payment, because pensioners would be deeply concerned. My view, having had that put on a list of options when I was Chief Secretary, was that there was no way it would be right to do so. I knew, for example, that 71% of pensioners with a disability would lose that valued and completely necessary extra funding—there was not a rationing mechanism that was efficient for the poorest pensioners. I expected to be held to account, which was why I did not do it. I was therefore somewhat surprised when, 25 days into a Labour Government, they reversed the policy that they had challenged me about several months before. \p Joy Morrissey: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that I was going to make. This is about choices, and it is about the most vulnerable—the disabled pensioners who we did not have a way to test for. There was no mechanism to protect them, and I am very glad that my right hon. Friend chose to protect the most vulnerable disabled pensioners. By protecting everyone, we ensured that the most vulnerable were protected, and that was a tough choice that we made when in government. To be honest, I expected a Labour Government to make the same kind of choice, to protect the most vulnerable disabled pensioners, who have been negatively impacted by this choice. I would have expected better from a Labour Government. \p John Hayes: Those of us who have been in government know that when new Ministers come to power—perhaps as innocent and heartfelt as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell)—often ideas that have been rejected by their predecessors are put before them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) described, officials float proposals previously rejected in the hope that new Ministers, in their naive urgency, will embrace them. I feel a little sorry for the hon. Member for Swansea West, actually: I suspect that it was his innocence, his naivety and his lack of wit and wisdom that got the better of him—and I say that kindly—for it allowed his officials to float a policy as hopeless as this one, which was rejected by those with wiser heads, such as my right hon. Friend. \p Joy Morrissey: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. When we try to do the right thing, oftentimes we make a choice that has adverse consequences. What is telling about this decision was that an impact assessment was not published in advance. Many Members from all parts of the House were not fully aware of the consequences or impact of this policy, whereby 10 million pensioners have lost out this year while coping with rising energy costs and rising prices. Nearly 3 million of those pensioners are aged over 80. Some 1.6 million pensioners with a disability are now losing out.

This was a choice that the Chancellor could have avoided by being tough with her Cabinet colleagues or the unions, but she chose to be tough with the weak. This was a choice where the evidence pointed to a terrible impact, but she chose to be tough with the weak. This is a weak Chancellor in a Government who put ideology before evidence and politics before people, but it is never too late to change. \p Josh Simons: In politics, in my opinion, it matters hugely how we make arguments. My generation of politicians, many of us newly elected, have grown up in an era of ceaseless turbulence. Our world has become more insecure, our economy has flatlined, and our democracy is sometimes strained. That means we have responsibilities as elected politicians in how we make arguments, and that matters for this debate.

First, over several decades this House has ceded too much power to unelected and sometimes unaccountable bodies—agencies, quangos and administrators. Elected representatives must have the power to change the things for which the public holds them accountable.

Secondly, the public are tired of being told that we have no choice, that our hands are tied and that we must do this because lawyers or economists said so. Our job is to make arguments to the public on the basis of principle and not solely of necessity. After all, why vote, if the people we vote for are not in charge, but lawyers, economists, quangos or agencies are? What is democracy for, if the people we elect do not control the things that affect our lives?

To restore trust in politics, we must show that politics matters. That is why it is vital that we articulate our choices in terms of principles. \p Gregory Stafford: rose— \p Josh Simons: Hopefully, what I am about to say will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. [Interruption.] If it does not, he is welcome to come in. Let me make clear the principle behind the reforms that we are debating today: those who need support to heat their homes must get it. Nobody should be cold at home because they cannot afford to turn on their heating. When Gordon Brown introduced the winter fuel payments— \p Gregory Stafford: I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I am sure that, like me, he has received hundreds, if not thousands, of messages from pensioners saying that they are suffering and cannot heat their homes. If his point is one of principle, then clearly he must vote to overturn this policy so that the people who I am sure are contacting him as well as me will be able to heat their homes next winter, as they were unable to do this time round. \p Josh Simons: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Conveniently, I shall be responding to exactly that point in a few minutes, but if he feels that I have not done so, he is welcome to intervene again.

Given that the state pension has risen by £900 and will rise again by as much as £1,900 over the course of this Parliament, the Government’s changes target the winter fuel payment on the basis of the principle of need. That is the right principle. I do not believe that taxpayers should foot the bill for pensioners with millions of pounds to receive winter fuel payments. It is true that some donate the money to charity, but many do not. According to the columnist Fraser Nelson:

“A millionaire I know has a tradition every year: he buys a bottle of vintage wine with his winter fuel payment and invites friends to drink it.”

Targeting the winter fuel payment is not just about the public finances; it anchors and preserves the policy in the right moral principle—the principle of need. It protects the winter fuel payment for those who need it most. Some object that although the principle of need is the right one, the changes set too low a threshold. That has not been my experience, and here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I represent more people of pensionable age than most Members, and many of them are struggling. \p Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Josh Simons: I will not give way at this point.

In towns such as Hindley Green and Hindley, Abram and Platt Bridge, Ashton and Orrell, pensioners who have worked all their lives are facing acute and sometimes painful challenges. \p Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Josh Simons: I will not, at this point. \p Judith Cummins: Order. May I remind Members that it is up to the Member on his feet to decide whether to take interventions? \p Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman should show some respect to a pensioner! \p Josh Simons: I do. I believe in laying out the argument, and once I have done so, in a couple of minutes, the right hon. Gentleman will be welcome to intervene. That, I think, is partly what the House is for.

After the announcement of this policy, I immediately entered into a partnership with Wigan Council to ensure that every pensioner I represent who is eligible for pension credit and help from the household support fund receives every single penny for which they are eligible. I made it clear to my constituents that I would not rest until my most vulnerable pensioners are protected. In recent months, Wigan council’s fantastic income maximisation team have secured almost £8 million in benefits that would not otherwise have been paid to Wiganers. I have invited the team to all the coffee mornings that I host with residents every month, and these alone have secured tens of thousands of pounds in benefits for the people I represent. I have encountered much the same story again and again. So many pensioners were convinced that they were not eligible for pension credit because they had never received a penny of benefit  in their lives, and so many did not know about the household support fund, but it turned out that they were eligible. Opposition Members never wanted them to receive this benefit, but we have made sure that they get what they need and deserve. \p Joe Robertson: It is heartwarming to hear someone make a speech based on his principles, and the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is his principles that will inform his vote on this topic. Can he articulate, very clearly, what principle tells him that someone on £13,500 is too rich to receive a winter fuel payment? \p Josh Simons: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a few more minutes, I will come to the exact question of the threshold at which pension credit is awarded and at which, therefore, someone is eligible for the winter fuel payment.

In order to reach the most vulnerable people, who are often the hardest to reach because they are not on Facebook and are not coming to my coffee mornings, I wrote to more than 5,000 pensioners to ensure that they received the support they deserved.

Let me end by making a broader point. Today’s debate has underscored a simple truth about Conservative Members. Theirs is no longer the party with the strength and courage to lead, whether in asserting the sovereignty of this place or in making arguments with principle. \p Luke Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Josh Simons: I will not.

The Conservatives knew that the winter fuel payment needed to change—they said so in their manifesto in 2017—but they did nothing about it. They knew that NHS England was duplicating, wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to drive up standards, but they did nothing about it. They knew that flooding was getting worse in places such as Platt Bridge, Ashton and Abram in my constituency, but they did nothing about it.

Let me give an even more egregious example from this week. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has stomped his feet and shaken his head about new guidance issued by the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that independent agencies should not make policy; this Chamber should. However, what the shadow Secretary of State for Justice is unwilling to confront is the fact that his party welcomed that guidance. The unequal treatment in the guidance has not changed, and he knows that. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice typifies what the Conservative party has become, and that has been exemplified in this debate. Conservative Members come to this Chamber shaking with outrage and spoiling for a spat, but they forget that they have been in charge. \p Alison Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Josh Simons: I will not give way, as I am coming to the end.

Today’s debate is another reminder that Conservative Members are growing comfortable with opposition. They prefer shouting, stomping and shaking with outrage to running the country, and that is the difference between us and them. We believe in calmly but doggedly driving  the change this country voted for. We believe in standing alongside working people, and delivering change that benefits them. Conservative Members can put on their Britney mics and prophesise about abstractions, they can stomp their feet, they can wave bits of paper and they can get buzz cuts in a bid to convince working people that they have changed, but they have not. We are the party of working people and of change, and change is what we will continue to deliver. \p Alberto Costa: I have been reflecting that I have been in this Chamber for 10 years, and for most of that time I, like many of my hon. Friends now sitting on the Opposition Benches, were of course seated on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) claimed that we on the Opposition side now resort to stomping and outrage, whereas the Government are acting calmly and doggedly, but I must say to the new hon. Member that if I experienced anything over the last 10 years, it was that the faux outrage from the Labour Opposition on this side over 10 long years was all about the sorts of issues we are raising today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) reminded Labour Members that, in the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, we did not remove the winter fuel payment. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) added the benefit of his experience, and explained that he had looked at this matter when he was a Minister, but concluded that it would be wrong morally and fiscally to remove the winter fuel payment.

So I say very gently to hon. Member for Makerfield that we on the Opposition side of the House have, for too many years, had to put up with all the false outrage and the anger that hon. Members who are now in government showed us over the years. However, I can tell them that the anger coming to the Labour Government will not be from my hon. Friends but from the pensioners in the hon. Member’s constituency, and indeed in every constituency that now has a Labour MP. \p Jonathan Brash: The hon. Member is reflecting on his party’s record in office and how pensioners may feel about it. How does he think pensioners feel about the record of 300,000 more pensioners being in poverty thanks to his Administration over the last 14 years? \p Alberto Costa: I am afraid that the hon. Member misses the point. The whole point of this debate is to acknowledge that there are poorer and vulnerable people in our society, and that we kept the winter fuel payment precisely to ensure that the most vulnerable pensioners in our society were assisted. What we have heard from Labour party Members—the very Labour party Members who said during the election that they cared for the most vulnerable and the poorest in society—reminds of a comment that they once made about the Conservative party. If there is any nasty party, the removal of the winter fuel payment and the total absence of Labour MPs in the Chamber is proof positive that there is only one nasty party today: the Labour party.

Some of my constituents voted at the last general election for a Labour party that promised to help working people and promised to be the party for the weakest in society.  At no point did any of my constituents who put a cross next to the South Leicestershire Labour party candidate think that a Labour Government would remove the winter fuel payment, yet they did that within weeks of taking office. At the same time, they cruelly increased salaries for those who did not require increases. The train drivers were demanding exorbitant salary increases, which the Conservatives resisted when in government. The new Labour Government capitulated, taking money from those who needed it—the most vulnerable in society—and giving it to those who did not need it. That was a betrayal of the British electorate, when the Labour party said it had the most vulnerable people in mind. \p Louise Jones: Will the hon. Member confirm that he opposes pay rises for the armed forces? \p Alberto Costa: The hon. Lady has raised that point already and erroneously said that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) had misspoken. The only person who has misspoken this afternoon, and continues to do so, is the hon. Lady. The Conservatives have been very clear. Last year, when the Labour Government chose to give train drivers an exorbitant pay increase, we highlighted that that was a poor decision precisely because it had a negative impact on the most vulnerable in society, the very people we are speaking about today—pensioners. \p Saqib Bhatti: My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech and excellent points. It is about not just the pay rises for train drivers, but the fact that they were not asked for any savings in return. In fact, the only people who were asked to make a sacrifice were the poor pensioners. \p Alberto Costa: Indeed. My hon. Friend continues to make very sensible points. I am sure pensioners watching this debate will, once and for all, see that in 14 years of Conservative government we had protecting the most vulnerable and weakest in society at the forefront of our mind. \p Jonathan Brash: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, but I want to press him one more time, because I do not feel that he answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones). He made play of the fact that public sector workers were given a pay rise. I want absolute clarity here: is he saying that he does not support pay rises for soldiers, nurses and teachers? A simple yes or no will do. \p Alberto Costa: I will give the hon. Gentleman a very clear and unambiguous response: I support pensioners and the weakest in society. It is disgraceful that it is a Labour Government who have taken away money that is needed by the most vulnerable in society.

I will end where the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, ended. I ask, as she did, what was all this for? Why deny the weakest and most vulnerable elderly people in our society money they desperately needed to keep their houses warm? I add, as she did, that to govern is to choose—the idiom we have heard time and again. Well, the Labour party in government is showing its true colours to the British electorate. It has never been a party for the working  people, the most vulnerable or the weakest, and today, it clearly demonstrates that it is most certainly not a party for our pensioners. \p Mark Ferguson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), a Member for whom I have a lot of fondness, but with whom I am afraid I am going to part ways quite considerably this afternoon.

The point has been made by Opposition Members about the difficulties of government, so I will repeat a point I have made in previous Opposition day debates. Members on the Opposition Benches, for the time being, have considerably more experience of government than Members on the Government Benches. I believe that regrettably, many of the actions my own party took during our time in opposition prolonged that, but as a result, I and many Members on these Benches gained a huge amount of experience of what real opposition looks like, as well as what flawed opposition looks like. I gently remind Opposition Members—not for the first time in this place—that if this is what they consider opposition to look like, they are going to spend a lot more time on those Benches than they might wish.

It is often said that any day in government is better than any day in opposition. I am sure Members on the Opposition Benches are very much enjoying the opportunity to repeat arguments we have heard numerous times already. But every single day in government is also a time when we must make decisions, and we on this side of the House—in this Government—have been very clear about the decision we have taken. We have not shirked from it. We have not hidden it. Our decision on the winter fuel allowance was announced in this place. It was not an easy decision—far from it. \p Harriet Cross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Ferguson: I am very, very close to making a point, but why not? There are more people wishing to speak on the Opposition Benches than on the Government Benches, so as someone who has many teachers in the family—we have mentioned teachers in this debate already —I will give way and say, “It’s not my time you’re wasting.” \p Harriet Cross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I actually do not think it is anyone’s time we are wasting, seeing as we are discussing such an important topic. He talked about a decision that was made. I was just wondering, if Government Members had their time again, would they make the same decision? \p Mark Ferguson: I would, and here’s why: when there are difficult decisions to be taken, we cannot shirk from them. When the Government shirk from those decisions, they end up with the grotesque chaos of entering a general election having accrued £22 billion of expenditure that there has not been sufficient allocation for, which is why someone else has to pick up the pieces. \p Joe Robertson: The hon. Gentleman looks almost proud of the decision to withdraw winter fuel payments. He talks about taking tough decisions—can I offer him a really easy alternative? Scrap GB Energy, which does  not produce any energy; do not give Mauritius money and sovereign British territory; and restore the winter fuel payment. \p Mark Ferguson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his talking points from Conservative campaign headquarters —they have been very much received on this side of the House. I do not relish having to take money away from anyone. It is one of the most difficult decisions that any of us will take. I hope that all of us in all parts of the House—every single person here—believes they are doing what is best for their constituents. I believe that every single Member on the Opposition Benches believes that what they are doing is best for their constituents. I do not believe that what they are doing is best for my constituents, but those are arguments I dare say we will continue to have vigorously over the next four years in this place. \p Alison Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Ferguson: I am about to get to the thrust of my argument, if the hon. Lady would not mind.

We have been talking about the winter fuel allowance and money being taken from pensioners, which is a serious point. I wish to talk briefly about what happened four years ago, when, in this place, the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 was passed. That was a very serious decision that the previous Government had to take. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for some of the enlightening research that he commissioned from the House of Commons Library. In 2021, the Conservative Government made a decision, following the unusual turbulence in the employment market after covid, that the triple lock would become, for one year only, a double lock. The Conservatives, who are very keen to say that they are the party of the triple lock, turned it into a double lock. I think that it is fair to say—as many Members did at the time—that it was a very unusual time in the market— \p Saqib Bhatti: Will the hon. Member give way on that point? \p Mark Ferguson: I would be happy to give way, but I am coming to the thrust of my argument.

As a result, the state pension did not increase by 8.3%, as it could have done that year. It instead rose by the absolute minimum of 2.5%, and that has had cumulative effects. In year one, pensioners were £470 worse off. In year two, they were £520 worse off. And in year three, they were £560 worse off. As I want to be reasonable in this debate, I make it clear that the Labour party did not support the 8.3% rise, because we believed, as a reasonable Opposition who went on to win the general election, that it was not within the bounds of what would normally be considered a rise in wages and was because of the impacts of covid. However, Members on the Labour Benches—I was sadly not one of them at the time—supported a Lords amendment that asked for the covid-specific elements to be stripped out to allow the Conservative party to maintain their manifesto commitment to a triple lock. That was voted down by the Conservative party.

Labour Members have been attempting to be reasonable and considered in opposition and in government about the impacts of spending on pensioners. Conservative Members are arguing as if they have never had to take  difficult decisions that would have impacts on pensioners. We have all had to take difficult decisions, and we will all continue to do so. \p Saqib Bhatti: I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for getting to the thrust of his argument. He keeps referring to market turbulence, but I think he means the once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. We have repeatedly said how difficult governing is. The fact is that we would have made different choices from the ones that the current Government are making right now. \p Mark Ferguson: I thank the hon. Member for his point, but I feel like he has not really listened to what I was saying. The point that I was making was that, at the time, the Government of the day had an opportunity to strip out the covid effects. I have already used the phrase “covid effects” and I have referred to the once-in-a-generation pandemic—my Lord, did we not all live through it? None of us has forgotten about it. But instead of stripping out the covid effects, the Conservative Government argued that that would be too difficult, so, instead, there was a 2.5% rise. That had an effect on pensioners, but I do not feel that the Conservative party has had the same reckoning with that difficult decision that we on Labour Benches have had with the decisions that we have taken. \p Alison Griffiths: To be honest, I am absolutely delighted to hear the first Member on the Government Benches acknowledge that there is not a fictitious £22 billion black hole that they are trying to fill, and that they have understood, finally, that the effects of covid and the war in Ukraine are part of the issue they are trying to deal with. \p Mark Ferguson: On the contrary. Of course there are difficulties and complexities caused by a war on the continent of Europe and by a once-in-a-generation pandemic, but they did not cause the previous Government to spend £6 billion on asylum hotels that they have not accounted for.

The point is often made about train drivers. As Labour Members have pointed out, it is not just train drivers who receive pay rises. I was not going to get into this, but while I am here I might as well declare that I am very proud to have been a serving trade union official for Unison, representing care workers, hospital cleaners and catering staff, who all received a reasonable pay rise under this Government. Incidentally, it was a pay rise recommended by an independent pay review body that was ignored and left on the shelf by the previous Government. \p Alberto Costa: rose— \p Mark Ferguson: I am very respectful of the hon. Member, and I will bring him in in a moment. \p Alison Griffiths: rose— \p Alberto Costa: rose— \p Mark Ferguson: I will be reasonable and give way to Members, but first I want to point out that some of the money that has been saved will be spent on the national health service. There is £25.6 billion extra for the NHS  this year. Unfortunately, I have had the bad luck of being in accident and emergency with a number of family members in recent months. In this place we often talk about the impact of the national health service struggling, and what I saw there shocked me. I have seen children sleeping on their coats on the waiting room floor for 12 hours. I have seen pensioners on trolleys in corridors for days, crying out for help. It is an appalling legacy— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I remind Members that we are debating the winter fuel payment. It is perfectly in order to try to put that in context, but perhaps we should steer away from a debate on the NHS. \p Mark Ferguson: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your reminder. I have come to the end of my section on context, so let me bring my speech to a close. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) makes the good point that I should give way. \p Alberto Costa: I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. There is no doubt that we all have sympathy with people who are finding the cost of living a challenge. But as Madam Deputy Speaker has correctly reminded us, today we are addressing the most vulnerable people in society who are no longer able to earn money—pensioners. The Opposition’s questioning of why the Government made the choice to increase the salaries of those still working is valid. The point is that pensioners are unable to earn, and are poor at the £13,500 limit. \p Mark Ferguson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but those in receipt of pension credit are still receiving winter fuel allowance, and all will benefit from this party’s total commitment to the triple lock. \p Jonathan Brash: My hon. Friend mentioned the triple lock and the very tough decision that the Opposition took when in government, but what has been the cumulative effect of that for all pensioners in this country to date? \p Mark Ferguson: As I mentioned, my hon. Friend commissioned research from the Library. The cumulative effect overall will be somewhere in the realm of £1,500 per pensioner. As I said, were I a Member in 2021, I believe that I would have agreed that 8.3% was an unlikely increase. However, the Conservative Government were happy to raise it by 10.1% and then 8.5% in subsequent years. There is clearly a bit of dissonance. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Mark Ferguson: As I have said, the Opposition’s time is being taken up, not mine, so I will draw this entertaining speech to a close.

I am pleased that Opposition Members are proud of their position on the winter fuel payment. I am very happy for them. But under their Government, the winter fuel allowance was never increased. By my own assessment, it went down by around a third in real terms; the Minister said around 50%, and it is a matter of public record that he is far better at numbers than me, so I defer to him. If the Opposition care about the most vulnerable, they also  have to care about our national health service and support the action being taken on the triple lock, and they must consider why in 14 years of government the winter fuel allowance was increased zero times. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Around 15 Members still want to speak. The wind-ups will start at 6.35 pm, so if everyone is to get in, perhaps some thought could be given to the length of contributions. \p Anna Sabine: After such a huge election victory by a supposedly progressive party, it was disappointing to me and many of my constituents that, despite the financial situation that the Government inherited, one of their first acts was to strip vital support from many of the poorest pensioners in our society. I am sure that many of us across the House had hundreds of emails from concerned pensioners, worried about how they would afford their energy bills this winter. Stripping pensioners of this allowance was the wrong thing to do.

The Government said that the removal of winter fuel payments would allow money to be spent in other areas, but as with other attempts to raise money such as increasing employers’ national insurance contributions, any savings will be offset, as pointed out by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), by cold, hungry and unwell pensioners adding to the strain on GPs and social services. It is morally and economically a poor decision.

One of my constituents, Patricia, wrote to me about how furious she was that the winter fuel allowance had been taken away. She is no longer eligible for winter fuel payments, but neither is she eligible for benefits or pension credit. She worked in the NHS for over 40 years, but her NHS pension is not large, and she has been a widow for over 10 years so she is managing on a small, single income. Because her husband died when she was 54, she was not entitled to a widow’s pension, either. She wrote to me saying:

“It is always the middle people who are squeezed, whose pips are made to squeak, the easy targets”.

I could give numerous other examples of pensioners in a similar position to Patricia who do not know what to do.

In January, I held a cost of living advice surgery in Midsomer Norton where I brought together organisations and charities such as Wessex Water and Mind to provide a one-stop shop for constituents to come to me with their concerns about bills and benefits. The majority of those who attended the surgery were pensioners anxious about the cost of their utility bills or confused about their eligibility for various payments. More than 2 million pensioners currently live in poverty—that is unacceptable. The pressure that they are feeling will only be heightened by yesterday’s welfare reform announcements. I have already received a deluge of emails from constituents worried about the likely impacts.

Loss of winter fuel payments, changes to personal independence payments and increases to national insurance for charities and social care providers all pile the pressure on the least well-off in our country while the Government kick tricky decisions like fixing social care into the  long grass. The cost of living crisis is going nowhere, and removing winter fuel payments is just another example of a decision that penalises some of the most vulnerable. \p Matthew Patrick: I start by paying tribute to the pensioners in my constituency. They have worked hard all their lives and made immeasurable contributions to our community by volunteering for others and supporting family members and friends through hardship and sickness. My generation owes them a great debt, and they deserve better than what had become the norm under the Tories.

Tory mismanagement saw spiralling inflation and a £22 billion black hole in the nation’s finances. Tory mismanagement saw an NHS on its knees, with the longest waiting times on record and a social care system that was not fit for purpose. \p Alison Griffiths: rose— \p Matthew Patrick: I am not into the thrust of my argument yet, but I will give way. \p Alison Griffiths: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who acknowledged that it was indeed the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine that caused such a problem with the UK finances. \p Matthew Patrick: The hon. Lady will know that, when it comes to the NHS, the longest waiting times were impacted by the pandemic, but the longest waiting times on record prior to the pandemic were seen the day before it, because of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives do not have a record that they should feel proud of on that matter, or on the economy. \p Harriet Cross: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Matthew Patrick: I am finishing on the intervention that I just took; I might then come to another.

Many constituents in Wirral West really suffered through Tory mismanagement on the economy and on public services. That mismanagement saw a status quo fail our pensioners and fail all of us. Getting the country back on track required us to support those who need it most. No one in my constituency thinks that the very richest in society like Sir Richard Branson need Government support to get by. \p Gregory Stafford: There is probably unanimity across the Chamber that Richard Branson does not need the winter fuel payment, but it is the poorest pensioners—those who are earning just above £13,500—who are losing out. Let us not have the nonsense about Richard Branson or people swigging champagne; let us actually talk about the people who are suffering and will be going into hospital because they are cold and may end up dying. Those are the people we should be talking about. \p Matthew Patrick: I will come to that, but I gently make the point, as was just said, that the Conservatives were paying Sir Richard Branson the winter fuel allowance every year. They could have changed that, but they did not. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Matthew Patrick: I will take interventions—I am happy to do so—but I will make some progress first. Hon. Members may have heard earlier that the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale)—I do not believe that he is currently in his seat—said it was nonsense for him to be receiving the winter fuel allowance. I think he revealed—it was news to me—that the Conservative Government had had plans to means-test it. I will be interested if those who wish to intervene would confirm whether he was right. \p Luke Murphy: Members on the Conservative Benches have said that they do not think Richard Branson should have been receiving the winter fuel payment. They talk about those above £13,000. If the Conservative party had been so concerned about the very poorest pensioners, pension credit would not have been the most underclaimed benefit in the welfare system, with 700,000 people not claiming it. If they really cared about the most vulnerable pensioners, would they not have done more about that? \p Matthew Patrick: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is incredible uptake under this Government because we want to see the poorest pensioners access the support they are entitled to. \p Joe Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman take my intervention? \p Matthew Patrick: I will, but I have a very neat point and so the hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I will not take his intervention right now. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) said it is not all about people quaffing champagne, but one Conservative councillor lambasted me for the decision and for taking away his champagne money. I do not think it can be right for public money to be used in that way while the pressures on vulnerable pensioners and working people are so great. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Matthew Patrick: I will take interventions in a moment. Hon. Members have mentioned those who are just above the threshold. They will therefore share my relief that this Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds into the household support fund, which can help those worried about their bills if they are just below the threshold. I will give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) first and then to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). \p Joe Robertson: I thank the hon. Member for finally giving way. He has won his campaign to remove the winter fuel payment from Sir Richard Branson, but if I take him back a little earlier in his speech, he paints a picture of the sorry state that he claims this country was in when he took over. Just let us suppose that and run with his argument, which he must believe: why does he think now is the time to also take away the winter fuel payment? \p Matthew Patrick: The hon. Gentleman uses the words “suppose” and “sorry state”. It is no wonder Conservative Members lost; they were in total denial about their failure for this country. Now is the right time to end the  status quo, end the incessant decline under the Conservatives and put a huge amount of investment back into our NHS. I, for one, am proud that we have had five months of falling waiting times. I want Conservative Members to welcome such good news for our NHS—news that helps all the people in this country. \p John Glen: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. I have listened carefully to the speeches this afternoon with respect to our tenure in office and regrets that we will have time to reflect on. I accept that. However, having been a Minister and a Parliamentary Private Secretary for 12 years, I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that though making the decision to remove the winter fuel payment for that population may be desirable— I acknowledge and have said that it may be desirable for people in the higher levels—it needs to have a mechanism or a proxy to verify what would be fair and which vulnerable people would be affected. I put it to him that if somebody only has an income of £13,500, they are in a state of vulnerability that means that no Government should take that away. The choice we made was based on the options available. If there had been an easier way of doing that at a higher level, I would have been sympathetic to that. Those are the real choices that one actually has to face in government. \p Matthew Patrick: I am grateful to the right hon. Member, including for the way in which he puts his point. He will hopefully share my relief, then, about the household support fund, which I often find my constituents do not know about. The fund is not reported heavily in the media, so it would be wise for us all to take the opportunity in this debate to reiterate that that support is available to people who are just above the threshold and who might just miss out on accessing the winter fuel allowance, so that they know that. I signpost many concerned constituents to Citizens Advice Wirral and support them in accessing the money available through the household support fund, hundreds of millions of pounds of which has come from this Government.

Conservative Members rightly talk about the need to relieve pressures and protect the most vulnerable. However, I question where their outrage was when their Government, back in 2021, broke their manifesto commitment and suspended the triple lock; I wonder where their outrage was when their leader recently suggested that we should look at means-testing access to the state pension; and where was their outrage when only months ago the shadow Chancellor suggested scrapping the triple lock all together?

It is Labour politicians who are committed to protecting pensioners’ incomes and delivering support to those in need. I have mentioned the household support fund, and we are ending the Tories’ disastrous plans to drag a record number of pensioners into paying income tax by uprating personal tax thresholds from April 2028. Unlike the Tories, we have an iron-clad commitment to the triple lock, which will see the state pension of millions increase by more than £470 this year. I would like to hear them welcome that. We are supporting those caring for their loved ones by increasing the income threshold for carer’s allowance so that more than 60,000 carers will benefit by the end of this Parliament.

Times are tough and this Labour Government have made tough decisions to get our country back on track. As I mentioned, NHS waiting times have now fallen for five consecutive months. We have not had that for a long time. We have made a deal with GPs so that healthcare in the community works for everyone, we have targeted income support to those in the most difficulty and we have launched the biggest ever drive to ensure that those who can claim pension credit do so, with almost 50,000 more pensioners now getting the money they are entitled to. The Tory status quo meant only decline for this country. With the Government’s plan for change, we will get the country back on its feet. \p Caroline Nokes: I am introducing an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Bradley Thomas. \p Bradley Thomas: Constituents across Bromsgrove and the villages, particularly older constituents who have previously been beneficiaries of winter fuel payments, rightly feel short-changed by this Government. I know that from constituents who have contacted me and those I have spoken to directly on the doorstep. The faith that they placed in the Government has not been rewarded by the Government supporting them at a time of vulnerability.

In the limited time that I have, I would like to point out the effect that this policy has on rural communities in particular. It is important to remember that, while about 83% of homes across the country at large are connected to the gas grid, many pensioners who live in rural areas are not connected to mains energy and have disproportionately higher energy costs. They often live in much more exposed older homes that are less well insulated. This means that their energy demands are much greater than those who live in better insulated or more urban residences.

I also want to touch on political choices. I know that this has been stressed many times already today, but governing is about choices. We hear a lot about £22 billion black holes, but we do not hear too much from the Government and Labour Members about the cumulative costs of other choices that they have made. These include the £18 billion for Chagos and the public sector pay award without any increase in productivity. We could say that pensioners are paying the price for the pressure that unions have placed on the Labour party.

It is crucial to remember that, during the election campaign, Labour pledged to bring down bills by £300 a year. Ever since the Government have been pursuing their GB Energy policy, which is a quango funded to the tune of £8 billion that will not own any energy-generating assets, they seem to have abandoned any claim over when that £300 deduction in bills will be delivered, but we have seen the price cap rise. I find it quite spectacular how, in 2025, Ministers are suddenly talking about how market forces are affecting energy prices, when back in 2022 Labour Members said it was the decisions of the Conservatives that caused energy prices and therefore inflation to spike. It is important for the Government to reflect on the reality of what drives energy prices and to restore the winter fuel payment to pensioners, not just in Bromsgrove and the villages but across the country. \p Karen Bradley: It is an honour to take part in this debate, and this is an extremely pertinent time for it. We all hope we are through the worst of the winter—although in my part of the world nobody puts their snow boots away until we have got through lambing season, because lambing storms usually bring snow—but we need to know, as we get through the winter and into the better weather, what the impact of this policy decision has been on our pensioners, on our health service, on A&E admissions and on other allowances and benefits. We need to know the overall cost of the decision.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who is no longer in his place, suggested that he has more pensioners in his constituency than anyone else. Having checked with the House of Commons Library as I sat here, I assure him that Staffordshire Moorlands has more, because we have 22,197 compared with his 20,909. Of those 22,197, over 20,000 of them have been affected by this decision, and Staffordshire Moorlands, as the name suggests, is not exactly warm. Last winter, we saw a low of minus 14°C; this year, we saw only minus 5°C —it has been a relatively mild winter.

It is incredibly important that we find out exactly what impact the decision has had. At the pensioners’ fair I held in Cheadle back in November, pensioners were terrified. I am holding another fair next week on 28 March in Leek, and I want to hear from my local pensioners what impact the decision has had on them, how it has made them feel and how often they did not switch the heating on.

I am proud that I was part of a party in government that introduced the triple lock. The suspension of the triple lock has been referred to. Those were exceptional circumstances. That was at a point when we had had furlough and earnings had gone down by 20%—that is how the statistics worked. When people came off furlough and the earnings went up by a much higher number, that was the statistical anomaly that meant giving pensioners the increase in line with earnings would not have reflected reality. Earnings had not gone up by that amount; it was that furlough had ended. \p Andy MacNae: Can I be clear in my mind that what the right hon. Lady is saying is that at a tough time, the then Government took some tough decisions, and that resulted in the pension level being £560 lower now than if they had not made that decision—a difference far greater than the winter fuel payment amount? That Government made tough decisions at a tough time that are costing pensioners money today. \p Karen Bradley: What was happening then was once in a generation, and it was not a real increase in earnings; it was merely that people had gone from 80% of their earnings back to 100%. When earnings had gone down by 20%, we did not cut the state pension but continued to increase it in line with the triple lock.

I want to make a point about universal benefits as opposed to means-tested ones. The Labour party seems to think that a universal benefit is bad because somebody who does not really need it might receive it. I take the other view: it is important that we get to as many people  as possible who need it, and if that means a few people at the top end of the earnings level get a benefit they might not need— \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Given that the right hon. Member’s belief is so strong, will she enlighten me on whether she voted to strip child benefit from certain families, as was Conservative policy? That was a universal benefit. \p Karen Bradley: The hon. Member makes a good point, and that was a difficult decision because it was the way we could ensure that those at the higher end of the earnings spectrum were taxed on their child benefit. That is a different way of dealing with a benefit that some people may not be in need of but are in receipt of. It would have been perfectly possible for the Government to tax winter fuel payments. That would have meant that those on £13,500 were still getting the money they needed and the Richard Bransons of the world would be paying tax on it. That was a choice available to the Government; they chose not to do that. They chose to just take the benefit away.

The fact that child benefit goes automatically to mothers is an incredibly important point, and winter fuel allowance going automatically to pensioners was valuable to them. I ask the Government and the Minister, who I know well and who is an honourable and decent gentleman, whether they might consider putting in some form of transitional arrangements, rather than having the cliff edge that hurts many pensioners. I also ask whether they will give us the information about whether there is fraud and error in the system now. Will the DWP accounts be affected by the fact that the winter fuel allowance has been taken away in this way and more people may be guilty of fraud and error? Will the Minister give us information on the impact that the measure has had on pensioner health? That matters vitally to us all. \p Kirsty Blackman: I start by acknowledging the clear impact that I have had on the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). I am not sure why or how I have had that impact, but it was clear that she was drastically upset at me, despite the fact that I had been sitting quietly throughout the debate until that point.

I will talk about why the Labour Government took this decision—why the Chancellor’s first decision was to target pensioners. It was because the Government talked in their manifesto about the fiscal rules that they would put in place, and said that they would not raise taxes on working people, among a number of other policies. However, they then found themselves in a bit of a bind: “What can we do to reduce the cost in-year? What is an easy target?” The Treasury team obviously said, “Well, how about cutting the winter fuel payment? You can do that in-year. You can make the change in this Budget, in the current financial year.”

That has left the Scottish Government in a rubbish situation. Because those decisions were taken in-year, it reduced our block grant after we had set our budget in Scotland. We could not magically come up with the £147 million that the UK Government had taken from us with no warning, despite saying that they were going to reset the relationship with the Scottish Parliament. They took that money away in-year.

This is supposed to be a Labour Government. My former Procedure Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), talked about the universality of benefits. I wholeheartedly agree that that is what we should have.  I believe that we should have universal social security systems and universal basic income, and that everybody who deserves the social security net should be provided with it. Then we should tax non-doms, tax share buy-backs, rejoin the single market and have a more progressive tax system—like the one in Scotland—in order to pay for those things.

Universal benefits mean that, yes, absolutely, one or two millionaires who buy champagne with their winter fuel payment will get it, but they also mean that every single person who needs it will get it. The choices being made will exclude some of those millionaires, but they will also exclude the people who were freezing in the minus 1°C weather in my constituency overnight. That is a shoddy decision by the Labour Government. I do not understand what the point of Labour is just now. \p Wendy Morton: I know that, for the Government Front Benchers, I may well be repeating myself, but I think I need to: £300 may not seem like a lot of money, but believe you me, for the thousands of pensioners in my constituency and up and down the country who have missed out on their winter fuel payment, it is a lot. As we have heard this afternoon, and as Labour Members know, it is the difference between heating and eating.

What does the Minister say to someone who is terminally ill or has a life-threatening illness, is just over the pension credit limit, and misses out because of the Labour Government’s callous policy? Does the Minister accept the finding that the chance of an over-65-year-old being admitted to hospital or A&E this winter increased by 9% compared with 2023-24—an increase of 76,190 patients? Has he explained to pensioners that a report commissioned by Labour in 2017 claimed that 3,850 pensioners’ lives would be at risk if the winter fuel payment were scrapped, and that scrapping the winter fuel payment would cost the NHS an extra £169 million a year? It is no wonder that the Government did not want to publish an impact assessment. \p Andy MacNae: The right hon. Lady is making an eloquent point about how important every pound is for a pensioner, and £300 is a lot of money for a pensioner. But is £560 more or less than £300, because that is what decisions taken by the previous Government in 2021 have cost pensioners this year? \p Wendy Morton: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear the position on that.

Let me return to the point we are debating, which is the winter fuel payment. I would like to think, or even hope, that the Government would have a rethink, although it appears that might not be the case. What is worse is that they seem uninterested in assessing the impact of this decision. They will not do it now, they did not do it before they made the decision, and it seems they will  not even consider delaying the measure. Pensioners have faced a cliff edge and they could not plan for this, which makes it even harder.

To add insult to injury, more than 30,000 pension credit applications are waiting to be processed. I have been submitting written questions to the Department to try to flush out how many extra staff it has recruited. My figures are different from those given earlier by those on the Front Bench. My numbers are 1,045 full-time equivalent members of staff, and there is still a backlog. Winter is not over and pensioners are still waiting, so why do this Labour Government insist on penalising those who have worked hard all their lives?

Pensioners have worked hard, tried to do the right thing by their families, paid their bills, and perhaps saved a little bit of money, only to be kicked at a time in life when they really need that little bit of help, and when it would make a massive difference in so many ways. Labour Members chose to scrap the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners, and the really disappointing thing is that I have sat on these Benches and I have heard not one bit of humility. All I have heard is arrogance— \p Luke Myer: Will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Wendy Morton: No, not now. I will continue to fight for the pensioners—for the friends, families, and residents of Aldridge-Brownhills who I know are suffering as a result of this. \p Joe Robertson: The flavour and mood of this debate have been somewhat strange. I expected to be in a debate facing Members on the Government Benches who were at least showing humility, and who at least, in the words they chose, showed that they regretted the decision, even though they reluctantly supported it. But that is not the mood we have faced at all. Government Members have been bullish. We have heard the word “proud”. They have been jovial and, at times, even upbeat in describing this very worst decision of this Government of bad decisions, and pensioners will have heard them. Labour Members may have impressed each other, and they may have impressed the trade unions of which they are members, by talking about and defending train drivers’ pay, but they will have deeply depressed, and depressed further, those pensioners who live in their constituencies, in my constituency and right across Britain.

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State took us through the issues caused by withdrawing the winter fuel payment, and she made the central argument that has been repeated from these Benches: they are withdrawing the winter fuel payment not from the wealthy, but from those on as little as £13,500. \p Max Wilkinson: My constituent Jean told me that she is now washing in cold water as a result of this measure. She is one of those people right on the cusp. She might also be concerned by comments from the Leader of the Opposition about the potential means-testing of the triple lock after the next election, if the Conservatives are in government. Will the hon. Gentleman offer Jean reassurance that there will not be an even longer winter if the Government were to change next time? \p Joe Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to talk about means-testing— I did not expect to have that Government argument made by a Liberal Democrat Member, but so be it. There is some sympathy, from across the House, for the argument for means-testing the winter fuel payment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that nobody on the Conservative Benches thinks that the means-testing cut-off point, if they believe in one, should be £13,500. That means that 10 million pensioners have lost out on the winter fuel payment. Unless the Government can make a fiscal argument for removing winter fuel payments from the very wealthy that actually delivers more funds to the Treasury, this decision should not have been taken at all, and should certainly not have been taken when it harms those on a fixed income of very little. \p Luke Murphy: The motion talks about ensuring that

“those eligible for Pension Credit receive it”.

To return to the point I made earlier, if Conservative Members were so concerned about vulnerable pensioners, why was there absolutely no movement in the take-up of pension credit under the previous Government? Some 700,000 pensioners are eligible for pension credit, but I do not remember a big campaign on that by the previous Government that made a difference— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is far too long. \p Joe Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to his own Government’s promise to increase the take-up of pension credit. After the past winter, there are still 750,000 pensioners who have not taken it up, so he should not speak with any pride or seek to deflect to previous Governments when his own Government have withdrawn the winter fuel payment and there are still 750,000 eligible pensioners who are not receiving pension credit. \p Luke Murphy: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Joe Robertson: I am sorry, but in the time remaining I cannot take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Without the winter fuel payment, over the winter we have seen a 5% increase in the number of people aged over 65 attending A&E, and of those who have attended A&E, there has been a 9% increase in hospital admission. The motion seeks a proper impact assessment and analysis by the Government of the effects of winter fuel payments being withdrawn. This was not a one-off winter, and it was a warmer winter than average. The same will happen next winter, the following winter and the winter after that, unless the Government bring back the fuel payment. \p Matthew Patrick: The hon. Member stated that he believes in means-testing the winter fuel allowance, so at what level does he believe that eligibility should be set? \p Joe Robertson: There are Members across the House who would support the principle of means-testing, and I have invited the Government to come forward with the data that shows us where the bar would be set to bring money into the Treasury. However, I would reject any means-testing that takes money away from those paid £13,500. \p Gregory Stafford: I do not know whether it is incompetence, pig-headedness or callousness, or indeed all of the above, that has led this Labour Government to take the winter fuel payment away from some of the poorest in society. So often today from the Government Benches we have heard about tough choices, but tough choices do not automatically mean the right choice; in fact, in this case it is entirely the wrong choice.

I expected to see the panoply of the usual greasers and crawlers from the Labour Benches here today, but they are not here. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned, we have seen Labour Members who seem to have donned the hair shirt and decided that this should be their cause célèbre to demonstrate, either to themselves or to their party, that being tough somehow means that they are being a strong Government, which is absolute nonsense. All that the scrapping of the winter fuel payment will lead to is excess deaths. We had warm words from the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), but warm words will not heat the pensioners who are freezing in their homes this winter.

In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, more than 18,200 pensioners will have lost the winter fuel payment, and many of them are just above the income threshold for the pension credit benefit. These people are contributing to our society but earning only £13,500 a year. They are not the champagne quaffers that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) talked about; they are the people who fought for and served this country. They have put money into the system and rightly expect a tiny bit back to heat their homes.

At a pension credit surgery I held in October, pensioners shared their fears and frustrations. One word kept coming up: betrayal. That is betrayal by this Labour Government of their vote. They are not asking for luxuries or for anything like a handout; all they want is to be able to heat their home in winter. They want to live with dignity, and they want to do so without having to choose whether to heat their home or put food on the table.

The idea that this Government would do this without an impact assessment and, subsequently, without doing any monitoring of the impact is shocking. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister commit to doing a full impact assessment to see the rate of NHS admissions and the mortality rates that he talked about, so that we understand whether this policy has killed people? This is not about money; it is about values and decency. Those who built this country should not have to shiver in their homes because of this cruel policy. \p Alison Griffiths: Once again in this House we find ourselves discussing Labour’s failure to protect our pensioners. Time and again we have exposed its false narratives and asked how it intends to use technology to reduce costs, improve services and drive productivity. This Government capitulated to the archaic working practices of train drivers and their trade union paymasters. There has been no serious attempt to modernise, no recognition of the technological advancements of the past five years, and no meaningful reforms to improve efficiency. Worse still, their Employment Rights Bill drags Britain back  to 1970s French-style labour laws, rolling back the vital protections of the Trade Union Act 2016. These outdated policies stifle economic growth, make job creation harder and hand excessive power to unions— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I remind the hon. Member that this debate is on winter fuel payments. \p Alison Griffiths: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wish to set the scene for winter fuel payments. \p Luke Myer: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Alison Griffiths: I will make some progress.

Who is paying the price for the Government’s economic mismanagement? It is our pensioners. Of the 23,282 pensioners in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—at least 5% more pensioners than in the constituency of Makerfield—nearly 90% will lose their winter fuel payment this year. That is nearly 23,282 elderly individuals being forced into impossible choices because of this Government’s incompetence and poor choices. One constituent wrote to me that

“this policy is especially unfair to older pensioners who receive significantly lower pensions than those born later. We have contributed since the age of 16, yet now we feel penalised”

simply for being older.

This is not just bad policy, but a deliberate choice by this Labour Government. Instead of protecting the vulnerable, this Government have prioritised inflation-busting pay rises for their union backers, waged class warfare on independent schools and forced a burden of at least £5 billion on to businesses through their disastrous Employment Rights Bill. Labour’s decision to strip away this crucial support will lead to more pensioners in A&E, more vulnerable people suffering in cold homes and more lives being put at risk. It is a betrayal. We will not stand by and let this injustice go unanswered. \p Peter Bedford: It is painfully clear that if this Government believe you did not vote for them, they will continue to turn their back on you. That is clear from their treatment of independent schools, small business owners, farmers, and now—and most cruelly—pensioners. Within just weeks of taking office, this shameful Government scrapped the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners. Those individuals, many of whom are frail and some of the most vulnerable people in society, have given so much to our country. They built our foundations, our communities and the national fabric, yet in return, they receive a cold shoulder from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She could not wait to get her hands on their £300. \p John Slinger: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Peter Bedford: No, I am not giving way.

That small sum of money allowed pensioners to keep the heating on, helping them to make it through those cold winter nights, and supported them in not having to choose between heating and eating. Wherever I go in my constituency of Mid Leicestershire, I have conversations  with older people, and the word they use is “betrayal”. It is a betrayal felt deeply in their hearts, particularly by those who helped build this country.

Let us not forget that 348 Labour MPs are complicit in taking the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners, and 71% of disabled pensioners have lost that vital support. Labour Members have repeatedly told us that theirs is the party of the NHS, but let us face the facts: they are all complicit in costing the national health service an additional £169 million, which is the cost of looking after the 100,000 pensioners who have been left out in the cold. \p Gregory Stafford: We have heard the argument from Labour Members that taking away the winter fuel payment somehow benefits the NHS, because money is going into it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief executive of NHS England has said that actually, every single penny that the Government are putting into the NHS this year is being wiped out through national insurance rises, inflation and drug price increases? \p Peter Bedford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The numbers simply do not stack up.

In comparison, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the triple lock and increased the state pension by almost £4,000. It was a Conservative Government who reduced the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty by more than 200,000, and it is the Conservatives who have pensioners’ interests at heart. \p Lewis Cocking: When I was out on the doorsteps during the general election campaign—as I am sure every Member of this House was—I spoke to my electorate in Broxbourne. They said, “Look, Lewis, we know what’s coming. We know we’re going to get a Labour Government. We know they’re going to get into power and then they’re going to tell us how awful it is, and they are going to come for us. They are going to come after pensioners.” The electorate in Broxbourne already knew, so the British public are not fools. This argument about a £22 billion black hole and difficult choices that we are told the Government have to make will not wash with the British people outside of this Chamber, because they did not believe it in the first place. \p Luke Myer: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Lewis Cocking: No, I will not give way.

The Government got elected on a manifesto. Within eight months, they have introduced significant policies that were not in that manifesto, including the family farm tax, the national insurance increase, and of course withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. That is what my constituents in Broxbourne are really cross about—it was not in the Labour party manifesto. People went out and voted in good faith in the July election, and lots of the people I speak to in my constituency who voted for the Labour party now heavily regret it because of the choices that Labour and this Government are making. They were not honest about those choices with the British people.

What was in the Labour manifesto, though, was a commitment to cut energy bills by £300. The Government have got in—secured a mandate from the British people—and have then said, “You know what? The manifesto we were elected on doesn’t mean anything. We can throw it  in the bin and concentrate on things that we really want to do, rather than concentrate on putting British people first and lowering energy bills by £300.” I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will tell us about the progress that the Government are making towards bringing energy bills down. I suspect that it is very little, because they are too busy concentrating on things that they have not been elected to do. \p Bradley Thomas: Further to the point that my hon. Friend has just made, does he agree that the Government made promises to the British public that they not only will not deliver, but cannot deliver, such as lowering energy bills? It is not within the gift of Governments to directly control energy bills—that is why the winter fuel payment is so crucial to so many pensioners across the country. \p Lewis Cocking: My hon. Friend makes an important point. What the Government could do to lower energy bills is to secure North sea oil and gas investment in this country, so that we produce here more of the gas that we need to power all the industry in this country, instead of importing it. \p Charlie Maynard: Does the hon. Member agree that if we were to rejoin a single market in electricity, we would lower our electricity bills by joining the single day-ahead coupling system with Europe? \p Lewis Cocking: The hon. Member makes a point that he is passionate about, but I do not agree with him. We need to produce more of our energy here at home, rather than relying on imports. That is why the Government should change their policy and issue new oil and gas licences. I urge hon. Members on the Government Benches —lots of them are honourable—to please support pensioners today and vote to keep the winter fuel allowance. \p Caroline Nokes: That brings us to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Edward Argar: This afternoon, we have heard some fantastic speeches in which Members have set out heartbreaking real-life stories from their constituents about the situation older people have found themselves in this winter. Pensioners have been forced to choose between eating and heating as a result of the Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel allowance from around 10 million of them. That was compounded by shocking delays in processing pension credit claims. Along with those who have just missed the threshold to receive support, it has meant that many, many people who are desperately in need have missed out on hundreds of pounds that would have made a real difference to them this winter.

As has previously been said:

“Although the poorest do receive some help through cold weather payments, they go only to those on income support, who generally have to wait until after the cold weather for help to be available. The payments are no help at all to most pensioners, including…those on the margins of poverty”.

The individual continues that they were

“simply not prepared to allow another winter to go by when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating, even on the coldest winter days, because they do not know whether they will have the help they need for their fuel bills.”—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 779-80.]

Those were the words of the former Labour Chancellor and Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who brought in the winter fuel payment. It is a great shame that his successors in a Labour Government today have taken a very different view on support for pensioners.

The choice made by the Labour Government—almost their first choice in office last July—is as cruel as it is unnecessary, and it has real-life consequences for vulnerable people. Like many other Members, I suspect on both sides of the House, I have met my local branch of Age UK and other local charities. They all tell me about how hard their services—services vitally important to pensioners, such as GPs, hospices and pharmacies—will be hit by the Government’s jobs tax, the NICs hike. Alongside that impact on services pensioners rely on, this Government have slashed the winter fuel payment for so many. Understandably, pensioners are asking what the Labour party has against them—or, for that matter, against farmers or businesses. \p Jonathan Davies: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Edward Argar: Let me just complete the point. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only come into the debate relatively late, but I will take an intervention from him afterwards.

The message is, under this Government, do not run a hospice, a pharmacy or a care home. Do not be a farmer. Do not run a business and, heaven forbid, do not get old. \p Jonathan Davies: We on the Government Benches are disappointed to have had to make this decision, but it is a symptom of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I just remind the shadow Minister of something. I understand that he stood in the 2017 general election. Some of the policies in the Conservative manifesto at that time were to means-test the winter fuel allowance and to reduce the triple lock to a double lock. \p Edward Argar: I will make a number of points to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to come on to his first point, but I will happily do so now. He seems to be alluding to the mythical so-called black hole that is so often bandied around. The OBR pointedly declined to validate that or back it up in its assessment, and it cannot be deemed a rationale for doing this. \p Luke Myer: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Edward Argar: I want to make a little progress.

We have seen a real black hole emerging following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s disastrous Budget. It is also not the case that the Government can claim they have saved the pensions triple lock, which was introduced by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government back in 2010. The previous Government had already committed themselves to it, in that election’s manifesto and others. Pensioners could rightly bank on the uplift from the triple lock coming through. What they have seen now, however, is a real cut in what they were receiving, and what they had a right to expect, with the slashing of the winter fuel payment. \p Luke Myer: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the OBR. I wonder whether he has read the report in which it states:

“The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL”

— resource departmental expenditure limits—

“about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down”.

I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for that extraordinary fiscal failure. \p Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I mentioned earlier, I have read the report, and he will know, having also read it—he is gently waving it at me from the other side of the Chamber—that the OBR pointedly declined to back up the claim about the so-called £22 billion black hole.

As we have heard, the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, initiated the winter fuel allowance, announcing it in 1997 and introducing it in 1998; but it is worth remembering that, even in the challenging circumstances of the time, George Osborne did not cut the allowance, despite the appalling financial and economic inheritance in 2010. Why not? Because it was a cost-effective benefit, and because it genuinely made a difference. \p Mark Ferguson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Edward Argar: Let me just make a further point. I am about to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s own points, as he will find if he pauses for a minute, but he may want to intervene at that moment.

George Osborne did not cut the winter fuel allowance because it gave pensioners the confidence to turn the heating up those extra few degrees, knowing that the money was coming. I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman. \p Mark Ferguson: I salute the right hon. Gentleman’s quest for clarity. Will he provide others with that clarity? Would his party reverse this policy? \p Edward Argar: I was about to be quite nice to the hon. Gentleman, because I have to say that, during a debate that has, perhaps, produced a lot of heat and not always a huge amount of light, he addressed the issues before us in a measured way. I did not agree with everything he said, but he was reasonable and made some valid points. Let me gently say to him, however, that our record speaks for itself. We did not get rid of the winter fuel allowance. The fact is that Labour Members are in government, and have a large majority, and, as they are discovering, to govern is to choose. They must be accountable for the choice—the choice—that they have made. \p Oliver Dowden: Will my right hon. Friend give way? \p Edward Argar: I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

UK pensioners are not fools, so I am sorry that Labour Members want almost to insult their intelligence by repeating the debunked claim about the so-called black hole, or the debunked claim that the triple lock  was in some way under threat and has been saved by the current Government. Let me also gently remind them that pensioners are unlikely to forget. They feel let down by Labour; they feel that the trust that they placed in Labour Members when they voted for them has been betrayed, and within a month of Labour’s taking office. So I ask again, why did this Government make the political choice to introduce these cruel, unnecessary cuts?

I now give way to my right hon. Friend. \p Oliver Dowden: The moment may have passed somewhat, but I think my point is still apposite enough to make. If there are any apologies to go round, they should come from the Labour party. In every single election campaign in which I have been involved for at least the past 25 years, the Labour party has run a scare story about the Conservatives scrapping the winter fuel payment, and the moment they get into office, what is the very first thing they do? They remove the winter fuel payment. That is what has upset so many of my constituents so much. \p Edward Argar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the former Deputy Prime Minister, who has put the case far more eloquently and succinctly than I could have done. He is, of course, entirely right.

An estimated three quarters of a million people are entitled to pension credit, but do not claim it, even after Labour’s pension credit take-up campaign, so they did not receive the winter fuel payment to which they are entitled. Will the Minister—or the Pensions Minister who opened this debate, whom I see back in his place—commit in the name of transparency to publish an official estimate of the number of eligible pensioners the Government estimate did not receive the winter fuel payment this winter? I am conscious of the time, so I will allow the Minister to respond in his wind-up.

The Government’s own modelling shows that 100,000 pensioners will be pushed into poverty as a result of their choices. Now that the first winter has passed, will the Minister commit to publishing data showing the real impact of changes to the winter fuel payment on levels of pensioner poverty? The number of over-65s attending A&E increased by nearly 100,000 this winter, despite its being a warmer winter than average. We know that multiple factors have an impact on that number, but this is a very large jump. Again, will Ministers publish official data on the number of hospital admissions they believe to be caused by the winter fuel payment cut and what the cost to the NHS has been?

To conclude, because I am conscious of the time and wish to enable the Minister to respond, this money was genuinely needed by vulnerable people—vulnerable pensioners—this winter. In my Melton and Syston constituency, I get heartrending messages about choices between eating and heating, and we should not forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, the impact on rural communities reliant on heating oil and having to pay for that in one bulk payment.

Labour Members have an opportunity this evening to send a message to pensioners. Will that message once again be one of ignoring their concerns, with the Government showing they are deaf to them and do not care, or will they take the opportunity to do the right  thing this evening, and back our motion to send the message to their older constituents that they do care and are standing up for them against this cruel and unnecessary cut? This choice, and it is a choice, will tell pensioners in their constituencies exactly where they stand. The Conservatives and other Members on this side of the House are standing up for our pensioners on winter fuel payments. The Conservatives are backing the generation that gave so much to our country. Will Members on the Government Benches have the courage to do the same? \p Andrew Western: I am pleased to respond to this important debate. This topic affects millions of pensioners up and down our country. It is one we have debated many times in recent months, and it is right that we do so. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made important contributions that I want to acknowledge.

My hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) and for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), among others, talked about the inheritance that we as a Government faced when we came into office and the difficult decisions that have arisen as a result, and they were right to do so. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who talked about the work he is doing in his community to drive pension credit take-up. I know that Members across the House are doing the same, and I thank them for doing so.

As my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister set out earlier, the decisions we have made have not been easy, but we have made sure that we have protected those pensioners who need support the most. Winter fuel payments will continue to be paid to pensioner households in England and Wales with someone receiving pension credit or certain other income-related benefits. They will continue to be worth £200 for eligible households or £300 for eligible households with someone aged 80 or over. The majority of those payments—over 1 million—were paid before Christmas.

Means-testing the winter fuel payment was a choice we had to make to protect the most vulnerable pensioners, while doing what is necessary to repair the public finances after 14 years of the wrecking ball that is the Conservative party. It is the difficult decisions we have taken that mean this Government are able to provide much-needed additional investment in the NHS, which benefits us all, including pensioners who rely on these services. The Government are working hard to reform the NHS in England through the 10-year health plan to build a health service that is fit for the future. \p Wendy Morton: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, while he may well be putting money into the NHS, which is great, his policy towards pensioners, based on the statistics we have seen, means that more pensioners are going into the NHS and putting more pressure on the service? It just does not make sense. \p Andrew Western: I dispute the right hon. Lady’s statistics. She is right to highlight that there has been an increase in hospital admissions among over-65s, but that is entirely in line with the statistics for people  entering hospital in other age cohorts. That is actually a result of the collapse of the NHS on the Conservatives’ watch, which means that A&E is the only option for so many people.

As I was saying, as a first step at the autumn Budget, the Government announced a £22.6 billion increase in day-to-day health spending in England and a £3.1 billion increase in the capital budget over this year and the next. But we know that even with our long-term efforts to rebuild critical public services, pensioner poverty is a very real concern. \p Joe Robertson: Will the Minister give way? \p Andrew Western: I will make some progress first.

There will always be those who, for whatever reason, have been unable to make sufficient provision for their retirement. The benefit system provides a vital safety net for those on low incomes who need support the most. This, of course, includes help through pension credit, worth on average £4,300 a year and which tops up income, as well as unlocking access to additional support and benefits. We know there are still low-income pensioners who are not claiming pension credit but are eligible to do so and we want everyone to get the support to which they are entitled. That is why, since September, we have been running the biggest ever pension take-up campaign. Around 1.4 million pensioner households receive pension credit, but too many have been missing out. Thanks to our campaign, we have seen 235,000 pension credit applications in the 30 weeks since the end of July last year, an 81% increase on the comparable period in 2023-24. That has led to almost 50,000 extra awards over the same period. \p Kirsty Blackman: I wonder if the Minister can ask his friend, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), to get in touch with me about how he managed to find out where the 5,000 pensioners are that he was able to write to. I have tried to get that information so I can write to pensioners and tell them about pension credit, but it has not been available anywhere. If he could ask his friend to write to me, I would really appreciate it. \p Andrew Western: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am sure she is capable of contacting my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield herself, but I recall that he did mention that he was working closely with his local authority. I am sure it has been able to assist in that campaign, which he described as a partnership rather than his own work, to drive take-up in his area.

As detailed earlier by the Pensions Minister, we are directly targeting all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit, bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, and we are introducing new research on the triggers and motivations that encourage people to apply for pension credit, to guide future policymaking.

I echo the Pensions Minister’s remarks on the triple lock. It is worth repeating that over 12 million pensioners will benefit from our commitment here. Over this Parliament, up to and including 2029-30, the OBR forecasts that Government spending on the state pension will rise by over £31 billion. And there is lots of other support too, including the warm home discount and the household support fund, available to pensioners.

I will turn now to some of the other specific points raised during today’s debate. Several Members raised the delays in pension credit processing. It is important for me to recognise here the sheer volume of applications the Department received during this period. We understand that pensioners expect their applications to be processed quickly and accurately, which is why we deployed over 500 extra staff to process the huge increase. The latest statistics also show a positive picture: outstanding claims have reduced from 85,500 in mid-December to just 33,700 by 23 February, which is in line with the Department’s usual number of claims awaiting processing.

Some hon. Members raised the issue of an impact assessment at the time of the policy decision. In line with the requirements of the public sector equality duty, an equality analysis was produced as part of the ministerial decision-making process. That was published on 13 September and placed in the House of Commons Library. It assessed the effects on individuals and households according to protected characteristics set out under the Equality Act 2010. They do not include impacts on the NHS.

Other hon. Members have quoted figures on the poverty impact of the changes to winter fuel payments. I simply note that yes, internal Government modelling was produced as part of routine policy advice. Given the interest from the Work and Pensions Committee and the public interest, the Department published this modelling for transparency in a letter to the Select Committee in November. However, it is essential to note that this modelling is subject to a range of uncertainties, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results, and that it does not take into account any impact of the measures we are taking to increase pension credit take-up and ensure pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled. \p Harriet Cross: My understanding is that the impact assessment showed that about 100,000 pensioners would be put into poverty. I was just wondering what range either side of that figure would be acceptable to the Minister. \p Andrew Western: What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I would never want to see those numbers increase, but that number is significantly better than the 300,000 pensioners who went into relative poverty under her Government.

To those asking about Government action with respect to energy costs, I say that the Government recognise that affording energy bills is a struggle for many and that energy debt is rising. The Government have continuous engagement with energy suppliers and have discussed the support they have in place to support vulnerable consumers, including pensioner households. We are continuing to deliver the warm home discount for eligible low-income households and have recently published a consultation on its expansion, which would bring around 2.7 million more households into the scheme, pushing the total number of households receiving the discount next winter up to around 6 million.

I will turn briefly to some of the contributions from Members on the Conservative Benches, and in particular from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and  Pensions, who, interestingly—given the description used by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) of this side of the House—I felt expressed faux outrage at this decision. It is rich from a party that, as I said, pushed 300,000 pensioners into relative poverty, made pitiful efforts to address pension credit take-up, made a 2017 manifesto commitment to means-test the winter fuel payment and let the value of the winter fuel payment fall by around 50% during its time in government.

The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went on to make repeated reference to Labour Members’ consciences, which was relatively offensive, but nothing compared with being called the “nasty party” by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. I will not accept those sorts of attacks from the Conservatives—the party of Downing Street parties, the party of the inhumane Rwanda scheme, and the party that drove so many to food banks. My conscience is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is appalling to imagine that theirs is the same after what they did to this country over 14 years.

I listened very carefully to—[Interruption.] I am being chuntered at from a sedentary position about the household support fund. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that it was not fully funded by the Conservatives on a multi-year basis, and it is this Government who have provided that certainty to local authorities.

I listened very carefully to the speech from the shadow Health Secretary and, indeed, the more than dozen speeches from Opposition Members, and I am still no clearer on what their policy actually is. We had one Member standing up and saying means-test, another standing up and saying tax the winter fuel payment, but neither shadow Secretary of State present bothered to stand up and tell us what the Conservatives’ policy is. If they want to stand up now and say that they would reverse this policy decision, I would be happy to give way to either of them. Feel free. Their silence says it all, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have made the hard choices necessary to bring the public finances back under control after 14 years of Tory misrule. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: At what point would the uptake of pension credit eliminate the savings from cancelling the winter fuel payment? At what number would the uptake overtake that payment? \p Andrew Western: We have never suggested that they would, and the Minister for Pensions addressed that in his opening statement. The savings put forward do take account of that. I have to say that, in accepting that intervention, I was hopeful that, finally, one Tory would come forward with an actual policy in this area—I would say that I am disappointed, but it is only to be expected. Pensioner households who need support the most will continue to get winter fuel payments. We are getting more and more people on to pension credit, so that they can get winter fuel payments and increase their weekly income.

This motion calls for an apology. The only people who should be giving an apology to pensioners and to this country are those in the Conservative party, for the mess that they left behind.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Vicky Foxcroft.) \p Jonathan Brash: Council Tax is, without doubt, the most unfair, regressive and punitive taxation system in this country. It is hammering towns such as Hartlepool. Places with high deprivation and low wages—the very areas that a fair tax system would support—are instead being squeezed to breaking point by a broken system that must be fixed. A Government that stand up for working people, promise change and have a mandate for that change cannot sit back while such fundamental unfairness continues.

The numbers speak for themselves. For a band A property in Westminster, it is £648 a year. In Hartlepool, it is £1,585. A Band H property in Hartlepool pays nearly £3,000 a year more than one in Westminster. \p Richard Foord: The hon. Member makes a good point in comparing his constituency with the situation here in London. To continue that point, on top of council tax, there is the settlement funding for councils, of which London boroughs have received roughly twice as much as shire counties. Does the hon. Member agree that that is also a problem with the current council tax regime? \p Jonathan Brash: Certainly, the last 14 years—I note that none of the Conservatives are here—shifted the settlement away from areas of deprivation to more affluent areas. That has had an incredibly punitive effect.

Council tax in Hartlepool represents 9% of median gross pay. Here in Westminster, it is just 2%. Someone can live in a multimillion-pound property in London and still pay less council tax than someone in a terraced house in Hartlepool. It is not right. It is not fair. It must change. An outdated system based on 34-year-old property values can never deliver fairness and has widened regional inequalities. \p Sarah Dyke: Sixty-six per cent of Somerset council’s budget goes to fund social care. That budget is funded through the taxes raised on property based on prices from 1991, as the hon. Member has set out. Does he agree that that is archaic and unfair, and that we should enact real reform to the way we fund local authorities? \p Jonathan Brash: I absolutely agree and I will come to social care later in my speech, so I will pick up that point then. \p Jim Shannon: May I commend the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate? He is getting himself a reputation in this House for being an assiduous constituency worker. I wish him well in continuing to do the good work that we all witness.

Does the hon. Member not agree that with the cost of living crisis, working families—that is what we are talking about here—need to know that every penny of tax is wisely spent? Confidence is clearly at an all-time low. Does he further agree that greater openness and transparency as to the use of tax funds can only be a good thing throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? \p Jonathan Brash: I absolutely agree. I should first say that it would not be an Adjournment debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He is absolutely right: we need transparency in the system. One of the biggest problems with council tax is that it has broken the bond of trust between those who pay it and the services that they receive. I will come back to that point later in my speech. \p Grahame Morris: My hon. Friend and neighbour makes some excellent points about the unfairness of the council tax system. My view is that it cannot be tinkered with and it is fundamentally flawed. For my constituents and my hon. Friend’s, it is nothing less than a regressive property tax. In Blackhall in my constituency, someone living in a modest band A home worth £35,000 pays almost the same in council tax as a band H property in Belgravia worth many millions of pounds. That is indefensible. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling growth and improving living standards in constituencies such as mine and his, we need radical reform? \p Jonathan Brash: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The tinkering around the edges that has happened in some parts of the United Kingdom will not get the job done.

My hon. Friend mentioned property prices, and they are at the heart of the unfairness. In Hartlepool, 53% of the properties are in band A. Here in Westminster, that figure is 1.2%. In Hartlepool, only 3.7% of the properties are in bands F to H, yet in Westminster it is almost half of all properties. Such a skewed housing base makes it impossible to raise the money to deliver the services that people need. Furthermore, council tax is not a reliable source of income. Nationally, one in 10 people in the UK have been in council tax debt, and nearly 40% of those individuals have reported being threatened with legal action as a result. Outstanding council tax debt already stands at £6 billion.

This week I spoke to Caroline, a development officer in Hartlepool who supports many of the most vulnerable in our community. She told me of one working family for whom council tax, even with the reduction, is now the equivalent of more than a third of their mortgage payment. Dad works and mum is a full-time carer for their disabled son. They live in fear of not being able to pay. They do not understand where their money goes and they do not feel any benefit, only financial pain. How can we sustain such a system? How can we stand by while it punishes the very people we are supposed to represent?

At the heart of this broken system is social care, as has been mentioned already. Nearly 70% of Hartlepool’s budget is spent protecting the most vulnerable children and adults in our town, and that is mirrored in areas of need across the country. No one in their right mind would design a care system funded by a regressive tax levied on small, struggling communities, yet that is exactly what has happened and it has been getting worse. In Hartlepool, officers have made a rough estimate that if social care were removed, a typical band D property would see its bill drop from £2,400 to less than £1,000.

Elsewhere, the scandal in children’s social care is slowly bankrupting local authorities. Private providers, often owned by faceless hedge funds, are profiting on the backs of vulnerable children. The costs are staggering.  In Hartlepool, the top four private providers charge an average of £12,000 per child per week. That is £624,000 a year for just one child. For Hartlepool, that is the equivalent of more than a 1% rise in council tax for one child’s care. Local councillors face the impossible choice: protect the most vulnerable or impose even more council tax pain on their residents.

The most pernicious thing about this regressive tax is the impact it has on trust. “No taxation without representation” is the saying, but as council tax bills go up, services are cut. Residents are no longer receiving the representation their money is supposed to deliver. Most people, thankfully, do not need social care, but they do need bin collections, clean streets, well-maintained parks, green spaces, museums, leisure centres and libraries —all things that make somewhere a place—yet these are repeatedly cut because of this failed system.

This is breaking the bond between councils and the public, and when people feel they are paying more but getting less, they stop believing in the system. When voters feel ignored and abandoned, they do not stop voting; they will vote for anyone with easy answers. Populist politicians with no real answers will step into this gap and exploit this frustration. I warn Ministers: fix council tax or face the electoral consequences.

There are alternatives. Andrew Dixon and the Fairer Share campaign have advocated for a proportional property tax that would ensure contributions were based on actual property values. Some 70% of households in the north-east would be better off. Nearly a third would save as much as £1,500 a year—money that could help struggling families put food on the table, heat their homes and buy their children the things that they need. Yes, some would lose out, but it would, and should, be the wealthy in our society shouldering that burden. If we are not prepared to make the wealthy pay so the poor can pay less, what exactly are we for? \p Jonathan Hinder: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for securing this incredibly important debate, and I agree with every word he says. Does he agree that a reformed system would reduce the cost of living for ordinary people and, depending on how the Government wanted to reform it, actually increase revenues for the Government to spend on better public services? \p Jonathan Brash: Absolutely. A properly balanced system could provide the services we need and put more money into the pot to ensure those services are delivered. That is partly the problem with this system: it is so broken that it punishes people in deprived areas, and it still does not deliver those services.

I know Ministers have said they are not looking to reform the council tax system in this Parliament, but even if an overhaul of the entire system is not possible, there are still ways to improve things, and I hope the Minister will advocate for them. The Casey review of social care should recommend taking social care out of local authorities. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, by promoting regional co-operation, can create economies of scale to take the burden off council taxpayers. Under the English devolution proposals, financial devolution must be part of the discussion. If we are to  have larger authorities that are more remote from the taxpayer, the residents must see the benefit in their pockets.

This Government promised change and to fix the foundations, but the public’s most direct contact with government is through local councils, whose foundations are crumbling. If Ministers ignore council tax reform, they do so at their peril. We can fix a broken system, ease the burden on working families, and restore trust in government at all levels. We have a moral duty to right a 34-year-old wrong, find a sustainable solution to this injustice, cut council tax bills and deliver real change for the people we represent. \p Luke Myer: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing the debate. He is absolutely right that the system is outdated, regressive and in desperate need of change, and our region is disproportionately impacted.

My constituency is split between two local authorities: Middlesbrough to the west, and Redcar and Cleveland to the east. They are two distinct areas with their own local challenges, but they face similar issues when it comes to council tax. Loftus in Redcar and Cleveland will have a band D council tax rate of more than £2,500 for the next financial year. That means a multimillion-pound property in East Sussex can attract a lower council tax bill than the average family home in our region. That cannot be fair. In fact, owner-occupiers in our region can expect to pay a percentage of their property value that is 2.5 times higher than the average London resident. That is another example of an unfair system based on three decade-old valuations, hammering local residents in areas of high deprivation.

Over 50% of dwellings in Middlesbrough are designated as band A—a much higher percentage than other local authorities—forcing Middlesbrough council to have the 19th highest council tax rate in the country. One way in which that could be helped is if Valuation Office Agency powers were devolved further to local authorities to allow them to more rigorously assess whether a property is incorrectly banded. That measure would just be tinkering around the edges of a system that needs fundamental reform.

As my hon. Friend said, one solution would be to replace the current system with a proportional property tax, removing the antiquated 1991 bandings and instead asking residents to pay a percentage of their up-to-date property value every year. That would create a more progressive system, preventing those in lower-value homes from paying disproportionately higher rates, while ensuring that wealthier property owners elsewhere in the country contribute a fairer share.

As the Institute for Public Policy Research has set out, another method to address the issue would be further increasing council tax premiums on empty and second homes. As my hon. Friend has noted, reforming the children’s social care market, which has been described as “broken” by the Competition and Markets Authority, would go some way to repairing local government finances and delivering value for taxpayers.

The choice is clear: either we keep patching up a system that punishes regions like ours, or we build one that is fair, proportional and fit for the 21st century. Teesside cannot afford to wait another 30 years. \p Jim McMahon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing this Adjournment debate on the important issue of council tax. I am grateful for the work and research that he and the all-party group have put into their argument for council tax reform.

The Government take seriously the issue of how councils are funded, and the impact on local taxpayers. Council tax is an important part of the funding that councils require to deliver a range of over 800 vital services. For 2024-25, council tax makes up over half of councils’ core spending power. Individual councils are responsible for setting their own level of council tax, taking into account their local circumstances. Indeed, council tax is the balancing item in the local council budget.

As my hon. Friend will know, the ability to raise revenue from council tax is determined by the number of domestic properties within a local authority area, and by the value of those properties in 1991. That means that places with a high number of more valuable properties are often able to raise more than an area with lower-value properties, despite setting the same or commonly a lower level of council tax. However, as he said, the Government have ruled out a revaluation of council tax in this Parliament. That means that we must find other ways to address the discrepancies in tax-raising ability through other means.

The last Conservative Government committed to improving and updating the way in which councils are funded, through the fair funding review, but that work was not delivered. We will make good on that commitment and implement long-awaited funding reforms through a multi-year settlement in 2026-27—the first in over a decade. We have recently consulted on the proposed objectives and principles for local government funding reform. In that consultation, we propose to update the way we account for council tax in determining local authority funding allocations, so that future allocations more effectively account for the differing ability to raise council tax income across the country.

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that means that somewhere like Hartlepool, where the tax base is weaker because of the high number of homes in bands A to C, will not be treated the same as an authority in the south-east that has a high number of homes in bands E to H and therefore has greater council tax revenue-raising power. That will be part of a wider set of changes to improve the approach to funding allocations within the local government finance settlement by ensuring that they reflect an up-to-date assessment of need and, importantly, local resources. Those funding reforms are part of a comprehensive set of reforms for public services to fix the foundations of local government. That will be done in partnership with the sector and on the principle of giving forward notice and certainty to allow time for councils to plan for the future.

Although the Government recognise the arguments in favour of council tax revaluation and reform, there are currently no plans to reform council tax in this Parliament, as I have said. Significant changes to local government structures, governance, accountability, audit, standards and financing are taking place alongside an  ambitious programme of devolution and, of course, local government reorganisation. I say that because we cannot overstate the amount of change taking place in a very short time within a system that has been left quite fragile, as my hon. Friend will know, after 14 years of mismanagement by the previous Government. \p Sarah Dyke: Somerset council is in the position of having to raise council tax this year, but a recent external assurance review reported that a significant proportion of the council’s budget shortfall was attributable to decisions taken by the previous Conservative Administration, who recklessly froze council tax for a record six-year period. In the light of the pressures on councils across the country, will the Minister commit to giving us a timetable for reform so that councils can plan well ahead and deliver essential services? \p Jim McMahon: That is an important point. In a sense, we can draw up a fairer and more balanced system, and build more security into it. What a system can never do is accommodate every localised decision and how it presents. In the end, there has to be local checks and balances, and that must come through the ballot box. It sounds as if voters in the hon. Member’s area have cast that judgment.

We are committed to reform and to moving at pace, but we recognise in doing that that the system is fragile. We are undertaking reform of the business rates system and revaluation, and a lot of devolution deals will come forward where intricated settlements are being worked towards, which will be important. All that, of course, rests on local government being strong and stable enough to support it. We completely recognise all the issues around adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, which mean that councils are being overwhelmed. There is £69 billion available through the funding allocation this year, £5 billion of which is new money, and for the first time ever there is £600 million through the recovery grant, which is about bridging to the multi-year settlement. We have recognised the urgency and depth of the crisis that many councils find themselves in, but we are also honest in saying that it will take more than seven months to repair 14 years of harm. We are getting on with the job, and we are determined to get it right. \p Richard Foord: Shire counties have had their settlement funding cut from more than £300 per person in 2015 to less than £200 per person now. Does the Minister recognise that counties such as Devon have huge road networks to maintain, and that that difference in funding helps to explain why roads in Devon are falling apart? \p Jim McMahon: I think that after the last 14 years, roads in quite a lot of England are falling apart. That is why we injected another £500 million into pothole repairs this year, because we know that local people feel that issue acutely. We also recognise, as I said before, that this will take longer than seven months.

On financing, we are clear that the current formula needs to be reviewed. It is not good enough any more to keep on having a formula that is not fit for purpose, and which is supplemented by top-ups that change depending on the whim of the Government of the day. If this is a genuinely fair funding formula, it must be fair when tested.  That means that wherever someone is in the country, and whatever their local circumstance, they know that those issues have been taken into account. Some of that will involve deprivation or the ability to raise tax at a local level, but some of it will involve demand on services, including rurality. We must ensure that in the review we rebuilt trust and confidence as well as sustainability, and the hon. Gentleman has my commitment that we are determined to ensure that that work is done with integrity.

We recognise the urgency to fix the foundations, and to tackle the underlying issues that we have talked about. For all the criticisms of the current council tax system—many of which are completely legitimate—it has some advantages. First, it is a settled tax that taxpayers understand, and notwithstanding the uncollected element that was mentioned earlier, pound for pound it has a high collection rate. On that basis, revenues are relatively predictable, which means that local authorities have greater certainty for their financial planning. Council tax is genuinely local. The money is collected locally, retained locally, and authorities will make decisions on the band D level based on their local requirements and delivery priorities. \p Grahame Morris: Reforming council tax is an enormous problem and I do not underestimate the scale of the task, but does the Minister recognise that council tax is even more regressive than the poll tax it replaced? The system particularly affects my constituency, Hartlepool and the north-east, and other regions as well, where people are paying a premium for living in the poorest communities with the fewest services and facilities. Does he accept that council tax is widening inequalities in our country? \p Jim McMahon: I accept that there are inherent issues with council tax, not least the way that the banding system works. Because of the inherent land and property values in less affluent places, people in a lower-band property in a poorer part of the country will pay more for public services than those in more affluent properties elsewhere. Those more affluent places can collect sufficient amounts to fund local public services, where other areas clearly cannot do that. The situation has been made significantly worse by a Government who removed that central support over a decade, so council tax is taking on a significant burden of the weight of local public services. We are keen to address that imbalance through the funding review that we are undertaking.

Members will know that local authorities have control over the discretionary working age council tax support scheme, and the council tax system also includes a range of discounts and exemptions to reflect the personal characteristics of occupiers and to support those less able to pay. These include the single-person discount, exemption for student and disregards for carers, the mentally impaired—a term I would not choose to use, but that is the term used in legislation—and apprentices. The Government will consult on the administration of council tax later this year and consider the case for modernising support in the system for those who need it.

However, I recognise the challenges that council tax creates for some taxpayers and local authorities. I therefore want to reaffirm that this Government are keen to continue working with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and his APPG to understand the issues in the council tax system and what options for reform are available to us.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.